Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-09 Minutes14 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 9, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary R. Head, Jana Lynn Britton, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickle, Joe Tarvin, and Kenneth Pummill MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert E. Reynolds, Tom Suchecki, and Phyllis Hall Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: It was requested that Items 1.(A) Minutes, 1.(D) Conditional Use CU94-8, and 1.(E) Lot Split #1 - Ray Eidson be discussed and voted on separately. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FAIRFIELD INN & SLEEP INN HOTELS A large scale development plan of Fairfield Inn & Sleep Inn Hotels submitted by Tharaldson Development Company for property located on the north side of Millsap, west of North College and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with 1.09 acres. FINAL PLAT - ROSEWOOD HEIGHTS ADDITION A final plat of Rosewood Heights Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Alexander - House Realty Ventures for property located north of it Prospect, west of Fritz. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 2.5 acres with 9 lots. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 A lot split submitted by Jim Bob & Joan Wheeler for property located west of Deane Solomon Road, south of Highway 112 and zoned A-1, Agricultural. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the remainder of the consent agenda excluding Items 1.(A), 1.(D), and 1.(E). The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed 5-0-1 with Mr. Head "abstaining". MINUTES Ms. Britton advised Page 4 of the Minutes stated the developer proposed to donate the pond as part of a park which was in error. Ms. Little agreed there was an error in the minutes which would be corrected to reflect the developer did not propose to dedicate the pond as open space. Mr. Tarvin advised, with no further changes, the Minutes were approved as corrected. 10 Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-8 RAY EIDSON - E OF COLLEGE AVS, N OF ZION RD The next item was a conditional use request CU94-8 submitted by Ray Eidson for property located on the east side of College Avenue, north of Zion Road and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and A-1, Agricultural. The property contained 14.61 acres. The request was for a Recreation Fun Park. Mr. Conklin advised 5.91 acres of the site was currently zoned C-2, but 8.70 acres was zoned A-1 which required a conditional use to allow a commercial recreational use. He added the applicant had proposed three go-cart tracks, a miniature golf course, bumper boats and an arcade on the site. He further stated the applicant had completed the grading and drainage plan for the development and desired a building permit to begin construction. He recommended approval of the requested conditional use for a fun park to be established at the subject location. He added the site was adjacent to Lake Fayetteville, a public recreational use. He cited recent improvements by the developer with drainage and by the Highway Department for traffic as reasons which contributed to the staff's recommendation for approval. Ms. Margaret Blair advised her residence was located between the proposed fun park location and the new Lowes. She requested reassurance that the noise level would be tolerable and the hours would be acceptable. Mr. Ray Eidson, the petitioner, advised he had obtained the decibels data on the go-carts which had 5.5 Honda engines similar to a lawn mower. He stated there was a misconception on the amount of noise created by go-carts. He reviewed the decibel level at various distances. He contended it would be unlikely anyone, especially Ms. Blair up on the hill, would hear anything from the go -carte. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Eidson stated the proposed operating hours were from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.. He added Pizza Hut would have a full service store within the Park and their hours would be compatible with the Park hours. Mr. Eidson further stated he would not have a problem with the Commission putting a condition of approval that the Fun Park would not be operated any later than 10 p.m.. He advised, however, he might want to stay open until midnight on weekends. Ms. Little advised that, since this item was a conditional use, it would be within the purview of the Planning Commission to put whatever conditions they would like on their approval. Mr. Nickle stated he presumed the existing city noise ordinance would cover the requirements that the developer and anyone else would have to meet. He suggested they could condition approval on a one-year renewal. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin advised the large scale development had already been approved subject to the conditional use and the lot split being approved by the Commission. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to grant the conditional use with the condition that it be reviewed in one year. . The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion passed unanimously. • • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 3 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - IAT SPLIT #1 RAY EIDSON - E OF COLLEGE AVS, N OF ZION RD The next item was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 submitted by Ray Eidson for property located on the east side of College Avenue, north of Zion Road. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare commercial and A-1, Agricultural. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R94-26 CLYDE WATKINS - 102 PLAINVIEW The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-26 submitted by Clyde Watkins for property located at 102 Plainview. The request was to rezone 2.3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office, Mr. Nickle pointed out there were only six commissioners present and a total of five favorable votes were needed for approval of a rezoning. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised it was not too late to withdraw a rezoning request. Mr. Watkins, the petitioner, stated he would prefer the Commission go ahead and hear his petition. Mr. Conklin advised the staff had determined, after the agenda packet was sent out, Mr. Watkins inteded to develop the site with a duplex. He noted that was a less intensive use than was currently permitted under R -O zoning. He advised staff had informed Mr. Watkins that R-1.5 zoning would permit two and three- family dwellings. He noted, at that point, Mr. Watkins had agreed to the R-1.5 zoning designation instead of R -O. He added the petitioner was informed that duplexes were allowed as a conditional use under R-1 zoning. Mr. Conklin further stated the development densities and land uses permitted in R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, would be compatible with the existing • neighborhood; however, infrastructure improvements would be required prior to any development. He recommended approval of the amended request subject to the dedication of an additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Plainview Street with street, sidewalk, and water line improvements to be addressed at the time of large scale development review. Mr. Conklin advised the staff's recommendation on the subject request was for a conditional use for a duplex within an R-1 zoning district. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Watkins advised he planned to put in several duplexes. Mr. Conklin advised the minimum lot frontage requirements would be reviewed during the large scale development process. Mr. Watkins pointed out the property was surrounded by Commercial and R -O zoning districts. He advised the Commission all the land owners in the area agreed to sell when Wal-Mart was buying up property in the area. He added Mr. Armstrong, owner of the property to the south, was present in support of the zoning change. He advised that R -O was what he and Mr. Armstrong would prefer. He noted that, because of traffic concerns, he would suggest approval of his request conditioned upon the traffic on North College not being adversely affected. Mr. Watkins further stated the area would probably be developed as either apartments, duplexes, or R -O development. He advised the A-1 property directly to the west of the subject property was owned by the Regional Medical Center with the likelihood of more medical offices being developed there. Mr. Watkins contended R -O would be a reasonable request, but the R-1.5 would also be reasonable and acceptable to him. . In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Watkins stated he would be more likely to develop duplexes. • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Allred advised apartments would not be allowed in R-1.5. Ms. Little reiterated that, under R-1.5 zoning, duplexes and tri-plexes were uses by right and multi -family dwellings could be approved as conditional uses. She pointed out the staff would be asking for the improvement of one-half of Renray Street to city standards which would mean paving, curb and gutter, and replacing of the sidewalk. She added Plainview Street currently had only a 40 -foot right- of-way so a dedication of an additional 5 feet of right-of-way would be requested along with improvements to the street. She added those improvements would accrue at the time of the development and not at the time of the rezoning. Ms. Britton clarified the petitioner was requesting a lot split in connection with the rezoning. Ms. Britton expressed concern that a large scale development would cause problems with the available utilities. Ms. Little advised there was a 2 -inch water line and a 6 -inch sewer line available. She noted that, if it was determined the 2 -inch water line was inadequate, improvements would be required at the time of development. