Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-09 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 9, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 00-29.00: Page 4 LSD 00-27.00: Page 9 CU 00-25.00: Page 13 AD 00-29.00: Page 18 Large Scale Development (The Mill District, LLC, pp 523) Large Scale Development (Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364) Conditional Use (Wilkin, pp 370) Administrative Item (General Plan 2020 Update) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Conrad Odom Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Sheri Metheney Approved Approved Approved No Action Taken MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford Don Marr STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the September 25, 2000 meeting. Odom: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the October 9, 2000, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item that we are going to cover tonight is the approval of the minutes from the September 25, 2000, meeting. Does anyone have any corrections or additions with regard to those minutes? Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner? Hoffman: I have a clarification for AD 00-32.00 which was the last item on our agenda. It was the administrative item regarding the antenna. I would just like to clarify for the benefit of those that did not get it, that we did not deny a permit to the emergency services and hospital for their antenna to be located there, we did however, recommend that some ordinance changes be forwarded to City Council and Ordinance Review Committee for consideration for replacement towers of this kind. Odom. Commissioner Hoffman, do you have any corrections with regard to the minutes themselves? Hoffman: The minutes themselves can stand. Odom. Okay. Thank you very much. That was a little bit confusing There was some reports afterwards that we denied an application which that was not the case. Hoffman: I want to make that quite clear, that we did not deny permits to emergency services and so forth. Odom: There were no applications and I think that was the confusion. Does anyone else have any corrections with regard to the minutes? The minutes will stand as they are. Also, before we move on tonight, I do want to point out that there has been one item that has been pulled from our agenda and that is item number three which is the rezoning of the Hays property which was submitted by Glen Carter of Carter & Hodges on behalf of J.B. Hays Trust for property located at 2831 Sherwood Lane. That was request to rezone the property from R-1 to Residential Office. That item has been pulled from the agenda and we will not be considering that tonight or taking any public comment on that item tonight. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 3 Conklin: Mr. Chairman? Just for more clarification, that item has been withdrawn. It has not been continued or tabled so if they do come back to the City, they will need to apply for a new rezoning application and then the sign will go up and the notification to the neighbors will be given out. Odom: So the item hasn't been tabled, it's actually been withdrawn which means they have to completely through the whole process again, in the event they wish to go forward. Conklin: That's correct. Odom: The other thing that I want to discuss before we begin tonight's meeting is that item number five which is an administrative item with regard to the General Plan 2020. We will be going over a presentation by the staff and the Commissioners that were on that committee and we will be taking public comment. We will not be taking action tonight. We are going to be taking action at the next meeting. We will be taking public comment tonight. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 4 LSD 00-29.00: Large Scale Development (The Mill District LLC, pp 523) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of The Mill District LLC for property located at northwest corner of 6`h and School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 3.29 acres. The request is to build 22,722 square feet Commercial Space and 11 apartments. Odom: Proceeding on, item number one on tonight's agenda is a Large Scale Development. It is 00-29.00, The Mill District, submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of The Mill District LLC for property located at northwest corner of 6`s and School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 3.29 acres. The request is to build a 22,722 square feet Commercial Space and 11 apartments. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to twelve Conditions of Approval. Staff do we have any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: There are no further Conditions of Approval Odom: Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No we don't. Odom: Then I will bring this to the applicant, Chris, for your presentation. Brackett: Hi. My name is Chris Brackett, I'm here representing the owners. I'm here also with Rob Sharp, the architect. There are just some slight changes as far as what was forwarded from the Subdivision. I believe you are aware of those. The removal of the Nugget Building. The plan we have reflect all the changes that we have made. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Before we get into questions and answers, I would like to ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development? Any member of the audience like to address us on LSD 00-29.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the staff or the applicant. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 5 Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I have a question for the applicant. Did you say you were going to be removing the building? I missed your portion of the agenda session. Are you removing that building that's on Sixth Street? Brackett: Yes ma'am. It is called Nugget Building. The brick building that's fairly close to Sixth Street there. After further review of the costs, it was decided that we would go ahead and remove that building. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you. For staff, did you remember that we had adjusted the right-of-way for that building and we had taken that into consideration on this new plan? Conklin: That is correct. This item did come before you with a request to reduce the Master Street Plan right-of-way requirement. You did grant that variance, however, staff is recommending that they dedicate fifty-five feet from centerline and provide a ten foot green space between the sidewalk and curb and build the six foot sidewalk. Hoffman: That as just though it would have been before? Conklin: Yes. That's correct. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I missed that part and I'm just behind. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: Chris, have you reached a decision regarding the type of fastening system that you would use for the corrugated steel and what type of backing material will be used? Brackett: I will let Rob come up and speak to that. Sharp: My name is Rob Sharp. I'm the architect on this project. The question about the fastener, we will use a hex -head self tapping fastener with a compressible washer. The washer prevents the fastener head from touching the panels so therefore, there shouldn't be any galvanic action or any rusting or streaking. It's a top notch system. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 6 It's standard for commercial buildings. It's not like a barn that's going to nail it up and let it rust and streak down. It will be a long-term, low maintenance solution. Estes: What will the backing material be? Sharp: We are going to do a half inch gypsum sheathing and on top of that sheathing we are going to have thirty pound felt. It's an additional layer of water proofing. Estes: Do you have any experience with this fastening system? Sharp: We used this on a building that we built in Montana. It was about five years ago. The building looks good now. It doesn't have any problems. They have a more severe climate up there as far as snow and ice, probably not as much rain but the building still looks good. Estes: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Odom: Your welcome. Staff let me ask you, on item number five I may have not gotten a final page or something but it says "Due to the removal of the Nugget Building, no trees shall be removed from the site. The existing canopy of the site is 2.18%. The preserved canopy shall be blank. The total canopy with replacement trees shall be blank." Why is that that way? Conklin: You should have received an updated report. Condition number five does read now, "one 28 inch hackberry tree will be removed from the site, a three inch elm will be relocated. Existing canopy on the site is currently 2.18%. The preserved canopy shall be 1.62% Total canopy with replacement trees shall exceed 15%." Odom: That s with what we got tonight. I didn't get a chance to look at it before we started. It doesn't look like there was any other changes on that report. Conklin: No. There was not. Odom: Any other questions with regard to the applicant? Ward: Chris? Is there any of these Conditions of Approval that you can not get along with that are listed in here? Brackett: No. We have agreed to all the Conditions of Approval. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 7 MOTION: Ward: Conklin: Ward: Conklin: MOTION: Ward: Hoffman: Commissioner Odom, I will go ahead and move for approval of LSD 00-29.00. I think this is going to be a big benefit for the south side of town for the development of this particular piece of property. We are allowing some use of metal and so on that kind of lifted my eyebrows at first but I think it will turn out to be a very nice complex for residential, office and retail. I sure think that's needed down there. I'll recommend approval. Chairman Odom? Before someone seconds the motion, with regard to the Commercial Design Standards, they are requesting a variance that was ruled on at Subdivision Committee. As long as that is included in the motion, I guess that's fine. I'm not sure if we need to vote on that separately but they are requesting to be able to use the galvanized metal siding on the Mill Building which is the existing Campbell Soup feed mill where they have currently taken that metal siding off. That was a decision of recommendation of the Subdivision Committee. Do you think we need a separate variance request? I would like to make sure it's clear on the record. Yes. Since this is a variance and it is something that we haven't been doing in the past, I'll go ahead and move that we approve the variance request for the metal siding on this particular building for LSD 00-29.00. I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve a variance request with regard to the Commercial Design Standards. Do we have any discussion with regard to the Commercial Design Standards and the variance request? Hoffman: I would like to just point out that I requested that we put this in a variance format because the way our ordinance is worded. This type of metal siding is specifically not permitted and I think that when it's used in the aesthetic manner that it can be very attractive and is certainly in keeping with the character of the property before In still • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 8 trying to work towards more clarification for aesthetic use of this type of material in our ordinance but since it's not there yet I think the variance format is the only way to do it. We will just have to approach each one on a case-by-case basis. Odom: Anybody else? I think it may be also important to distinguish, for the record, we are talking about a mixed use thing here with residential in the top portion of it. This was primarily and totally a metal building. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the variance request is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go ahead and recommend approval of LSD 00-29.00, Large Scale Development for The Mill District. Allen: I second. I agree with the same reason I believe it will be a wonderful project. Odom: Motion by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Allen to approve LSD 00- 29.00 subject to all staff comments. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-29.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 9 LSD 00-27.00: Large Scale Development (Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364) was submitted by Shawki Al-Madhoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2309 & 2323 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres with 14 units proposed. Odom. Item number two on tonight's agenda is LSD 00-27.00. Large Scale Development submitted by Shawki A1-Madhoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2309 & 2323 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres with 14 units proposed. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to the ten conditions below. Staff do we have anything further? Conklin: Nothing further. Odom: Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No we don't. • Odom: Then I'll bring it forward to the applicant and ask for any presentation that you have at this time. A1-Madhoun: Thank you Commissioners. Mr. Chairman, I believe there were five Conditions of Approval Odom: Please state your name for the record. A1-Madhoun: I'm sorry. My name is Shawki Al-Madhoun with Northstar Engineering. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Emad Damen. The property basically was going to include twelve new duplex units plus the existing two houses up front. That makes a total of fourteen. The Conditions of Approval, I need to talk with Tim, I got the revised copy which was five. Conklin: I'm handing you the staff report the Commission has. Turn to page ten. Odom: Would you like me to read those and we can go over them? Al-Madhoun: No. I'm familiar with them. I went to the Subdivision Committee meeting. I would be more than happy to answer any questions. • Odom: Do you have any problems with the ten Conditions of Approval that we have? • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 10 AI-Madhoun• No sir. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: If that's the extent of your presentation, before we move on to questions and answers, I will ask is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on LSD 00- 27.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the applicant. Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Hoffman. • MOTION: Hoffman: I'll move for approval of LSD 00-27.00 subject to all staff comments. Odom: I'll second the motion. We have a motion and second for approval of LSD 00-27.00. Do we have any discussion? Bunch: I have a couple of questions, one on the drawings these are listed as triplexes. Is that an error? • Al-Madhoun: That was corrected and a revised set of plans were submitted. It's duplexes. Bunch: The set I had showed that it was triplexes. One other question, it seems to be individual units, have any provisions been made for watenng for the landscape and trees? I know there is some extensive landscaping and additional trees but I didn't see any provisions for maintaining those. If each individual unit is on a different meter or something like that then there needs to be something. Al-Madhoun: I believe the owner is planning to maintain the whole landscape for the whole development. Unless is misunderstood the question. You are correct, there is no individual meter for irrigation for landscape. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 11 Bunch: Al-Madhoun: Bunch: Petrie: Bunch: Maybe I misstated. Are the individual units going to be each on a meter? Yes sir. Staff, has there been any consideration for the watering? I can tell you, working with Kim Hesse when these construction plans come through, that's one of the items she checks on the final plans. I'm not too familiar with her requirements but I know she does require the irrigation system or a spigot at some part of the landscaping. I know that she does require that. She does check it when the construction plans come through. One of my concerns is, usually the package that we have has that information in it and this time I didn't see it. That's why I was wondering if it had been overlooked or mention needs to be made so we can include it because if the individual units are one separate meters then the property owner needs to make provisions to maintain rather than leave it to the individual rental units. Al-Madhoun: That's correct. I'll probably have to make that addition because it's my understanding the owner wants to maintain the entire landscape on that. I'm assuming he will provide the irrigation plans for the landscape. Bunch: Odom: Conklin: Odom: Staff, would that be covered in the standard conditions? Item number six. Yes. I believe so. The ordinance does require the landscaping be maintained through an irrigation system or a hose bib. I think that the standard is one hose bib at least within a hundred feet of the landscaping. That was a change three or four years ago that the City did make to make sure that, especially on commercial/office development, that the ability to at least connect the hose to the outside of the building to water the landscaping. I do, like Ron stated, Kim Hesse does review those plans and we do make sure that we get that irrigation or at least the ability to water in these projects. Commissioner Bunch? Any other questions? I'll close discussion and ask that you call the roll. ROLL CALL: • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 12 Upon roll call LSD 00-27.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 13 CU 00-25.00: Conditional Use (Wilkin, pp 370) was submitted by Rolf Wilkin for property located at 1905 E Mission Blvd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 4.26 acres. The request is for a nursery school/day care center. Odom. As discussed earlier, item number three on tonight's agenda has been withdrawn we will move on to item number four which is 00-25.00 Conditional Use submitted by Rolf Wilkin for property located at 1905 E. Mission Blvd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 4.26 acres. The request is for a nursery school/day care center. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the Conditional Use subject to six Conditions of Approval Staff, do we have any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: Chairman Odom, we have looked at the parking situation on this site and staff has revised the staff report. We did hand that out this evening and I'll have Dawn Warrick go over those changes with you. Warrick: In that revised staff report there are two additional Conditions of Approval Conditions • number seven and eight. Those do refer to the changes that we saw on the site after a site review. The first of those refers to the existing gravel parking lot shall be improved to comply with City standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this tenant space. A grading and drainage permit and a parking lot permit must be submitted and approved prior to construction in this area. Item number eight, City grading requirements for retaining walls shall apply to the proposed outdoor play area which will require a retaining wall on the west side. It is written as the east and should say the west. Those two additional conditions are recommended by staff. • Odom: Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval? Warrick: We do not. Also, in this revised staff report, there is additional background information that refers specifically to these two items and that starts on the third page of your staff report. I'll be glad to go over that if you wish. Odom: Why don't you do that Dawn, since this is our first view of this thing. Warrick: It is pretty lengthy. Upon site review prior to the Planning Commission meeting of 10/9/00, staff became aware of two issues which must be addressed as a part of this conditional use request. Actually at Agenda Session the first issue was brought up and Commissioner Hoffman asked us to look closely at the retaining wall issue for the outdoor play area. That was one thing that we looked at. When we went out to the Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 14 site, we did notice that there is an existing gravel parking lot which is non -conforming at the south end of the structure. In looking back through additional research, we noticed that at a previous Planning Commission in July of 1996, a previous owner for the project requested a Conditional Use for parking in that area south of the building. One thing that is important to note on this is that the structure itself is located in a C-1 zoning district. The property immediately south of the structure is located in an R-1 zoning district. Therefore, the applicant, at the time, was required to request a Conditional Use for parking in a residential zoning district for the parking to serve a commercial use. That was approved on July 22, 1996. There were several conditions placed on that approval and those conditions are reiterated in item number seven on your Conditions of Approval for tonight. One additional thing about the parking was that it was permitted with the understanding that the additional parking area would not extend further into that R-1 zoning district than one hundred feet from the back of the building. After looking at that and realizing that they do have the ability to build additional parking in that space where they have gravel parking now, we calculated the numbers to determine how many spaces, if any, they would need to add to accommodate this new tenant, the child care facility. The existing parking lot has approximately seventy-three paved spaces and you will see on that third page there is a chart that lists out each of the tenants. There are four tenants in this structure including this proposal and the ratio applied with our current parking lot ordinance requirements. Therefore, based on those numbers, the minimum number of spaces required to be added for this to accommodate all of the users in this structure would be twenty-six spaces. The applicant did ask me earlier today how many maximum they could go or how far they go as far as the total number of spaces. Therefore, the twenty percent overage, which is permitted by ordinance, would bring them to a maximum of one hundred and twenty spaces on the entire lot without having to come back to the Planning Commission for additional approval for excess parking. With that, staff is recommending that the applicant apply for a parking lot permit and that the new parking area comply with all current code regulations with regard to paving, striping, landscaping and all of our parking lot ordinance requirements. Then, with regard to the outdoor play area and the retaining wall, we are asking that the applicants get approval through the Engineering Division for grading and drainage requirements that go along with the retaining wall and that they have approval prior to construction of that. One thing that I was concerned about was that the retaining wall would be on the east side which would be immediately adjacent to an R-1 zoning district. The applicant told me this afternoon in discussing the project, the retaining wall will actually be on the west side of the outdoor play area and a fence will be placed on the east side adjacent to the R-1 zoning district which does help because there is a requirement that any retaining wall in a commercial zoning district be located a minimum of five feet from the property line. In this case, since the retaining • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 15 wall will be on the west side of the outdoor play area, we won't have that conflict as far as the required setback. Those are the two new items and how we got to them. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. Odom. Thank you. We come now to the applicant and ask for you to state your name and give us any presentation you may have. Wilkin: Hi. My name is Rolf Wilkin. I'm the owner of the building and the land at 1905 East Mission. I don't really have a presentation except that I think we have come a long way in renovating the old Dillon's structure and Kirsty's place by Lane Blower's would be the last tenant in the building by taking up 2,750 square feet. That's what our goal is to finish it out and get a good tenant for the neighborhood in there. Odom. Thank you very much. Have you had the opportunity to review the eight Conditions of Approval? Wilkin: Yes. I'm happy to sign them. • PUBLIC COMMENT: • Odom. Okay. Then before we move on to questions and so forth I'll ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? On Conditional Use 00-25.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. Hoover: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. With the new parking, does this also mean that there will be landscaping and this will be done according to our landscape ordinance? Wan -ick: All of the new parking will be required to meet today's standards with landscaping, paving, striping etcetera. Hoover. Only the new section of it? Warrick: Yes. • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 16 Hoover: Okay. Odom. Commissioner Hoover is that all you have? Hoover: Yes. Thank you. Odom: Anybody else? Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I have a question for staff. We had asked about the location of the play area being close to the road. Has that been discussed in terms of being able to be relocated further away? Warrick: I think I would like the applicant to address that, as far as the consideration that was • taken and where they are replacing it. Wilkin: It's actually not really close to the road. The north boundary would not be far from the north boundary of the building so that puts it quite far from the road. There is really no other place to put it. We had that strip all along the east side and then the south side there is a rock bluff. Actually, that section with the gravel parking lot, that's been parking for over twenty-five years. You may remember Dillon's had kind of an elevated parking area where you drove up a ramp to access it well that bluff, I think the previous owner's is quite immovable in the southeast corner. Hoffman: I remember now. Wilkin: So, if we put a play area somewhere in there you would have to go up a big series of steps and then it would be quite far from this facility. A nice woman from the state who approves day care centers, really liked that playground where we have it currently placed which is right to the east. Hoffman: Good. I had those same sorts of questions and couldn't really tell based on the floor plan that we had, what proximity it was to the actual facility. Thank you. • Wilkin: And the proprietor would like to keep it kind of park like with all the trees within the play area so we are really talking about just underbrush removal and then putting up the • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 17 fence and the retaining wall to support it. There is really not going to be any tree of any size taken out either. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. Ward: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Ward. MOTION: Ward: I think Mr. Wilkin has done a real good job with taking on a vacant grocery store building and turning it into something viable and usable out there on 45 east of Mission and I will go ahead and recommend approval for CU 00-25.00 for a Conditional Use with the eight staff Conditions of Approval Hoffman: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve CU 00-25.00. Do we have any further discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-25.00 passes by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 18 AD 00-29.00: Administrative Item (General Plan 2020 Update) was submitted by the General Plan 2020 Update Subcommittee for updating the General Plan 2020 including the Master Street Plan, Planning Area Boundary, Future Land Use and General Plan Text. Odom: The last item that we have on tonight's agenda, item number five is AD 00-29.00 which is an Administrative Item the General Plan 2020 Update submitted by the General Plan 2020 Update Subcommittee for updating the General Plan 2020 including the Master Street Plan, Planning Area Boundary, Future Land Use and General Plan Text. Staff would you like to make a presentation? Conklin: Yes we would. Odom: You have three minutes. Conklin: Sure. Put it on the consent agenda. Back in 1995 staff updated General Plan 2010. When that plan was adopted by resolution number 14795 it directed staff to update an revise General Plan 2020 in the year 2000 or every five years. We started this process by forming a subcommittee of three Planning Commissioners and three Alderman. We've had five meetings this summer. The first meeting was held on June 8, 2000. At that meeting we began discussing our Planning Area Boundary Map and our Master Street Plan revisions. On June 29, 2000, we discussed Master Street Plan and Future Land Use Plan revisions. On July 13, 2000, we discussed all four elements, Future Land Use Plan, General Plan 2020 text, Master Street Plan and Planning Area Boundary. On July 27, 2000, we began looking, in greater detail, at our Future Land Use Plan and General Plan 2020 text revisions. On August 24, 2000, the subcommittee did meet, they did recommend the revisions that you did receive a week ago. There are revisions to all four planning documents and maps. I can briefly go over those with you. General Plan 2020 text, which is our actual General Plan. It contains a set of policies and implementation strategies. It contains a lot of demographic data, data on existing land use and proposed land use. The document that was handed out to the Commission and is available in the Planning Division is available for review and purchase. It contains only those changes that have changed. The entire document looks like this. I did not reproduce the entire document for the Commission however, those are available in the Planning office if you a Commissioner needs the entire document. You should have one as a Commissioner. That's our General Plan 2020. Within the text, I updated the demographic population data with our 1996 special census and also with data received by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission That is on page 7 all the way through page 49. I updated the Industrial Park information with regard to the type of industrial user out there and number of • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 19 employees. Starting on page 78, keep in mind these are not consecutive numbering, included a statement under recreation and open space section of our General Plan to recognize that the City is in the process of developing a ten year master recreation plan and trail plan. That will contain additional policies and strategies to manage future growth and development regarding parks and recreation and that system. That will supplement General Plan 2020. That text has been added in that section because we do have long range planning documents outside of this that are currently under development. On page 67, a strategy was added that we talked about during the summer with regard to residential density in multi -family development and that is a strategy or policy 6.3.m and that's to develop and ordinance to provide a transition in multi -family zoning from six units per acre to twenty-four units per acre which is only currently allowed under an R-2 density, residential zoning. There was some concem that going from R-1, 40 units per acre and rezoning to R-2 which allows up to twenty- four units per acre. There should be some other type of multi -family zoning that would allow six, eight, twelve units per acre without having to give them the actual twenty-four units per acre without having to give them the actual twenty-four units per acre. That policy has been added. Under our tree preservation protection implementation strategies, 6.12.g has been added, to develop methods to identify preserved tree preservation areas in perpetuity through tree easements and/or private conservation easements. This goes along with what the Committee has been looking at through our Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee to develop ways of protecting and preserving trees. On page 83, 6.15.] the strategy is to develop guidelines for the coordination of street tree planting, on-site landscaping and tree planting, and tree protection and preservation within utility easements. Both the Landscape Administrator and Planning Division staff agree that we do need to work with utilities and develop guidelines incorporating many of our landscaping standards that we've adopted over the last six to seven years. With regard to utility easements, every two weeks, we do work with our Technical Plat Review Committee, everybody wants to get into the same place with regard to utilities and landscaping. I look forward to clarifying our ordinances and making sure that the landscaping that is required can be planted in these areas On page 109, I met with the Downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project Committee, they did want to include a new classification of collector street. Actually, this came from the Planning Division staff over the last few years, since 1995 when we adopted our standards for a collector street of seventy feet of right-of-way. It's pretty difficult in our downtown areas to get seventy feet. By ordinance, the City Council has to waive that requirement. Staff has included a fifty foot right-of-way, a thirty-six foot wide street. Downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project also recommended street tree planting area be provided that is similar to what is being planned on Dickson Street through that enhancement project also to provide a street tree peninsula at