Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 22, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VA 01-1.00:—Vacation-(Winkler, pp 678) Forwarded to City Council Page 3 CU 00-33.00:-C6nditional Use— (City -_ (City of Fayetteville (Wilson Park), pp 445) Approved Page 8 AD 00-48.00: Administrative Item (Cooper, pp 602) Approved Page 17 LSD 00-26.00:Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Town Homes, pp 403 & 404) Approved Page 19 AD 00-45.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Sidewalk & Trails Committee) Forwarded to City Council Page 25 AD 00-47.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan - Eastern Bypass) Forwarded to City Council Page 34 AD 00-49.00: Administrative Item (Amend UDO regarding dedication of right-of-way)Forwarded to City Council Page 52 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Bob Estes Loren Shackelford Don Marr STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Sheri Metheney MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the January 8, 2001 meeting. Odom: Good -evening -ladies -and -gentlemen -and -welcome to -the -January -22,-2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Before we begin tonight's meeting we have some preliminary -items to take care -of such as the approval of the -minutes of the prior meeting. That was the January 8, 2001, meeting. Someone has made me aware of one correction or at least a statemeht that needs to be made about that: Commissioner go ahead. Bunch: On page 20 of the minutes of the meeting of January 8th, it says a unanimous vote of 6- 1-0 with Commissioner Hoover voting "no", I recommend the word unanimous be stricken from the record. ,Odom: Do we have any other comments on that, any disagreements with regard to that amendment? Any other corrections with regard to the January 8th meeting minutes? Seeing none, the minutes will stand as corrected with the word unanimous being -stricken where -indicated -by -Commissioner Bunch. Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 3 VA 01-1.00: Vacation (Winkler, pp 678) was submitted by Steve Winkler for property located east of 607 Peach. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.08 acres. The request is to vacate the street right of way (Haddon Ave.). Odom: The first item we have on tonight's agenda is the Consent Agenda. Just to make matters real confusing, the only item on the Consent Agenda is labeled item number two and that is a vacation submitted by Steve Winkler for property located east of 607 Peach. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.08 acres. The request is to vacate the street right of way (Haddon Ave.). This item will be approved by consent unless there is a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission who wishes to pull that item for discussion. Does anyone wish to pull that item for discussion? Please come forward. Is this the applicant? Freeman: Good evening. My name is Marvin Freeman. I live at 2856 South School and I have property adjoining Peach Street and Haddon Avenue. Odom: --Mr- Freeman, do you wish to discuss this item as opposed to voting on it on consent? Freeman: Yes. Odom. Okay. What I'm going to do is I'm going to pull the item from the consent agenda so that we can discuss it. Can you have a seat and then I will allow you to come back up • • -and discuss it? Thank you very much. What we are -going to do now since there are no other items on the consent agenda, we are going to discuss this item first since it was on the consent. I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Is the applicant here tonight? Please come forward at this time. If you could please, for the record, tell us your name? Winkler: Steve Winkler. Odom. Mr. Winkler you are asking for a vacation for the street right-of-way, is that correct? Winkler: Correct. Odom: Do you have any presentation that you would like to make on that issue? Winkler: Well, no. I've submitted all the stuff and got approval. What it is, basically is an old right-of-way that's been on the map since the 1920's for Haddon Street that doesn't go Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 4 Odom: all the way through. I bought recently and remodeled a little house that adjoins that property_I_don_t_planto_build onthe right-of-way by extending my property 20 feet over the setback will allow me to build a carport against that little house there. I have no plans -to -build -on -there -or -do -anything with-it..-It''_s-sitting_there.. I- can.control_the erosion better if I can get up there 20 feet over too. That's all there is to it. Mr. Winkler, staff does recommend approval of this Vacation but they do have some Conditions of Approval. Have you read those and are you in agreement with those Conditions of Approval? Winkler: I believe they were just that I didn't build on the right-of-way. Odom. The first one is there is a 30 foot utility easement shall be retained for future extensions of water and sewer. Winkler: Yes, no problem. Odom: The -second -one is that a correct legal for the portion to be vacated shall be provided prior to this item being forwarded to the City Council. Winkler: I believe you have that. Odom. Staff, are there any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No there aren't. Odom: What I'll do now is I'll ask the member of the audience that wishes to address this issue to come forward at this time. Mr. Freeman? PUBLIC COMMENT: Freeman: The only problem I have, I don't have any problem with the neighbors or nothing. What I'm concerned about is that the right-of-way of Haddon for years has been a problem. The problem is that all the drainage off the Country Club Estates comes down to my property and washes all my driveways out. The drainage is terrible. Mr. Winkler knows it, I've discussed it with him before. The only leverage I have is that I've been to the City Engineers two or three times and I don't get a response out of them. All they need to do it cut a drainage ditch down the middle of that street or to the side to relinquish the drainage problem. I have spent about $17,000 on my property • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 5 maintaining the flood that has flooded my houses to rebuild the inside of my house, both _of them._I have_two properties