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to grant the rezoning request to R-1.5. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. • The motion passed unanimously. • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R94-27 FRANKIE KELLY - W OF MORNINGSIDE DR, N OF 15TH ST The next item was a public hearing for rezoning R94-27 submitted by Mike Parker on behalf of Frankie Kelly for property located on the west side of Morningside Drive, north of 15th Street. The request was to rezone 1.04 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential to I -I, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the subject site was currently undeveloped. He noted the owner, Frankie Kelly, had applied for a lot split along with the rezoning petition. He added that Mr. Kelly expected to sell the property to Dramis Hardwood Floors for construction of a metal building in which to house their showroom. He advised the business was not expected to generate much noise or traffic, but the warehousing would require the I-1 zoning. Mr. Conklin stated the I-1 zoning district allowed for a wide range of industrial uses which would not produce objectionable or environmental influences in their operation and appearance and which would be compatible with nearby residential districts. Mr. Conklin stated the adjacent land uses included R-2 zoning to the north, south, and west. He noted Mr. Kelly's single-family home was located directly to the north and a church to the south with R-1 vacant land to the east. He advised that infrastructure would be available to the northern part of the lot. He added the southern portion of the lot was not currently served by sewer or water. He advised the staff's recommendation was to approve the I-1 zoning as • requested. He explained it would provide a buffer from heavier industrial uses to the undeveloped R-2, Medium Density Residential, district to the north. Mr. Conklin further stated, as a condition of development, screening would be required between the subject property and all adjacent residential land uses. He pointed out the site would not be appropriate for a business needing high visibility. He added there was an abandoned rail line in which the City was interested using as part of a trail network which crossed the property. He further advised the City would like to work with the developer to preserve the rail line right-of-way. In response to a request for clarification, Mr. Conklin advised the required screening could be fencing or vegetation or a combination of both. Mr. Mike Parker, representing the petitioner, stated the current owner would be living next to the property and felt this would be an acceptable use for the property. He contended it would be a good buffer zone from R-2 to the industrial park close by. Ms. Little explained the screening ordinance to Mr. Dramis and informed him there would be a requirement of screening between his development on the subject property and the properties surrounding it on all four sides, even the Morningside frontage. She pointed out it would have to be vegetative cover at least 18 inches high at the time of planting, that would reach a height of 6 feet, or a 6 -foot view -obscuring fence. In response to a request for clarification, Ms. Little advised the City currently was developing a trail ways plan. She further noted they already had one abandoned railroad corridor which had been identified to be a part of the trail ways plan and an effort to preserve the corridors in order to connect to city parks was being made. She advised the subject lot split lot line would be 40 basically right along the abandoned railroad corridor. She added the staff would • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 7 like to discuss the possible dedication of approximately 15 feet of the 40 to 50 feet total width. In answer to a question from Mr. Dramis, Ms. Little advised bicycles would be allowed on the trail but no motor vehicles. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised as a condition of the lot split, a dedication of additional right-of-way would be requested along Morningside Drive and improvements would have to be done or money put in an escrow account. In answer to further questions, Ms. Little stated the I-1 classification was the lightest industrial classification and one of its criteria was that it would not generate excessive noise, dust, or other intrusive type uses. She noted there would be certain industrial type uses allowed which could be non -compatible with residential uses. She advised most of the area around the property was zoned R-2 and noted the screening was required for the purpose of eliminating part of the noise and less desirable visibility. Mr. Pummill stated he did not understand the need for screening between this property and the pasture across the street even though the property was zoned residential. Ms. Little explained that was the requirement because, at the time of development, the conditions accrue to the property. She advised, however, it would be within the purview of this Commission to give approval for the screening • to be installed at a later date. She pointed out, in that case, it would possibly have to be enforced with a different owner. Mr. Allred asked if the property screened how would access be obtained to the railroad bed. Ms. Little advised if the railroad bed was dedicated, it would become a corridor unto itself. She noted the screening would prevent direct access from the subject property unless an opening were made. In answer to further questions, Ms. Little advised the railroad bordered the north line of the lot split. She explained the abandoned corridor was not evident on site. Mr. Allred expressed concern that, if a number of restrictions were placed on the subject business such as the screening required on Morningside Drive, it would suffer and not be accessible. He suggested the screening on Morningside be required at a later date. Ms. Little advised the appropriate time to address screening would be during the large scale development phase. She noted there were provisions in the ordinance to decrease the amount of setback depending on the amount of screening. V In answer to further questions, Ms. Little advised the staff did not know the width of the abandoned railroad and pointed out it was not a part of the current trail way plan. Mr. Parker advised it would be more economically feasible to attempt to get a percolation test approved through the Washington County Health Department than to extend the sewer line. He stated a percolation test was a condition of the sale of the property. He noted they would like to get approval of the rezoning subject to a positive percolation test through the Health Department. • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 8 Ms. Little advised the regulation was that, if city sewer was within 300 feet of the property, there was a requirement to connect onto the sewer. Mr. Bunn advised the 300 foot requirement was one of the conditions, but also the ordinance stated that the requirement to extend sewer to the site would depend on the economic feasibility of it. He noted that would not be known until a percolation test was done. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn advised placing a septic system on the 1.04 acre would require a waiver. He explained the Health Department would need to approve a septic system prior to granting the waiver. He advised the standard requirement was 1.5 acres of property. Mr. Parker advised they would like to request a waiver provided the property would adequately support a septic system. Mr. Nickle advised he was opposed to a septic system this close to the town area. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Parker advised they were requesting a rezoning of 1.04 acres to I-1 with the agreed condition that a septic system could be installed if the Health Department and the City Engineer approved it. He explained the only reason for the rezoning request was for Mr. Dramis to develop his business on the property. Mr. Tarvin advised that, if the Commission voted in favor of the rezoning and a septic system was not approved, it would revert back to R-2 zoning. • Mr. Parker agreed. Mr. Allred contended the septic system was related to the development and they were considering the rezoning. He contended putting a contingency on the rezoning approval would violate some procedures. Mr. Parker advised the septic system condition could be placed on the lot split approval. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the rezoning petition R94-27 as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Ms. Britton expressed opposition to a rezoning to industrial on property which was surrounded by residential. She contended it would be spot zoning. She added, with so many problems attached to the site, it seemed the developer should be looking for another site. The motion failed with a vote of 2-4-0 with Commissioners Allred and Pummill voting "yes" and Commissioners Nickle, Head, Tarvin, and Britton voting "no". 2ceo • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R94-28 TRISTATE JOINT VENTURE, INC - W OF SHILOH DR, N OF JOYCE BLVD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-28 submitted by Connie Clark on behalf of Tristate Joint Venture, Inc. for property located west of Shiloh Drive, north of Joyce Boulevard (just west of the Northwest Arkansas Mall). The request was to rezone 49.15 acres from R -O, Residential -Office and R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the site was currently undeveloped and the rezoning was being requested by the owners of the Northwest Arkansas Mall in order to increase the parking availability and to expand the Mall. He advised the Mall currently contained approximately 550,000 square feet and the proposal was to increase the square footage to 860,000. He noted the City would require, prior to the development, an extension of Joyce Boulevard to be connected to Gregg Street to the west. He added at present the only access to the commercial center was via the Zion Road and the Joyce Boulevard intersections with North College Avenue. Mr. Conklin advised adjacent land uses included residential and the City of Springdale to the north, to the south a C-2 development, to the east a C-2 zoning and the Northwest Arkansas Mall, and vacant property zoned A-1 to the west. He added the Mall was served by an 8 -inch and 10 -inch sewer line and an 8 -inch water line. He noted the Mall would be asked to share the cost of the construction of Joyce Boulevard extension. He noted traffic counts at Joyce and North College intersection were currently in excess of 40,000 vehicles per day providing a level of service of D or lower. • Mr. Conklin stated the staff believed this rezoning request was compatible with the adjacent land uses and was consistent with the land use goals of the 2010 General Plan. He noted it was both desirable and inevitable that the regional employment and shopping center would continue to grow. He added the staff's recommendation was the rezoning request be approved subject to the infrastructure needs, specifically those due to the traffic impact the expansion would create, being addressed prior to any development on the site. Ms. Britton clarified screening would not be required between this development and the A-1 property to the west. She expressed concern about the lack of screening. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised it would be feasible to believe the property to the west would develop as commercial and office uses. She noted the owners of the property to the west had indicated development of a commercial nature as their long-term development plan. Mr. Allred contended the community would be much better served to have Joyce Street extended to Gregg than to be concerned about the screening at this point. Ms. Connie Clark, representing the NWA Mall and Tristate Joint Venture, confirmed the Mall was proposing an expansion of approximately 300,000 square feet which would bring the total leasable area of the Mall to 860,000 square feet. She noted the objective would be to expand the shopping center in order to provide for the retail needs of the community. She contended the requested rezoning would be compatible with the adjacent land uses and it would be consistent with the 2010 General Plan which identified the NWA Mall as one of 3 major commercial activity centers in the City. She added under the Plan, the role of the Mall was envisioned as being strengthened and remaining the regional mall activity center. • Ms. Britton asked the status of the Mall's pursuit of an access to the north. • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 11 Me. Clark advised such an access was not currently considered as a viable option because of the topography, the flood plain, the need for acquisition of property not owned by the Mall, and the potential for increased traffic on Johnson Road (a two-lane road with a one -lane bridge). In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn advised it would probably be the end of 1995 before the extension of Joyce Boulevard took place. He added the reconstruction or relocation of the existing one -bridge across Mudd Creek on Johnson Road would also have to be addressed. In answer to a question, Mr. Bunn advised the Mudd Creek location on Johnson Road was within the Fayetteville city limits. Cyrus Young, a member of the audience, asked what other property owners would be asked to participate in the extension of Joyce Boulevard. Mr. Bunn advised that had not been determined. Richard Long, owner of property on Jane Circle (in Johnson) stated there were approximately 35 homes in that area. He expressed his concern about the development and objected to the rezoning. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the rezoning request R94-28 as presented. . The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously. 40 Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R94-29 JIM LINDSEY - E OF CROSSOVER RD, N OF JOYCE BLVD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-29 submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located east of Crossover Road, north of Joyce Boulevard. The request was to rezone 6.70 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned for an R-2 zoning in order to develop apartments on the site which currently was undeveloped and heavily wooded. He noted the applicant proposed to develop the site with 120 units (10 structures, 12 units each). He pointed out the area to the north was recently platted as Sterling Estates which was a 6.85 acre, 15 -lot duplex development. He went on to say the adjacent land use and zoning was R-2 zoning to the north with a duplex development and vacant A-1 land to the east, west and south. He added the site did have frontage on Crossover Road which was classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. He noted on-site and off-site improvements would be required as a part of the large scale development approval for the site. Mr. Conklin advised the planned 120 units represented approximately 808 of the allowable density under the proposed R-2 zoning. He added the site features included elope and heavy tree coverage. He contended dense development would be more economical to the City in terms of maintenance and to the developer in terms of construction costs. He referred to a chart attached to the agenda which reflected the differences in the cost of providing public services with regard to increases in density. He noted the chart reflected the denser development, the • lower cost of maintenance and providing services. • Mr. Conklin pointed out the staff believed current development trends and surrounding development would support a multi -family development at this Bite. He noted the staff also believed appropriate issues of discussion at this rezoning level included 1) the number of curb cuts onto Highway 265 (Crossover); and 2) a developer assurance with regard to the treatment of runoff and tree preservation. He stated the staff supported the requested rezoning, but believed the land use decision should be made after full consideration by the Planning Commission of the issues. Mr. Neal Albright, representing the applicant, agreed the rezoning request was compatible with the rezoning trend in the area. He added sewer and water would be available from the Sterling Estates Subdivision. Mr. Bob McAnarney, an adjacent land owner, pointed out some facts he felt the Commission should take into consideration when making their decision on the subject rezoning including: 1) the amount of current traffic on Highway 265, 2) the ingress and egress to the road at that point, 3) the blind curve at the ingress/egress, and 4) the fact that there were some very exclusive homes currently located next to the property. He contended there should be a limit placed on the number of units developed and a condition that they be as upscale as possible. In response to a request for clarification by Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised under the current tree preservation ordinance, 258 of the tree canopy on site would have to be preserved. He noted that, if the developer was unable to preserve that amount, he would be required to replace the trees with new ones after the development. He explained, under the ordinance, a 1,000 square feet of canopy would be granted for a large tree. Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 13 Ms. Little pointed out the number of units proposed would cover 808 of the site and the tree ordinance required that 258 of the site be covered with trees. She point out the tree ordinance requirement would leave only 758 of the site for development. She added she had not included parking or taken into consideration the slope which would limit the placement of drives and of the units. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised R-1.5 would limit the number of units to approximately 84 units as opposed to 120. She added that, depending upon the design consideration and the size of the units, they should be able to meet the tree preservation requirement with an R-1.5 development. She noted the Sterling Estate Development to the north was 6.85 acres developed with 15 duplex lots compared to this 6.70 acres and the proposal for 120 multi- family units. She advised, in terms of compatibility, something less than 120 units would be better. Ms. Little contended there was not only a curve in the road at this location, but it was also located on a hill. She advised she believed the accesses should be limited to one point. Mr. Allred pointed out an R-1.5 zoning would not accommodate the 10 structures with 12 units. He contended it would be preferable to deny the subject request allowing the developer to redesign. Mr. Nickle contended the Joyce Boulevard and Crossover Road intersection was currently very dangerous. He expressed his concern for adding 120 additional units near the intersection and went on record in opposition to the request. • MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny the rezoning request. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Head "abstaining". Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R94-30 KATHRYN LYNNE KECK - NE CORNER OF HAPPY HOLLOW 6 HUNTSVILLE ROADS The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-30 submitted by Kathryn Lynne Keck for property located on the northeast corner of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Roads. The request was to rezone .31 acres from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had requested C-2 zoning in order to develop an apparel store at this location. He added the site did have frontage on both Happy Hollow and Huntsville Roads (principal arterials). He noted the applicant had proposed to construct a single building on the site with access off of Happy Hollow Road. Mr. Conklin noted the adjacent land uses included a Bingle -family home to the north zoned R-1, a manufacturing development to the south zoned C-2, and vacant C-1 land to the east and the west. He advised an apparel store would be allowed under Use Unit 16 (Shopping Goods) in C-2. C-3, and C-4 zonings. He pointed out the Unified Development Code Committee had requested apparel stores to be allowed under C-1 zoning when the new code would be adopted. He recommended approval the requested rezoning. Ms. Kathryn Keck, owner of Kathryn's Closet, advised the proposal was to construct a new building on the site. • In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little clarified it had been proposed in the new ordinances that apparel stores be allowed as a use by right in C-1 and possibly as a conditional use in some of the residential zones as well. She pointed out, however, they were currently still operating under the old ordinances. Mr. Allred suggested a condition be placed on the C-2 zoning approval that, when the appropriate use unit became available in C-1, the property would revert back to C-1. Mr. Tarvin noted another option would be to limit the C-2 approval to an apparel store. The point was made that it would be more commercially marketable for the petitioner to have the condition that the zoning revert back to C-1 instead of limiting the use to an apparel store. Ms. Keck stated she would prefer that it revert back to C-1. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve a rezoning of petition R94-30 from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial with the condition that, when Use Unit 16 became a use by right in C-1, the property would automatically revert back to C-1 zoning. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion passed unanimously. • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION R94-31 J D HALL - W OF 54TH AVS, N OF WEDINGTON DR The next item was a public hearing for annexation petition R94-31 submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of J.D. Hall for property located west of 54th Avenue, north of Wedington Drive. The request was to annex 39.97 acres. Mr. Conklin advised the site was currently undeveloped with three chicken houses located on the north portion. He noted the applicant had requested a 33 square foot cemetery plot located in the center of the tract be left out of the annexation. He stated the Order of Annexation was approved on January 27, 1994 by Washington County. He stated that, according to the City Engineer, the subject tract was located within the Hamestring Creek Pump Station service area. He added the City was currently working on in-depth studies which would be completed within 2 or 3 months regarding the capacity of the facility to serve additional development. Mr. Conklin advised the staff's recommendation was to table the request until those studies were completed. Ms. Little advised the applicant had requested the item not be tabled because it was a land use decision and the improvements could be addressed at the time the development took place. Ms. Little stated that, in regard to the sewer capacity, it had been estimated • the City was at approximately 608 of full capacity; however, when all of the residential units which were approved in the Wedington area went on line, the assumption was that it would be approaching about 808 of capacity. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised that, if annexed, the property would come into the City as A-1 and the applicant had not requested a rezoning. Ms. Little noted in regard to the cemetery plot, which was to be left out of the annexation, was allowed in an A-1 zoning; therefore, annexing the cemetery into the City should not cause a problem. She contended taxation on such a small piece of property could not be very big. She noted the staff did not recommend leaving one small piece of property surrounded by City land. She reiterated that, instead of recommending the item be tabled, it was the staff's recommendation the annexation be approved only as A-1 property and with the understanding that additional requirements for improvement would be addressed at time of the development. Ms. Harrington, representing the petitioner, stated Mr. Hall did not own the cemetery property. She noted also the chicken houses on the property had been demolished. She stated there was a large parcel of land under Mr. Hall's ownership, a part of which was in the city limits. She added Mr. Hall was aware of the sewer studies. In answer to a question, Ms. Little advised there was a provision in the ordinance which stated that, when the majority of the property owners surrounding a property petitioned the City for annexation, lands could be annexed. She added there would need to be more research done. She suggested any motion allow the staff time to do the research prior to the review by the City Council. Mr. Nickle stated this would preclude rezoning with new classifications should . they become available at the time the petitioner came back to the Commission. 