intersections • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 20 and curb cuts and provide decorative lighting. Those standards are what appear on page 109. You also have in your packet the comments from that organization and a cross section that has been drawn up. I don't have that in your packet at this time. On page 111, under Street Classification, staff is in the process of developing a table tied to our Geographic Information System, that is not in your packet at this time. We are still identifying each street segment and creating a project out of that segment. Staff is classifying these individual street segments in order to be able to identify which streets, for example: how many principal arterial streets do we have that are currently four land, two lane or we don't have right-of-way? It would be able to actually come up with numbers of how many miles, estimated cost for those improvements. It's all tied through our GIS which if you come in, each line segment will be classified as a collector, principal arterial, minor arterial or local street. That's what we are working on. I did hand out that table. We probably have twelve line segments we need to clarify and that will be available for you at the next meeting. Under Aviation, we did revise that section to talk about Drake Field and the plans for Drake Field and that has been included in these revisions. These are the revisions that we have today for General Plan 2020. In your packet I did include all the minutes from the five public hearings we had this summer and those public hearings also talked about the revisions that are within this document. With regard to the Master Street Plan, I did hand out to each Commissioner an actual Master Street Plan proposal and did show the proposed collectors in pink color and the streets to be removed in blue. I'll go over the major changes at this time. That includes eliminating the Gregg Street connection down to Maple Street and showing a future street connection from Arkansas Avenue where it currently dead -ends at Maple Street up to North Street, removing the Cleveland Prospect connection, removing the proposed street in the Research and Technology Park that's showing as a collector between Trucker's Drive and Technology Boulevard, realigning the streets within Crystal Springs That amendment was actually approved by the Commission, it never went forward to Council but clarifying that amendment, last year we did have Crystal Springs Phase II come in and a cul-de-sac where that street would go through so this just moves it over. With regard to Fieldstone Bridgeport Subdivision realign those streets between Mount Comfort and Salem Road to follow the platted subdivisions that we currently have in there and recognize Bridgeport Phases IV, V and VI, that street alignment. I did show a street that we did not discuss on the Subcommittee level and that is a street that is between Wheeler Road and Jess Anderson Road. There is a development currently out in this area where that street goes through some houses and that's one of the areas that staff has looked at cleaning that up. The rest of the streets that are shown in the pink color are existing streets primarily within our planning area They are being used as collector streets. Every time we have a lot split or subdivision within our planning area, the • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 21 access to these lots or the main access to these subdivisions are from these streets. These streets actually connect to higher classified streets and provide connections into town. I thought it was important to make sure that we have adequate collector streets in Fayetteville. Before we move to the Master Street Plan, there are a couple more changes I want to pass down, you don't have this in your packet. A few more revisions. That includes, as I was looking at each of these street segments, did discover some areas where we had the streets going through either someone's back yard or house and that includes the connection between Ash Street and Charlie Avenue. That needs to either be realigned or eliminated. If you can share, I made some color copies of that. Also, with regard to... Odom: I thought that this whole thing, ultimately was supposed to hook up down here in the bottom of Ash Street? Conklin: It does hook up to Old Wire Road and Highway 45 but currently there is no right-of- way shown between those two.cul-de-sacs. Odom: I thought that was what this stub out is? Conklin: Yes. That's something that I was going to recommend to re-route it back behind those homes and provide that connection. Right now it has it going through basically between those two houses at the end of Ash Street which I think is going to be difficult or impossible to ever build in that location. One of the things, and I stated this at agenda session and throughout the meetings, we are working with the Geographic Information System now. We can zoom in down to ten feet and see exactly what the land use classification is, where the Master Street Plan proposed street is going to go and in doing so, five years ago we couldn't get to that level of detail. Working on this the past month or so, trying to get the detail work done, I've discovered some areas where the streets are not shown exactly in the right location or where the future land use classification did not closely match our zoning. However, I did not go in these areas and create new streets or create new land use classifications, what I did is modify these areas to match what is realistic. If we had right-of-way for a street somewhere and the Master Street Plan street was fifty or a hundred feet off that right-of-way, I corrected that to make sure it got onto that actual platted right-of-way we have in our system. Those are the type of revisions that did occur on some of these areas. The next revisions that I would like to bring forward this evening is a proposed street between Cato Springs Road and 71 Bypass Just to move it over slightly. Washington County did build their Road Department in this location and I would like to get that street out of their new facility. That's one of the areas that I'm looking at. Those are the changes to Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 22 the Master Street Plan that are proposed. Once again, if there is a certain area that you would like more detail on, I would be more than happy to give you more information. Future Land Use Plan revisions are shown in purple and really we only have two revisions that have been requested throughout the five public hearings and that includes, one that has been brought forward by staff and that includes Futrall Drive and Wedington Drive. It should be on this map that is in your packet. Carstetter and Glass Automotive Repair is located in this area. There is a professional office further north off of Wedington on Futrall, it's adjacent to Hank's Discount Fine Furniture This is an area that is currently showing as Residential that staff is recommending to be shown as Community Commercial. The other area was requested by the land owner and that includes an area bounded by Interstate 540 and Porter Road. They are requesting that change from Residential to Community Commercial. Those are the two changes that we have received. You have received in your packet additional requests for changes to the Future Land Use Plan, I will go over the ones that haven't been reviewed after the public portion of this hearing but I want the public here to talk about what they would like to see on individual pieces of property. With regard to our Planning Area Boundary maps, if you do recall, last spring I did bring forward a revised Planning Area Boundary removing our Planning Area Boundary out of the City of Springdale city limits making corrections where we were in conflict with other city limits. I do have additional Planning Area Boundary conflicts and that's with the actual planning area boundaries with other cities. I have included or shown those as green on this map and the proposal here is to, with Farmington, split the difference in half between our conflict and planning area. Their claiming those same areas so we will split the difference in half. There is a small portion of Greenland planning area up to north of their city limits we are to give that to Greenland and then south of Fayetteville on the east and south side of our airport, there is a conflict there. With regard to our Planning Area Boundary revisions, I am working with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and meeting with the individual cities and working out where we can come to an agreement with regard to these conflicts in our planning area boundaries. If that doesn't occur by the next Planning Commission meeting, this is something that is just a long term goal of mine is to get corrected with regard to the conflict. There are only two areas that we are looking at expanding our Planning Area Boundary and that is west of Double Springs Road to line it up where the furthest point of our Planning Area Boundary to the west, to include that as part of our planning area and east of Lake Sequoyah. We currently serve water in that area east of Lake Sequoyah and currently no one is claiming that area Those are the only two areas of addition to our Planning Area Boundary that staff is proposing. That concludes my presentation with regards to the changes. I do encourage the public to come to the Planning Division where we have set up a room with all the existing planning documents that have been adopted and • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 23 all the proposed revisions to our General Plan, Future Land Use Plan, Planning Area Boundary Map and Master Street Plan. We also have a computer set up if someone wants to take a detailed look at an individual piece of property and how it's classified so I encourage the public to come down to the Planning Commission to review the proposed revisions. Odom: Your three minutes are about up. Conklin: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: What I would like to do now, before we get into questions from the Planning Commission of the staff, I would like to take public comment. If you would like to address us on the General Land Use Plan, I ask that you come forward and I ask that you state your name and I ask that you tell us which item you are specifically wanting to refer to because we have Land Use maps, Master Street Plan maps, the General Plan so tell us what item you are wanting to address. Give us a few minutes to flip through to the right map and then begin with your questions and comments. Come on forward. Frankenberger: Steve Frankenberger, Chairman of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. We are very pleased. We endorse this. This looks like a very good plan. We don't normally come up here and say nice things like that but that is very much the case here. I do have one question in terms of the zoning density ordinance. If you have a loft that is zoned R-2 currently, it is legal for any population density up to twenty-four units per acre correct? How do we deal with the existing lots that are zoned R-2 when they have a duplex on them where they historically have a low unit density, what slot will they go into in the new zoning? Conklin: These revisions to our Future Land Use Plan and 2020 Plan text will not rezone anybody's property. It's used as a guide when we look at rezoning. Currently if your property is zoned R-2, you are allowed to have up to twenty-four units per acre. The City has not proposed doing a city wide rezoning at this time. Frankenberger: Is that something that's doable? Conklin: We have not done that in the past. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 24 Odom: The problem with doing something like that is you end up down -zoning and taking away people's rights and that's why I think that incorporating this into the plan that way people when they come forward with that particular request, we will know that that area is designated for that type of use. That's how they determine what zoning they want to ask for. Conklin: With regard to that strategy of coming up with more of a wide range of multi -family densities, that will actually take an ordinance to amend our current zoning ordinance to create those categories. We have done that in the past creating new residential categories. However, the actual designation that is shown on the map we have not changed people's zoning on the map. We allow the option for people to come in and, for example, we created two acre residential lots, an acre and a half, half acre residential lots and six thousand square foot lots. There are those four options now with single-family homes that you can apply for and that's what we are looking at with this strategy. Frankenberger: So anyone who currently has an R-2 zoning will go to a R-24? Odom: If you have an R-2 zoning, it remains the same density. Conklin: Yes. We are not changing, at this time, with this strategy we are not changing the actual zoning ordinance or the title. I guess theoretically you could change it, instead of calling it medium density residential you could call it R-24 units per acre. It's a title but at this time there is no proposal to change individual property's zoning. Frankenberger: For new zoning changes, if someone wants an R designation they would have to get an R-2, 6? Conklin: If the City Council implements this strategy, yes that is correct. Frankenberger: It would be a category for 6, 12, 18 and 24 units per acre? Conklin: That hasn't been determined yet. Frankenberger: That's what's in the document there right? Conklin: In the document I said a strategy between 6 and 24, I'm not sure how many different classifications we are going to come up with. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 25 Frankenberger: When will that be done? Is that going to be a separate issue at the City Council? Conklin: Well, until this is adopted by the City Council, those type of ordinances will not be written. Once a policy is adopted and the plan is adopted and that becomes the official city policies and strategies of the City of Fayetteville then staff will begin working on that just as we did in 1995. Since I've began updating this I haven't brought too many implementation ordinances forward. My focus and all my energy has been on updating this plan in the year 2000 so once that is done, we will begin that process once again to identify and prioritize where we go after adoption. Frankenberger: Very good. Thank you very much. Odom: Thank you Steve. Please keep coming forward. Hill: My name is Bob Hill, I'm addressing the Master Street Plan. I tried to listen more closely Tim, I didn't hear you address the street that runs between Gregg and Garland Street on the south side of University. Conklin: I was going to let you address that. I have it right in front of me to make sure I don't miss anybody that's talked with the Planning staff. Hill: I'll need to make a presentation? Conklin: Yes, I would encourage you to do that or I can make this presentation for you. I would encourage you to make a presentation. Hill: I haven't made copies for everybody so I don't know if anybody has seen this or not. Conklin: They have your letter and map. What he is referring to should look like this, Nickel Hill Group dated August 17, 2000. It's addressed to me. It's regarding the street between Garland and Leverett, a concern about a street that is currently on the border of the University of Arkansas farm and the City of Fayetteville Hoffman: Garrett Drive? Hill: I don't know what the name of that street is. • Conklin: Yes. I believe it comes off of Ernie Jacks Boulevard. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 26 Hill: It runs into Ernie Jacks on the west side. It runs along the southern boundary of the University farm. Odom. Is there a smaller map too that we have? Conklin: I don't have a smaller map. The city limit line is kind of difficult to see because Garrett Drive, that is the University farm those streets that you see. You are probably not recognizing it because we are showing the streets on the University farm to the north which include Donald, Watson and Wise. Where it says Garrett Drive, in between Garland and Gregg, that is the area of concern. I can provide you, at the next meeting, a more detailed map of that area. Hoffman: This is not the area that the apartments occupy, it's the area to the east of the apartments. Hill: This street with the southern boundary of the University farms and it would be on the northern side of all those apartments that are north of Potter Street. I was originally asked to go to the City Planning office on behalf of Sara and Mary Thomas. They own land at the very northern end of Leverett Street on the west side of the street. That would be just west of Leverett Garden Apartments. They have ten acres there. They had the property under contract to sell it. By the way, it's zoned R-2. They had it under contract about a year and a half ago with a buyer who wanted to build student housing there. When they went to the City to see what had to be done as far as getting the Large Scale Development, they found that a collector street was designed there and they would have to not only give eighty feet of their land all the way across the northern side of it to build a street. That made the sale fall through. That's neither here nor there because if the street is supposed to be there, it should be but what they wanted me to present to you is perhaps an argument on why that should be a local street instead of a collector street. That would take less of their land obviously. I kind of thought that was going to be a pretty difficult task on my part to convince you to put a smaller street there. The more I looked into it and looked at the City ordinance and looked at the neighborhood there, it really does mend itself for a local street instead of a collector street. I don't know if you read the letter that I prepared for Tim, the same arguments so I don't know if there is any reason for me to go through them all. Where any of my arguments valid is my question? Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 27 Estes: Bob, I'm still not quite clear, I think I have found this on the map but is Garrett Drive the blocked alley that is immediately north of the old Ken Clair Apartments and immediately south of the Agra property? Hill: The Ken Clair Apartments? Is that on Bel Air? Hoffman: It's north of that. Hill: The street that I'm talking about that's proposed, if you went as far north as you could on Leverett Street, it would dead-end to the University farm. Estes: The Leverett Garden Apartments will be on your right? Hill: Yes sir. The proposed street runs due east from that all along the southern boundary of the University farm and then intersects with Gregg Street on the east side then angles over a little biton the west side to run into Emie Jackson. Estes: I know where we are now. Thank you. Hill: My thought in changing it from a collector street to a local street is by the ordinance that the city has. A collector street is designed to collect from a neighborhood so that those cars can be dispersed out into the streets to get to different destinations. It specifically says that it should not be designed to encourage traffic going from one artery to the next which is what Gregg and Garland Street is. If you had this street on the furthest northern boundary what any traffic is ever going to be because the farm is the boundary on the north. That is going to very much lend itself to traffic back and forth between two major arteries. The ordinance itself says that that's not designed for that. Hoffman: I have a question for staff, Mr. Chair. Odom. Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: Could you explain the physical differences between a collector and local street and could you also tell us the impact, if this is developed into apartments, what would the impact be on the neighborhood to the south that does already have local streets that are heavily used to access Garland and Leverett? • Conklin: With regard to a local and collector street, they are both two-lane streets so you are not getting a difference in the number of lanes, they will both be the same number of • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 28 lanes. A local street is twenty-eight feet wide. A collector street is thirty-six feet wide. A collector street allows parking on both sides of the street and still allows traffic to flow both directions. A local street, typically, you only have parking on one side, you can't have traffic flowing both directions if you park on both sides. With regard to the impact on development, the right-of-way requirements for a local street are fifty feet, for a collector street they are seventy feet. If it's on the boundary of this or if they would be required on a collector street to dedicate thirty-five feet from centerline, if it goes through the project they would be required to dedicate seventy feet of right-of- way. With regard to the actual width they would build at this time, staff would have to take a look at that and determine if we would cost share with that developer. Typically, we don't require a developer to build it to collector street standards, unless the traffic that it generates justifies that it's required for that development to serve it. Typically, they are required to build a twenty-eight foot street. A collector street has two six foot sidewalks with green space between curb and sidewalk and ten feet local streets with six foot green space typically a four foot sidewalk so there is a difference in the green space and the size of the sidewalks. Those are pretty much the differences between the local and collector. Of course the collector is designed to carry more traffic than a local street. Hoffman: I was thinking about it in terms of if it might help the neighborhood that are single-family dwelling primarily to the south of this area of apartments because those street can be heavily traveled. Bel Air, I believe, is one of them and I'm trying to think of the others. There are a couple of through streets that go there in between Leverett and Garland before you get to the University farm. Since they only serve single-family dwellings, I was wondering could the apartment traffic be re-routed by maintaining this as a collector street or could it be served by what they wish is a local street? Conklin: In the past, we have used this Master Street Plan to make sure that we have streets that connect together and streets that go somewhere and this does provide a connection between Garland and Gregg. To answer your question, could it be a local street connection between Garland and Gregg? Yes, it could. Once again, we are not changing the number of lanes. We do change the capacity with regard to having a wider street and ability to park on both sides. I guess to answer your question, sometimes we have shown streets on here to make sure we do have collector streets that connect to higher order streets and I think that's why it's on here. Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have. • Hill: Could I make a point that perhaps I didn't make as well as I should have? The • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 29 ordinance concerning collector streets states that connections between arterials, which I believe Gregg and Garland are both arterials, should be indirect to discourage use by traffic from outside the neighborhood. Obviously, the biggest concern on the part of the property owners is the different between fifty feet and seventy feet that they would have to give the City for the right-of-way for the street. Also, from a practical standpoint on behalf of all the other property owners out there, you have at least one house that would be within, I think it's seventy feet, Tim is that correct? That's the right-of-way for a collector street? Conklin: Yes. Hill: Versus fifty feet for a local traffic street that would not impact that house. There are also at least two buildings in the apartment complex just to the east of it within eighty feet. Then a maraud of other homes further to the east that also would be within that eighty feet that might not be impacted by a fifty foot street. To me it's a situation that you've got a lot of property along the northern end of that residential area, not only multi -family but single-family, that the less you can impact that by taking not only land but also people's homes, the better it is for those people for the City too. The primary concern is that if you do create that street as a collector street, you are encouraging traffic through there which I don't think is what the City wants for residential neighborhoods. Instead it should be a local street to provide traffic to go out to the arterials. Odom: Conklin: Odom: Bob made some good arguments and some points with regard to what we had out there and how it's perhaps limited to what can go in there in the future but staff, I would be interested in getting your comments with regard to the future use of this property should it develop more, perhaps like this property that they are talking about. Would that increase it significantly enough to where you would stand by the position that this needs to be a collector as opposed to a local street? I would be happy to report back at the next meeting with regard to that. We have a situation where future development doesn't really lend itself to where there are going to be a bunch of neighborhoods that are going to have to use collector streets then that would substantiate Mr. Hill's arguments or points. Conversely, if it looks as though future uses may very well dictate the need for the collector, then I would like to know that as well. Conklin- Sure. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 30 Hill: I would just like you to consider it. Odom: Thank you Mr. Hill? Anything else Mr. Hill you want to address on this plan? Anybody else like to come forward at this time? Crouch: Good evening. My name is Allen Crouch and I wanted to speak about the Future Land Use Plan. I am speaking on behalf of my dad, Joe Crouch, who is the owner of some property. I believe you have a packet in front of you that has a letter from Joe Crouch and a map that's color coded and a photograph. I have the map. Odom. If you could perhaps pull that over so you can speak into the microphone as well so we can get that all down pretty well? Thanks. Crouch: Okay. This is a map, the top of the page is north and just to give you bearings, this area with the big arrow is Nelm's Auto and this is the drive-in theater here. The property that the owner has is about fifteen acres which is marked with a large "x" right here and this is the Garland clear into the 112 intersection of the bypass. What we would like to be considered for future land use is that this could be considered as C-2 property in the future as it's developed. Out to the west of the land, right here this is all C-2 and includes the light industrial, a detail shop like a Harley Davidson, office parts, office buildings, right across the street there is also retail development there that is also zoned C-2 and this is the University experimental farm there and this is the Forestry station. The zoning is C-2 which fit in with the surrounding development. I don't think it would impair the Forestry Station or U of A. It's also access and infrastructure to support being right off the bypass and also due to my dad's age and his eyesight, he is not able to maintain his cattle farm which he has done for a period of time. It also could be a benefit for the City R and D Park as that develops this could provide some other development that could help support that office structure. Odom: Allen, we don't designate specific zonings on the regional land use map. Staff, could you tell us what designation would that fall in. Conklin: Regional commercial. That is what currently Point West is shown as That Point West Circle development. Odom: It's what did you say? Conklin. It's shown as regional commercial to the west. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 31 Crouch: That's directly adjacent to this land. Conklin: This property is shown as mixed use.. Odom. Does mixed use include some commercial development as well? Conklin: In those areas that staff designated, we did not define predominate land use for the future. Those areas could be developed with offices and residential. With regard to Drake Street, I've talked to developers, with residential in mind and I've talked to developers with commercial development in mind so it really hasn't limited exactly what could happen. With regard to C-2 zoning, typically we hold that to regional commercial areas. It allows your used car sales, liquor stores, departments stores, hotels and motels, that type of use. I'm not sure what the proposed land use is on this piece of property but if they need C-2 zoning, as staff we would look to see if it's shown as regional commercial. Odom: What they are asking for basically is asking for regional commercial designation? You understand this is nothing more than a planning document that we look to when specific rezoning requests come before us? Crouch: Right. Odom: If someone was wanting to come forward with a C-2 we would hope that it would be designated as regional commercial. That would be the designation that you would be asking us to consider for this fifteen acre tract. Crouch: That's right. Conklin: That's correct and the Planning Commission would look and determine, make a recommendation to the City Council with regard to the rezoning. Is it appropriate for that type of zoning that would allow a regional type commercial use. Crouch: All the surrounding area is now regional commercial. It's basically zoned as C-2 now. I just ask that it be a consideration on future land use. Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 32 Estes: Allen, would ingress and egress to the proposed commercial use property be off of Drake Street or do you have some way to access the property on the north side? Crouch: No. There is not access from the north side and again this isn't like a proposed development. It's not at that stage. There is access from Drake Street and there could be access off of the Garland area here possibly but again there is not really plans for this. We just wanted to get in your long range plan. Estes: That is all limited access on the north side? Crouch: Right. Estes: Is there any way to get through on North Point or Point Circle? Crouch: There could be. That could be opened up with an access into the property. Odom: Staff does that Point Circle is it designated as open to go through that property? Conklin: It does have their actual right-of-way up against this property so yes, it could be connected. I'm not sure if Mr. Crouch is aware of this but we do have a Master Street Plan loop, collector street that goes through this property and along the bypass that acts as a frontage road or a loop street to provide access into this area Odom. Conklin: What would that require? If a development came through we would take a look at it and determine the best for the future, a collector street or some type of connection. Odom. Regardless of whether it was commercial, residential or mixed use? Conklin: That is correct. Odom: I certainly think Mr. Crouch's points are well taken in that area The way that the property sits, I can certainly see where regional commercial would be appropriate. Any other comments on that? Hoff an: I agree. Estes: I concur. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 33 Odom: What do we do staff? Conklin: Well, I've been very cautious of once again changing anything on our Future Land Use or any other plans without some type of consensus. If you would like to direct me to show that on the plan that you will consider for adoption at the next meeting, I would recommend you vote on it then we have it on record. Odom. Do I have any motions? MOTION: Ward: I'll make a motion that we make this regional commercial, this fifteen acres belonging to Joe Crouch. I feel like they pointed out many reasons why it should be regional commercial. It's regional commercial almost on all sides of it. It joins the interstate. It's on Highway 112. It's got several points of access into it so I feel like it needs to be regional commercial myself. I don't see any reason for it not to be. Odom. Do we have a second? Hoffman: I'll second with the comment just as a reminder this does not mean that this has been rezoned. Crouch: I understand that. Hoffman: It would have to meet several other criteria in terms of need for the actual zoning. There is a considerable amount of C-2 zoning already in place in the area that's vacant. Just with that caution I would go ahead and second it as being an appropriate location for later on down the line. Odom: Residential commercial, that does designate commercial outside of C-2 as well. Isn't that correct Tim? Conklin: Yes. Thank you Commissioner Hoffman for making that point. Staff has not shown that much or there has only been two changes so far that I have brought to you with regard to showing more land commercial. Five years ago we discussed trying to encourage commercial development into existing commercially zoned areas along College and School Street. Also, prior to that in 1994, we rezoned 300 acres to commercial in trying to contain that commercial area. That's why staff really hasn't expanded those areas. I do believe we do have adequate areas of commercial Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 34 development. If you believe that this is an area that is appropriate for regional commercial, I'll show that on there if you do approve that change. Odom: This will actually go to the City Council? Conklin: Yes. Odom: That will be shown on this