216-71 • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 16 Ms. Little advised the annexation would automatically bring the land into the City as A-1 property with any other rezoning requests being initiated by the petitioner and heard both by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ms. Harrington asked for clarification on what the staff needed to research before this was reviewed by the City Council. Ms. Little explained they needed to research the ability to automatically annex the 33 square feet which was included within the cemetery. She added State law did provide for annexation by petition by the majority of the property owners and, in this case Mr. Hall would certainly have the majority interest. Ms. Harrington agreed with Ms. Little's comments, but she noted she believed annexation of the cemetaey land would have to be under a separate ordinance and be a City initated procedure. MOTION Mr. Head moved to recommend approval of the annexation of the 39.97 acres as submitted and the 33 square foot cemetery plot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Pummill, Head, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". 40 0 Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 17 OTHER BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION OF LOT SPLIT CONDITIONS FOR CROSSOVER ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY GRANVILLE HARPER. Mr. Conklin explained Mr. Granville Harper had petitioned for a lot split for property located at the northeast corner of Highway 265 and Huntsville Road. He further advised that, at the time, it was a condition of approval that 50 feet of right-of-way be dedicated from the center of Huntsville Road (Highway 16E) and Highway 265. He stated that, since the approval of the lot split, it had been brought to the staff's attention that the Master Street Plan currently designated that portion of Highway 265 as a Collector Street and not a Principal Arterial; therefore, only 40 feet from the center line could be acquired based on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Conklin further stated Mr. Harper had received a variance through the Board of Adjustment for the proposed gas station to be constructed on the site which would allow the construction with a 40 feet from center line right-of-way. He explained he was bringing this to the Commission's attention to make them aware one of the conditions of approval could not be completed because of the current Master Street Plan designation. In response to a comment from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised a collector street had a 60 - 80 -foot right-of-way but, he believed in the widening process of Crossover Road (Highway 265) the State would take 50 feet from the center line of the street. He further stated it would be appropriate for the Planning • Commission to take action on this matter by accepting the 40 feet of right-of-way instead of 50 feet. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to accept the 40 feet of right-of-way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Commissioner Britton voting "no". Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 18 B. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE U.S. 71 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR PURSUANT TO THE ZONING AUTHORITY OF CHAPTER 160 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Mr. Conklin advised several meetings had taken place in order to work on the proposed ordinance. He noted, at the direction of Commissioner Allred, some overlay standards for the Highway 71 Bypass corridor had been developed which were written out in the form of a draft ordinance submitted to the Commission for their review. Mr. Conklin explained the purpose of the ordinance would be to protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the U.S. 71 corridor by providing primarily non-residential developments; to address issues of traffic and safety; and to address environmental concerns including erosion, vegetation preservation, drainage,. and heat islands. He referred to a map which showed the boundaries and advised they extended 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. He noted these regulations would apply to all non-residential type developments within the corridor. Mr. Conklin stated the draft included the following design features: a required 50 -foot setback as already required under C-2 and industrial zoning with the provision that the setback could be reduced to 25 feet if parking was not located between the structure and the street right-of-way; a 25 -foot green space, exclusive of right-of-way, along the highway right-of-way which would have to include one tree per 30 linear feet of the green space; a requirement of one • tree per 10 parking spaces with a 25 square foot open area provided for adequate water and oxygen to promote growth; a requirement that parking lots be screened and set back 5 feet from any side boundary line; the requirement that landscaping be sufficient to provide soil stability and promote suitable drainage with a water sprinkler system being required or a guarantee that the green space would be manually watered for up to three years; the requirement that any landscape which died or was damaged be replaced by the owners; the requirement that any tree species planted within the corridor would have to be of 1 1/2 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) at planting with a height of 60 feet or more at maturity. Mr. Conklin advised that, under the Signage section, the draft proposed no longer allowing the typical free-standing pole sign, but allowing ground -mounted monument type signs. He noted two monument signs would be allowed if the building had frontage on two streets. He noted the maximum height on the free- standing sign would be 6 feet with 75 square feet in area and the wall signs would allow 208 of the wall or 200 square feet whichever was lesser. He further stated only internal and direct lighting would be allowed for illumination of all signs and for commercial developments with multiple tenants, the owner of the building would be responsible for assuring adequate area on the monument sign for each of the tenants. He pointed out that sign content would be limited to the name of the business and would not allow for any advertising and any variances of the requirements would be heard through the Planning Commission. He added any decision of the Planning Commission would be appealable to the City Council. Mr. Conklin advised the City Attorney had addressed the possibility of utilizing the Board of Sign Appeals for the variances and that position would need to be discussed and finalized before the ordinance was sent on to the City Council for review. Mr. Conklin noted on curb cuts, the draft would allow l.per 300 feet of frontage and noted when a tract had less than 300 feet of frontage, a waiver of the . requirement could be requested. He added no curb cuts would be allowed within • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 19 200 feet of an intersection. He further stated, as far as lighting, the draft would allow up to 35 feet in height but the lighting would have to be shielded in order to prevent light spread onto other properties. He noted the draft provided for screening of any mechanical equipment or utility equipment, trash enclosures, and parking lots with the requirement that all mechanical and utility equipment on the side of the building be screened. He further stated trash enclosures would have to be screened on three sides with the access not visible from the street and parking lots would require a berm, vegetation, or combination berm wall or landscaping for screening. He referred to the Bud Walton Arena parking lot as an example. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the 25 square feet of ground space per tree would meet the space requirement needed. She added that, although it would be on the minimal side, it would be considered enough of a well that the tree could grow. She added it was also a size that could be put in parking lots without adversely affecting the number of parking spaces normally allowed on site and provided for installation in a diamond pattern between four parking spaces so none of the area dedicated to parking would be lost. Mr. Conklin continued his explanation of the draft. He stated it would require that all structures facing all street rights-of-way provide a double facade or two fronts with submittal of an elevation drawing for each side required. He noted that, as far as building material, the suggestion had been made that a maximum of 308 glass be allowed on each front facade facing a street. • In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised the glass requirement would eliminate a glass building. Mr. Allred expressed opposition to the 308 glass requirement. Ms. Britton explained that had been her suggestion and it was based on trying to maintain a certain quality of building type to try to avoid metal buildings. Mr. Tarvin expressed concern that cheap, flimsy metal buildings were continuing to be constructed all over town. Ms. Little stated that item could be addressed under Design Review for Commercial or Industrial locations. Mr. Nickle advised he would like to see the section on Building Material rewritten to reflect the requirement of a nicer type of construction without the elimination of glass. Mr. Allred advised they could eliminate the Building Material section and state that new structures would have to be compatible to adjacent buildings. Ms. Britton explained that, in regard to the amount of glass, they had discussed the safety factor with the glare from glass disturbing traffic. In answer to questions from Ms. Little, the consensus was to amend the building materials section to state no metal buildings would be allowed. She advised they would follow up with the statement that buildings primarily of metal construction would have to receive approval from the Planning Commission. The Commission clarified the purpose of having no metal buildings was for aesthetic reasons. . Mr. Conklin continued his overview and explained that, as far as site coverage, Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 20 it had been suggested that 308 of the site should be left in open space with the provision that any unpaved areas could be counted as open space. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised the open space would include all the 25 square foot wells, the setback areas, and everything not covered by pavement. She pointed out parking lots would not be considered open space. Mr. Pummill contended that 308 of green space would be a pretty stout requirement given the price of land. Ms. Little explained that, from an on-site percolation standpoint, it would greatly aid in drainage. In response to comments, Ms. Little advised they referenced both the Rogers and Little Rock overlay ordinances when the Fayetteville draft was being compiled. Mr. Allred explained the idea was to allow the property to develop within its present zoning, but to be extremely attractive and aesthetically pleasing. He noted one way to accomplish that would be to require a larger open space and contended if everyone was required to have that, the prices would stabilize. Mr. Conklin continued his overview and stated in regard to utilities, above ground utilities could be located at the rear property line unless it would not be feasible. He noted that, if located in the front the utilities would have to be placed underground. He added fencing would be required to be constructed out • of wood, masonry, or natural looking materials and would have to be located outside the required greenspace. He advised there would be no metal fencing utilized except wrought iron fencing with the provision that other types of metal fencing necessary for security purposes could be used if the area was first fenced off with a view -obscuring natural or natural looking fencing material. He noted the metal fencing would have to be placed inside the view -obscuring fencing and the view -obscuring fencing would have to be at least the height of the metal fencing. He stated the ordinance also provided that all outdoor storage of material and equipment would have to be sufficiently screened so that it would not be visible from the street. Mr. Conklin stated the draft proposed pedestrian access would have to be provided from the street to the entrance of the structure by way of a designated trail or sidewalk and that multi -modal access may be required on non-residential sites within the Design Overlay District. Mr. Conklin advised the draft provided that, in order for the staff to implement the ordinance, the following drawings and plans would have to be submitted: landscape plan, elevation of the screening, front facade elevation, monument sign elevation, scaled drawings of signage, and a large scale development plan. Mr. Conklin stated that, in the case of multiple building sites, whether on one or more private lots, the regulations would apply to the development as an entire tract. He added all non-residential development within the Design Overlay District would have to be reviewed through the large scale development procedure regardless of the size of the tracts. He advised Section 3 was basically an emergency clause which would make the ordinance go into affect at the time of the City Council's passage. Mr. Conklin further advised the City Attorney had some questions in regard to standards of review for a waiver and would like the Commission to establish . criteria. Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 21 Ms. Little advised the ordinance would be an overlay zone which covered all other zones within the district. She explained that the affect of the ordinance, as far as'signage, would be to overlay the zoning ordinance and require a waiver of signage to come to the Planning Commission as opposed to the Board of Sign Appeals. She noted the appeal process would remain the same. Ms. Little stated, in her opinion, if they were dealing with issues other than aesthetics, it would be appropriate for the Commission to look at all of a development as one complete package. Mr. Tarvin clarified the staff was recommending the appeal be to the Planning Commission. Ms. Britton suggested the illumination section be clarified by inserting the word "only" in front "internal or indirect lighting". Ms. Little provided an example of an ordinance from Tucson which stated any time there was mixed use with parcels of land occupied by different types of uses, a shared access would be encouraged. She went on to say the ordinance also allowed the developers a break on the parking because the parking was allowed to be shared on the adjacent parcels. She noted shared access could help direct traffic and control part of the traffic turning movements on the highways. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to forward the ordinance to the City Council with their • recommendations as discussed. Mr. Head seconded the motion. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the staff would draft the standards of review for a waiver as requested by the City Attorney and forward it to City Council with a copy to the Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 273 � • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 22 C. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC. 159.30(K), "REQUIRED DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PARK SITES", OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES. Mr. Conklin advised the staff had reviewed the ordinance and made changes for the purpose of clarification. He advised they were proposing to change the process to require the developer submit a sketched plan prior to submittal of a large scale development in order to allow the Parks Board make the decision on whether to require land or money. He added the ordinance would also required the Parks Board and the developer to make a joint recommendation to the Planning Commission in regard to land or money. He went on to say that, in the event that the developer or Parks Board disagree, a separate recommendation would be made to the Planning Commission who would determine the issue. Mr. Conklin pointed out with these changes the Planning Commission would now have the authority to determine if the developer would dedicate land or contribute money in lieu of dedication. He added a statement had been included also that either party whose recommendation was overruled by the Planning Commission could appeal the decision to the City Council. He advised that this clause provided a special provision that would allow them to automatically appeal any decision rather than go through the procedures in the current subdivision regulations which require an individual to go to an alderman and ask that the item be appealed to City Council. He pointed out this decision would have to be incorporated into the developer's preliminary plat or large scale development plan prior to plat or plan approval so the decision would be made up front. • Mr. Conklin advised it had been proposed that all dedications of land must be made before final plat approval or large scale development approval. And, if land was dedicated for a park site, that land would not be given back if development didn't go through. He noted another change would be if money was required, it would be paid up front instead of at the building permit level as currently done. He noted the proposed