map as a change that has been recommended. You still need to make a presentation to the City Council. We'll be voting on this next week. Then it will go forward to City Council from here? Conklin: Yes. Odom: They don't always listen to us. Crouch: We appreciate your consideration. Odom: Thank you Allen. Any other member of the audience like to address us? Come forward at this time. Moorman: My name is Barbara Moorman, I live at 3450 Finger Road in the growth area. I want to talk about section 6.11, Environmental Resources. The reason I think that this could be improved is, an article I read recently in Science Magazine called "The Value of Nature and The Nature of Value" and also looking at other cities comprehensive plan, I would like to see, in this publication some maps, lists and descriptions that show where we are in the natural community and what environmental resources we have here that make the area unique and that we might value and want to preserve. For instance, the introductory paragraph 6.11, refers to "physical and vegetative features of the communities landscape" but it doesn't say what those might be or where they are. I know there is a map in the Planning Department that shows creeks and flood plains. I think there should be a map in this publication that shows and names creeks, water sheds, wetlands, prairie remnants, cliffs, etcetera as well as flood plains and other features directly tied to money and that indicates where, for example groves of trees are and what kinds of groves they are and how they interconnect with other features such as wetlands. Other cities attempt, in their comprehensive plan to delineate the types of nature communities they have built themselves into, we should do the same. Once we have described it, we should make our priorities clear. There is very little point talking about conservation easements and saving land if we don't have any plan about what we want to save. One of our City Councilman has already pointed out that if we just save • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 35 what private parties offer in exchange for money or tax breaks, we may easily wind up with an oasis in one corner and desert everywhere else. I urge you to re -read section 6 11 and to admit to yourselves that this section is vague and it needs strengthening and clarifying and above all illustrating and that there are many serious contradictions between the policy stated here such as on page 77 "Protect and preserve environmental resources, establish community wide greenways and encourage preservation of rare and landmark trees." There are contradictions between those policies and the policies on the other hand that dictate unstoppable expansion and road building and I might add policies expressed in harsh reality. We need to realize and go on record as realizing that the City does have the legal right to designate land for conservation if it's significant to the well being of the community. What I'm suggesting is that the types of natural communities be delineated and prioritized for example, Ann Arbor, Michigan does or Arcada, California that we have stated priorities that will help us decide what needs preserving. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Barbara. It's not that late but I feel like it is. Did we vote on the motion? • Conklin: No you didn't. • Hoffman. Were we supposed to do that tonight or next week? Odom: He needs to know whether or not there is a consensus on that issue and we need to vote to show that. Conklin: Yes I would like to show that on the plan. Odom: My apologies on the brain lapse Any further discussion on the issue before Barbara spoke? Hoffman: I have a question for staff, I can't find what she was referring to in our materials. Odom: We are going to go to what Barbara was referring to in just a minute. Hoffman: Okay, we've got that and the main 2020 Plan of which we have just sub -text on changes. Odom. On the underlying motion and second we have in front of us. Hoffman: Yes. I'm fine with that. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 36 Odom: Any further discussion on that? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to add to proposed changes on the Future Land Use Plan the Joe Crouch 15 acre parcel of land rezoned to regional commercial passes on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Odom: I think you have a consensus. Allen, just so you know that really had very little affect on anything except for what's going to be proposed. Okay? Crouch: Yes. Thank you. Odom: Your welcome. Now, with regard to Barbara's comments, I think what we have in this document here is nothing but what the changes are. Conklin: That's correct. Odom: So, you may want to go back and review 6.11 in a little more detail. Conklin: Sure. Chairman Odom and members of the Planning Commission? Odom: Yes. Conklin: I do plan on putting in the plan the most current flood hazard study that we have. We also have hillside/slope categories shown on the map that's been generated in our computer so I can show a good indication of where the steep slopes are. Once again, our flood plain ordinance we have regulations that discourage putting lots of homes in the flood plain or one acre minimum for six thousand square feet of lot area outside the flood plain. Odom: Those are our current regulations. Conklin: Yes. In grading ordinance we do have minimum percent undisturbed areas based on slope so with regard to those ordinances that implement these policies we'll have maps in there and I'll take a look at 6.11 also and see if it can be approved. Odom: Okay. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? Come on • up Cyrus. You're the next contestant. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 37 Young: Cyrus Young. I'd just like to follow up what Tim is talking about about the hillsides. What he is showing is the contour lines but a lot of people don't really see contour lines or understand them and I think just the areas that are reflected in the ordinance 10 or 15 percent, whatever it is, I think there ought to be some kind of shading of those areas. I don't think there is very many that would show up on the map but just so people would understand that if they see some shading and they ask "What s this?" I say "Well this is part the ordinance is referring to." Odom: Thank you Cyrus. I also kind of had a question about that, on 6.11(b) there were some notations and I was wondering about our current hillside ordinance, are you recommending things in addition to our current hillside ordinance or are you talking about what in that area? Conklin: Under 6.11(b)? Odom: There is where I have my note. Conklin: Yes. That actually is a policy that was adopted in 1995, that is not a change. All the changes are shown in highlighted text. Odom: So you are just incorporating the 1995 thing. Conklin: Yes. Odom: That was the question I had. I knew we had one but I didn't know if you were proposing more or you were just plugging that into the document. Conklin: Yes. I'm just putting in there what we have accomplished. Odom: Okay. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Then I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further questions and comments with regard to the General Land Use Plan presentation. Estes: Mr. Chair? • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 38 Odom. Commission Estes. Estes: Ms. Janet Gallman who is a resident on Lee Avenue, asked me to speak in her behalf and to state that she objects to the extension of Bertha Street west from Lee Avenue to College and based upon my agreement to make those remarks, she promised she would not be here and make a presentation to us this evening. Odom: Janet, I want to tell you how much I appreciate you not being here to talk to us tonight. I hope you are home watching this. The request is to remove the extension? Estes: The request by Ms. Gallman is to remove the extension of Bertha Street west from Lee Avenue to Highway 71. The reason that Ms. Gallman objects to that extension of Bertha Street is that that goes through her living room and exits out her kitchen. Odom. There is a problem with that? Estes: She doesn't appreciate the significance that would have on her property and objects to it. Odom: Tim, what do we do when we have a designated street going through Janet Galiman's living room and kitchen or anyone's living room and kitchen for that matter? Remove Janet Gallman from that and put your house there. What provisions do we have for stuff like that? Conklin: I am trying to catch those areas. That is one area that I failed to catch on this revision. If it's likely that the home would be removed or demolished under redevelopment possibly we would keep it there. Two years ago we tried to take out the street that shows the connection between Plainview Avenue and Appleby, it goes through Harp's right now. That's another area. 1 can provide you some details on some of these that go through some of these buildings if you would like to see those at your next meeting. Like Janet Gallman's also. Typically, I have tried to avoid those streets going through those homes. Hoffman: We can assure her that a bulldozer will not be showing up and knocking at her front door anytime soon, I assume. Odom: No. I'm not assuring Janet anything. • Ward: I think it would be a great thing if it did. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 39 Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Yes, Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: It's certain at some point that Ms. Gallman's house will go away from her hands and enter somebody else's and I would like to know from staff if this street would be needed in the future. Conklin: I'll take a closer look at it. Once again, this was on the 1995 plan. I did not add it or the subcommittee did not add it through this summer's public hearings. Lets take a look at it. I'll give you some aerial photos and show you exactly where the alignment is located and take a look at that. Since we brought that up, I also brought up the street going through Harp's and we can take a look at it again even though that was left on there. I'm trying to have a realistic plan here too that can be implemented and some of these areas I pointed out earlier, I want to make sure it's cleaned up and can be workable. Just because it's on the plan doesn't mean it's going to be on our capital improvements program. That's another point that I need to make. It's when property redevelops or develops, it's at that time we take a look at whether or not the street is needed and where it's going to go. Chairman Odom, I don't know if this is the appropriate time, before I forget, I do have a letter from Elam and Mary Denim. I think everybody has that in their packet. The last thing 1 want to do is to forget to go over their concerns. They own property at Mount Comfort and Shiloh Drive. Odom: This is a land use issue. Conklin: Land Use Plan issue. They would like their property shown as regional commercial and neighborhood commercial. They have four tracts of land and they are outlined in their letter. They have also included a map pretty much showing regional commercial where there is currently a real estate office and some residential homes in the neighborhood commercial surrounding that