ordinance requested that it be payable within 30 days of final plat approval or large scale development approval with the provision that it could be paid in three installments payable in full within one year with approval from the Planning Commission. He noted, in that way, the parks could be developed along with the development of the project. He added the proposed ordinance changes provided that if density was increased, the developer would have to resubmit a plan to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and would have to dedicate either money or additional land. He noted another change would be that any variation of land dedication ratios or contribution formulas would be considered a waiver and require approval of the City Council. He pointed out any dedication of land or contribution in lieu of land or combination thereof would need to adequately provide for the park and recreation needs of the proposed subdivision and be consistent with the Parks Plan. And the clause that if a developer would like to contribute services or equipment, it could be counted towards meeting the parks fee requirement had also been added. Ms. Little advised with this ordinance they wanted to make it very clear that parks fees do accrue when lot splits occur and any residential unit was created. She proposed that Section 3 on Page 3 be amended to state "the requirements of this division shall apply to lot splits, replats of subdivisions, and large scale developments or any action which creates residential units; provided said requirements shall not apply to a lot split or replat which does not create one or more vacant lots on which a structure could be erected under the city's zoning regulations". She explained there had been a number of apartment complexes on less than an . acre which did not require large scale development approval. ZIy • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 23 Mr. Conklin advised Mr. Rose, City Attorney, did draft a separate ordinance which addressed that any development under an acre would have parks fees assessed at the current rate. Mr. Conklin further stated that the ordinance also proposed increasing the parks fees amount by 336 raising the $225 per single-family home requirement up to $300 and the $180 per multi -family unit amount up to $240. Ms. Little submitted a copy of a proposed amendment by Alderman Kit Williams to the greenspace ordinance which had been before City Council since February 28th, but hadn't been incorporated by the Parks & Recreation Advisory. She noted it dealt mainly with major development in that it defined major development as anything that created more than 100 units or was on more than 40 acres of land. She noted it would not include the option for payment of fees in lieu of dedication of park land unless that waiver was granted specifically by the City Council. Ms. Little advised Mr. Williams proposed amendment would supplement the greenspace ordinance, but it also stated a major development should include on his concept plat, preliminary plat, or final plat a proposed neighborhood or subdivision park in which the required dedication of land for greenspace had been incorporated. It stated it must go to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board for approval and then any dedication must be shown on the plats which come on to the Commission. She noted modifications then by this Board as far as the acreage would have to go back to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board before it could go forward. • She advised Section B of Mr. Williams amendment was basically the same as the current operation and that Section C addressed the option to have the discretion to pay a cash contribution in lieu of this. She further noted it provided that if the Parks & Recreation Board determined the neighborhood park wasn't feasible, it could recommend to the City Council that the cash contribution be made and the City Council would make that decision whereas currently the Planning Commission would make that decision. Also, it stated that the developer of a major development could petition for a variance from the requirement to this section to the Planning Commission, but it must then be approved by the City Council. She explained all the things that would require other than the dedication of land would be incorporated in the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board approval and the City Council approval, but would pass through the Planning Commission in most cases. Ms. Little continued and stated there was an earlier version of Section E which stated the Planning Commission would be responsible for coordinating the development of large areas of parks. She gave the example of two subdivisions which were joined and noted the Planning Commission would have the responsibility of negotiating with the two developers to get one large park. She advised that provision had been changed in this particular draft which was before the City Council to state that the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board would have that responsibility. Ms. Little advised this proposed ordinance had been on the table for the City Council for about two months and she thought the Council would be taking action on this on the 17th of May. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised the cover letter attached to Mr. Williams proposed amendment stated that it in no way conflicted. • Ms. Britton stated that it seemed to be a duplication in that a developer of over 2?5 • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 24 40 acres would have to dedicate park land for use of the City and park land for use in his development. Ms. Little advised it wasn't intended to do that, but it would need to be clarified so there wasn't room for that interpretation. Mr. Nickle advised he didn't understand what in Mr. Williams' major development amendment would not be covered by the ordinance they were considering. Ms. Little advised the proposal from Alderman Williams was that his amendment proposal be supplementary to the amendments being considered under the subdivision regulations. She explained the main difference was that land dedication would be mandatory. Mr. Allred contended the ordinance would be circumventing the Planning Commission and adding three or four administrative steps to the process and pointed out if the Planning Commission had the responsibility, they needed to address and take that responsibility and depend on appeals as any normal appeal. Ms. Little advised the proposal required that either Planning Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and agreed with the recommendation of the developer or they both had the option to appeal to the City Council, Mr. Allred stated he felt that appeal should be the same order of appeal as any other Planning Commission procedure. He added in regard to the adjoining • subdivision clause on Mr. Williams amendment, he didn't believe the City could legally require one developer to give land from another subdivision. Ms. Little advised she had spoken with Alderman Williams about that particular provision and noted the idea behind it was similar to the idea in regard to large scale developments less than an acre in that subdividers not be allowed to bring in 99 units on 39 acres three times in a row just to avoid giving the land. Mr. Allred stated if the Planning Commission was by statue the Board that was to approve or deny, then that was the way it should be. He reiterated this ordinance seemed to state that the Parks & Recreation were saying the Planning Commission could make the decision as long as they agreed with them and if not, it would go to City Council. He contended it should be handled at the Planning Commission level and not the Parks & Recreation level because they were only an advisory board. Mr. Nickle stated he felt uncomfortable being asked to make a decision on this when it was just now handed to them and he didn't fully understand it. Mr. Pummill advised it appeared to him that if every decision they made could be appealed by whoever cared to appeal it, he felt they should just cut themselves out of the loop and not tie up their time listening to appeals. Ms. Little explained she gave them the information from Mr. Williams because it had been on the City Council agenda for two months although it was not incorporated in what they were considering and because the City Council was probably close to a vote on it. She added they hadn't had a response from the Parks & Advisory Board in writing which indicated there wasn't an endorsement from that Board for this particular proposal although there had been quite a bit of coordination between Alderman Williams and that Board. She requested that the Commission give some statement as to whether they agreed or disagreed or wished to amend it. ZI(O Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 25 In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Me. Little advised the City Attorney had been involved to the same point that he had assisted in the drafting of this particular document. Me. Britton pointed out it seemed to her that the City Council didn't like their decisions and wanted to take over Subdivisions. She noted the Commission handled a large part of development decisions that never go to Council and this proposal seemed to indicate everything they would make a decision on would have to go to the City Council. Mr. Pummill asked if there had been any efforts made to work out another way to generate monies other than taxing development. Ms. Little advised there had been a proposal by Alderman Edens to place on the ballot a 1 mil property tax specifically for parks development in the City. Mr. Pummill expressed concern about the fact that the issue of maintaining all of the parks land that would be required hadn't been addressed. Mr. Conklin advised the draft ordinance in front of them was dealing with new development and the ability to require new development to pay its proportionate share of need for parks space or parks fees in lieu of land. He noted any type of exaction they developed could only charge that new development contribute its proportionate share and those funds couldn't be utilized for maintenance. He added Alderman Edens was trying to address the maintenanceofparks with the 1 mil proposal. • In answer to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Conklin advised he wasn't sure exactly what Alderman Edens proposal was. Mr. Tarvin stated it was for additional funding for parks. Mr. Nickle stated that the ordinance as it was set up without Section E on Page 2 would take care of having the Parks Advisory Board take a look at the development at an early stage and then recommending whether they wanted land or money. He noted it seemed to have worked fine in the past and he didn't think the Planning Commission wanted to get involved in determining that they know something more than the Parks Board about whether or not there should be a park. He added Mr. Williams' proposed amendment just about required there be a park in every 40 acre tract which he contended might be a different agenda than what the Parks Board wanted. He expressed opposition to the Alderman Williams' document. Mr. Allred pointed out (2) on Page 3 of the Draft added another step to the process by requiring it be resubmitted to the Parks & Recreation Board in the event actual density was more than the density used as the basis for a dedication of land or cash contribution. He contended the Planning Commission should be the ones making the decision in regard to density. Mr. Conklin explained that particular paragraph was addressing the instance where a person wanted increased density on a lot when they were at the point of obtaining a building permit. He explained that wouldn't necessarily be at the Planning Commission level, but later after development was approved. Ms. Little explained there were times when a final plat was filed and then the land was not developed. And this would provide a provision for making adjustments based on that density. She noted, therefore, if a developer • dedicated park land based on 100 units, and he replated for 80 units, he would be entitled to be reimbursed some amount of that land. v� • Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 26 Mr. Allred contended that could be handled administratively and adjusted either up or down. Ms. Little noted the reason for it being in the ordinance was to provide guidance and clarity, but the ordinance could also provide the guidance that it be handled administratively. Mr. Pummill advised they should look at how adopting this ordinance would affect everyone who would have to deal with it. He added that anything adopted at this point should be aimed at streamlining the process for development and he didn't feel this ordinance did that. Mr. Allred advised he would propose that Section E be changed to state that the appeal process be the same as a normal appeal or just be omitted and note that any adjustment could be handled administratively. Ms. Little stated the last sentence in the statement in (2) on Page 3 could be amended to state that "In the event actual density is more than the density used as the basis for a dedication of land or cash contribution, the developer must make an additional land dedication or contribution in lieu of dedication". MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion that the proposed ordinance 159.30 be sent on with their approval with the provisions which had been discussed: the omission of E in Paragraph (1), the changes in Paragraph (2), and with the recommendation for the • emergency clause. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. A member of the audience stated this would be on the City Council's agenda setting for tomorrow and that she felt the revisions made by the Commission would be regarded well by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. She added greenspace ordinance had occupied a lot of time of the current and prior administrations and will continue to because it was a dynamic ordinance which needed to reflect the growing population of Fayetteville. She added she felt it was important to view the proposed greenspace ordinances as drafted in the Subcommittee Meetings jointly between the Planning Commission and the Parks Board and Alderman Williams' proposed amendment separately. She pointed out the Parks Board had not endorsed Alderman Williams' proposal citing many of the same reservations as the Commission had expressed. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Commissioners Allred, Nickle, Head, Tarvin, and Britton voting "yes" and Commissioner Pummill voting "no". MOTION Mr. Head made a motion that the Commission not endorse Alderman Williams' greenspace amendment in regard to major developments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Tarvin "abstaining", 0 Planning Commission May 9, 1994 Page 27 D. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC 153, "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CODE", OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES. Ms. Little advised this ordinance amendment was given to the Commission with the recommendation that they not take action at this meeting. It had been redrafted as a part of the participation in the Flood Plain Management Program and it would not create an overlay district for flood plains, but what had to be done to get to that point. She noted it was structured in such a way that it could be included in the Unified Development Ordinance. She requested they direct any comments they might have on this to the staff. E. DISCUSSION OF REVISED FORM FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS. Ms. Little submitted the checklist currently used for Large Scale Development Plans to the Commission. She advised some of the plats currently being receiving were incomplete. She added the staff planned to revise the checklist and include an early coordination section on the following items: street names, subdivision names, any additional street connections required, the improvements the developer sees as necessary for the development to function, and park land requirements. She noted they would also stress the need for correct legal descriptions and correct identification of surrounding property owners. She requested any suggestions by the Commission be directed to the staff. F. DISCUSSION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Ms. Little advised this item was on the Council agenda to be discussed at the next Council Agenda Session. She explained these districts were being proposed and created as options for both the Planning Commission and the City Council and clarified they had not been placed on a map. She added these residential districts were created within the structure of the current zoning ordinance so, in some ways, they didn't approach the mixed use concept. She explained this would provide available options for rezonings and annexations of land for development and not be assigned space on a map. She pointed out this would change a little at the time the Unified Development Ordinance came forward. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little stated this would provide them with the ability to judge density on compatibility issues. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance creating the additional zoning classifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.. •