area That's something also that they want this Planning Commission to consider changing. I think on the Land Use Plan nght now, it's shown as mixed use. Hoffman: I just have a comment about the mixed use and neighborhood commercial purple designation. I just want to note that I can't tell the difference on the plan. Conklin: I will make sure the colors stand out more. • Hoffman: Thanks. • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 40 Odom: This is designated currently as mixed use, is that correct? Conklin: Yes, that's correct. Odom: There is a real estate office that is commercial in nature in this residential area so mixed use seems to be appropriate. I wouldn't mind going out there on tour perhaps at our next agenda session and viewing it in a little bit more detail. I know on the Crouch proposal we had good aerial photos here and it was pretty clear. I would like to see the property before I pass judgement on that. Anybody else have any comment on that? Anybody else have any other questions? Commissioner Bunch. We got a handout tonight with regard to the tree preservation, that doesn't deal with the plan thought does it? Conklin: No. Odom: Before we get to that, let's ask if there is any other questions with regard to the plan. Bunch: Okay. Odom: I've got a couple. One of them is that we use a lot of the 1996 numbers, it looks like, throughout this document because that is the time that the last census came through. Conklin: That's correct. Odom: I know that we are in the process of doing the census now and I'm wanting to know if you have any idea of when to expect to get the projected 2000 census numbers? Is that two years down the road? Conklin: Yes. Two years. The next five year update, we'll put those numbers in but it will be a couple of years before we get the 2000 census numbers. Odom. Then specifically with regard to the existing housing issue, I was looking at the existing residential conditions and the population per unit. In 1990 it was 2.49 and in 1996 it is 2.42 which is a small decrease but a decrease nonetheless and I'm wanting to know what does that decrease in vacancy mean? Is that significant or something we need to look at? What's the purpose of those numbers? • Conklin: Those numbers are showing our current population, total number of housing units that are currently within Fayetteville. The vacancy rate we have looked at in the past with • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 41 regard to... Odom. That's actually the number I wanted to talk about. It went from 10.3 to 9.4. Conklin: That's vacancy. Which means there is more demand for housing. Sometimes at Planning Commission you will hear that there is a need for additional residentially zoned land or more multi family zoned land, those numbers are in there, I did a comparison which is more helpful than just having the '90 numbers in there to look at how it's changed. Odom: How does that compare to a national average? Conklin: I would have to take a look at that. I'm not sure. I can find that out. Odom: I would be interested in knowing that. Not necessarily for the approval of this but just for a general idea. That's a percentage point down in just a six year period of time and I'm wondering if whether or not we are falling significantly behind on housing. One of the things we are always concerned about is affordable housing. If you have vacancy rates going down like that, affordable housing is going to be going out the window. That's why I was wanting to know about that. Conklin: Odom: Population per unit too is going down so there is fewer people per dwelling unit. That's a good thing actually, isn't it? You really want less than three people per unit, don't you? Conklin: Some neighborhoods do. We are going to require more housing to have a larger population, that's how I look at it too. Odom: Which also increases value and throws affordable housing out the window. Conklin: Yes. We need more housing for fewer people to impact our city. Odom. My third and final point and I'm trying to get through this quickly because I know everybody is ready to go. On page 67 on 6.3.E implementation of the Master Street Plan, incorporating bike lanes, parkways, landscape medians to preserve the character of the city and to enhance the utilization of alternative modes of transportation. I think we just need to throw this out the window. The City of Fayetteville General Plan of 1970 and the General Plan of the year 2010 identified many of the same streets needing Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 42 improvement in order for the City to manage it's growth and related traffic. We haven't done anything on these items particularly with regard to bike lanes in decades. I think it's sort of ridiculous to continue to have this in here. Conklin: I'm trying to respond to your comment here. Odom: That's only commentary. I think we ought to be more responsive and do more about it. I know what you are trying to do, you are pointing out here that we need to find mechanisms to implement these policies that have been on the books for years and that's the point of it and I think it's a good point. However, if we are not ever going to bother to do it, let's get rid of it. Conklin: I think we are doing it. As I stated earlier, we are going to have in our Master Trails Plan, they are working on that, our Master Street Plan when we amended those street cross sections and provided a ten foot green space, those are actually called out as multi -use trail/sidewalk so every new development that comes in, we are getting those six foot sidewalks which is providing pathways, pedestrian access, bicycle access for the City. I know the Trails Committee, they have been meeting weekly for a two months now working on developing a Master Trails Plan that will be going forward to the City Council. Odom. We've also hired a Trails Coordinator in the past. Conklin: The Trails Coordinator has made a tremendous difference in the quality of the sidewalks and trails that we get in this community especially with ADA accessibility. If you look at a new development, these are things maybe some people don't realize, but next time you drive over a sidewalk in a new development you will notice the sidewalk is continuous through the driveway which means when you are walking on it, you are not dipping back down and it's a level surface. The City has made great strides to make sure that our sidewalks are being built correctly. The City is in the process of designing and will be building four trails next year through our ice tea money grant that we got. We are making progress. Next year we should have trails on the ground. Tonight you approved The Mill District project where the Parks Board agreed to allow them to dedicate land for their eleven apartments within that project. They are going to dedicate that land and build a fifteen foot trail. City Council, last Tuesday night, approved a contract for $70,000 to acquire the abandoned railroad right-of-way from Prairie Street up to Mountain Street. I think we are moving in the right direction. I think we are going to get some trails. The Mill District going in we should get that trail pretty soon. • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 43 Odom: I agree Tim. I think hiring Chuck Rutherford was one of the best things that we have done with regard to this whole Master Plan. I just support those trails and bikeways and I wish that we were doing more than we are because I think we need to put more resources behind that department to move these plans forward. I think a lot of work has been done, now we need to put our money where our mouth is. That's why I'm putting those comments in. We have had this stuff on the books since 1970. We dust really need to support that program and I think we are headed in the right direction. We need to keep going that way. I just want to put the fire underneath the feet of those City Alderman out there. Any other questions or comments. If not we are adjourned. Commissioner Bunch did point out the review of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, this was passed out by Kim Hesse the Landscape Administrator and contains the Tree Preservation Ordinance Review Subcommittee's comments or actually they are asking for our comments with regard to this document that they have passed out. I think we owe it to this committee to give a real careful review of this document and forward to them any comments that we have. Staff are we going to have any kind of presentation or do we just need to turn the comments into you? • Conklin: You can turn them into me and I'll get those to Kim. Once again you are invited to attend their meetings. They hold them every week. They are looking at revising the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance and any comments that you would like to make on the ordinance, give them to me. They encourage the Commissioners and invite them to attend their meetings. They are looking forward to any input that you can give them. • Odom: That committee has put in a lot of work and time and deserved our attention to really look into that and give them any comments we have and I appreciate their efforts and hope that we all do that. Anything further? Commissioner Bunch, do you have something else? Bunch: We recently increased their workload considerably, I think it would behoove us to participate in the process. Odom: We be behooved. Yes, Commissioner Hoffman. Hoffman: I have not yet been involved but do plan on attending future meetings of this. Does this draft document represent a general consensus on the part of this committee? That's my question for staff. Conklin: I'm not sure about that. • • • Planning Commission October 9, 2000 Page 44 Hoffman: I don't want to put you on the spot. Conklin: I really can't answer that question. Hoffman: A lot of work has been done. Conklin: I attended, they invited me to one of the meetings, I did give my comments to them with regard to the ordinance and what changes I thought should be made to clarify it. The only meeting I have been to, they did not vote on those changes so I can not tell you if it's the consensus. Hoffman: Thank you very much. I'll look forward to attending. Odom: Anything else? We are adjourned again. 10-09-00 Planning Comm. Minutes of the 9-25-00 meeting LSD 00-29.00 The Mill District, LLC, pp 523 LSD 00-27.00 Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364 \ MOTION 1 x)ard ROCCOrain SECOND “\\ Q fl D. Bunch Y\/ B. Estes 7 L. Hoffman 1 y S. Hoover )[ Y N. Allen i 7 D. Marr a� "�` a ('� modoRaiXJ1 �-- ,� W�� C. Odom / Shackelford l \ - - W - cL / kr A . L. Ward ACTIONi (lc -n ` lJ d A �sri� �r6 (�l�ld VOTE 1 0- 0 - 0- • • • 10-09-00 Planning Comm. RZ 00-23.00 pp 291 CU 00-25.00 Wilkin, pp 370 AD 00-29.00 General Plan 2020 Update Hays, MOTION I r 1 6 1 SECOND D. Bunch Y B. Estes L. Hoffman V S. Hoover i N. Allen y D. Marr l JIJ�oc�1 :� C. Odom Shackelford QA+ 0 41 4 i-- 0 i4 al ; L. Ward ACTIONCfl Ld VOTE - `'-n wAhkuP nD cca(*(5-yckM-ti- • • • % ccs G p 010 b� r ---6-GLe l5 L c,1 Ciut it CLehAn- -0-0i sr‘ l'6t\k -key MOTION ward Rafe SECOND %kCIXn �o D. Bunch B. Estes / L. Hoffman y %f S. Hoover �/vY N. Allen V D. Marr ait A C. Odom r Shackelford � I,� CLQA9Air p ,t-- — L. Ward ACTION o i cCl ucct pcn VOTE r-1- C'` Q (' '� to