there, one of them is_2848. South School and one of them is 2856. They are adjoined properties. They adjoin Peach Street. That's the only problem I have I have no guaranty of anything that the drainage problem will be solved. -I -have no opposition of my neighbor or anything, I would just like to see the —drainage problem solved, if you approve•the resolution. That's what my concern is about. That's just what I would like you to know about, there is a major drainage problem:-Ircomes like a river down through there. I have had water on the back of my house as high as two feet high. I've replaced sheet rock and it's a major problem. That's why the relinquish of this Haddon Avenue, if years ago it had been built into a street or an avenue and finished, it's just between Lester and Peach that's not finished. That's my problem and that's what I wanted to bring to your attention. I appreciate you for hearing me out. Odom: Thank you Mr. Freeman. I understand you don't really have an objection to the applicant, you just have a problem with the runoff. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments. Staff, do you have any comments on the drainage problem there? This won't really solve that problem will it? Petrie: This will not address this problem at all. The only advice I can give you if you want a ditch, since you have had no luck with the City Engineer's office, I don't know how recent that was, either try the City Engineer's office or contact Randy Allen down at the Street Division. He would be the one to go out and actually build the ditch. That's really the only advice I have for that. Odom: If we vacate this alley they won't have the authority to do that or will they since they are maintaining the 30 foot easement? Petrie: No they would not have the authority if they did not maintain a drainage easement. You may want to add where it says 30 foot utility easement we can easily change that to utility and drainage easement. That would give us the authority to do some work. Estes: Mr. Chairman? • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 6 Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: I have a question for Mr. Winkler. Steve, in some of the materials you have presented to us you -gave -us -one -of -the -reasons for -wanting a -vacation -to -allow us to take measurements to control the storm water that flows from the east and is causing extensive erosion damage to our property. What do you have in mind with that regard? Winkler: Mr. Freeman, I've talked to him, he lives down -the hill: I bought -this property about a year ago and there is extensive water coming off that hill. I've had to repair all that. My plan is simply, all due respect to the City, is getting the Engineers involved. That might be complicated. My plan would be go out there with a backhoe and run a little ditch and berm, just a shallow thing to reroute that water coming off the hill down over to Peach Street. I can only go back 95 feet, that's the length of that property. The way it is now, I've already gone in there and put french drains in, I've routed the water around the house that I bought. In fact you go up 20 or 30 feet more and just do a little ditch and berm, not a major kind of thing to alleviate that at least 95 feet back. There is water, it's a massive amount of water comes off the side of that hill. The City, like Mr. Freeman said, -they are not so interested in -that sort of thing. Getting them to do a big project. That was my plan, to go up there and at my property line and then it will be extended 20 feet to the east and at that point I can put a little berm there and build a fence and that sort of thing and kind of control that wash off the side of the hill. Estes: Mr. Petrie? I am troubled by a private citizen having to do the City's work. If we allow the vacation then the City cannot go onto the property and do the improvements required to divert the drainage off of Peach Street, is that correct? Petrie: That's correct unless you add the utility and drainage easement onto the conditions of approval but yes that's correct. Estes: So to satisfy Mr. Freeman's issues and to prevent Mr. Winkler from having to spend private money for a public good, we would need to add as a Condition of Approval a 30 foot utility and drainage easement, is that correct? Petrie: Yes sir. Estes: Then the City can go in and do the work that needs to be done? Petrie: That's correct. • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 7 Estes: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Odom. Any other questions, comments, motions? MOTION: - Estes: Mr. Chairman? MM Odom: Commissioner Estes. Estes: I move that we approve Vacation 01-01.00 subject to the following Conditions of Approval, a 30 foot utility and drainage easement shall be retained for future extension of water, sewer and drainage. Allen: I second. Odom: What about item number two? Estes: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding from the applicant that Condition of Approval item number two, a correct legal for the portion to be vacated has been provided. Odom: Is that correct staff? Conklin: Yes it has, we have not checked that legal but it has been provided. Estes: Let me add the additional Condition of Approval, a correct legal for the portion to be vacated shall be provided prior to this item being forwarded to City Council. Allen: I second. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, VA 01-01.00 is forwarded by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 8 Old Business: CU 00-33.00: Conditional Use (City of Fayetteville (Wilson Park), pp 445) was submitted by Lisa Paschal-on-behalfofthe-City-of-Fayetteville-forproperty-located-at-Wilson-Avenue and Louise Street. The pi•operty_is-zoned R-1; Low Density Residential and contains approximately 16.87 acres. The request is-Rbuild a PlanvNursery/Greenhouse (use unit -2) in a R=1-distnct.--_ Odom. The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is item number four which is old business. We still have one and three if you are out there with one and three, don't get worried, we just have four put in front because it was old business. That is Conditional Use 00-33.00 submitted by the City of Fayetteville for property located at Wilson Avenue and Louise Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 16.87 acres. The request is to allow a Plant Nursery/Greenhouse which is a use unit 2 in an R-1 district. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions: number one, any equipment installed for climate control of the greenhouse shall comply with the City's noise ordinance for the R-1 zoning district; item number two, screening shall be -determined by -the Planning Commission and a revised -site plan showing required screening shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to building permit; item number three, only temporary cold frames not exceeding 3' in height may be attached to the greenhouse. Any other additions to this structure shall be reviewed by Planning Commission as a new conditional use application; item number four, water shall be turned off immediately -and -the facility shall not operate if any of the conditions are not --met; item number five, this conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. Staff, do we have any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: There are no further Conditions of Approval. We do have Lisa Paschal here tonight from our Parks and Recreation Department. Also, we've handed out the site plan showing the screening and landscaping they have proposed Lisa will go over that information at this time. Paschal: Hi. I don't know if you have had a chance to take a look at these plans, I know you just received them in your packets today so, if you want to ask me any questions I can start that way or I can start by reviewing the real specific areas Odom: • Why don't we do this while we are perusing that, why don't we take public comment first and then we will do questions and so forth. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this request? Please come forward at this time. • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENT: Frankenberger: I'm Steve Frankenberger, chairman of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. We've looked at the brochures, we've looked at the plans, I have polled my membership and we are good to go on this. We think it's a good deal. That's all we've got. Odom. Thank you Mr. Frankenberger. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION -- Odom: I'll close the floor then to public discussion and bring it back to the Lisa for questions - - and comments. Ward: I would like to get some detail of what she is going to do as far as landscaping and what you got here. Paschal: To myunderstanding screening is one of the biggest concerns about this greenhouse and that we make that area look as nice as possible. When you are looking at this plan in front of you, to your left is north. Primarily, that's one of the main viewing areas to the north and to the south. To the north end of it, along a fence line that already exists, there is a six foot privacy fence that already exists, I planted a row of evergreen shrubs. Some are broadleaf and some or needle evergreen to get a variety to make it look a little nicer. They grow ten to twelve feet tall. A little further out from that you will see . the curved line toward the end of the drawing, that indicates the driveway that goes down into that parking lot. I'll plant some small flowering trees there, small being like redbuds or deciduous hollies which get really pretty berries on them in the winter time. The reason I went for the smaller trees on that and it's because it's a rather small area, also we want to kind of leave it open for security purposes so that it can be seen when people are in that area. There is a power line that runs through there and I didn't want to put large trees under a power line. So, between the small flowering trees and some other shrubs along that corner which are where it says burning bush on your plan, those will help screen it very nicely and we will be able to screen the fence and above the fence from that and on the south end, I've shown that we plant a few more shrubs going around the privacy fence that exists and some deciduous trees, that's a very small area in there so it's hard for me to plant a lot of big things. I will be planting some Larger deciduous trees in that area and then those shrubs that show around the fence. On the top of your plan which is the east side, there is a ball field just past where it says • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 10 "drain", that's where the softball field is out there. There again, is not a whole lot of room. I didn't want to put a lot of large deciduous trees because that's my best sun that will come from that angle. I did show two in there and also the same type of shrubs continuing on_that_side._It's not going to_completely_hide_it.and cover it up but it will certainly screen it and detract from the greenhouse which actually is a handsome — - structure. — Odom: Any questions or comments? Hoffman: My personal opinion on this is while I very much appreciate and can't tell you how beautiful I think your efforts are and have been with the park that the sustainability of this structure has not been considered and therefore, I'm going to vote against this greenhouse. For the reason, it's a kit structure. Since I've been on this Commission we've held people, in the private sector, to much higher standards and not permitted the use of comparable metal type buildings, for instance that are really reasonably priced, yet probably have a lifetime of about 20 years or something like that. I don't personally want to make your job harder, I just think the City could have done a better job -of -looking at the aesthetics of the building itself. I think you have done a great deal with the screening, if this should pass, I'm sure that will help to mitigate my concerns about the views that other people besides the Wilson Park neighbors will see. In driving around Wilson Park, you approach it from uphill and youcan certainly see down onto the greenhouse from many points. While I don't want to detract from your work at all, I did want to make a point that' feel we have a dual standard here so I'll be voting against this one. Thank you. - - - - Estes: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Estes. MOTION: Estes: When this was first presented to agenda, I had some concerns. Some of my concerns were the same as have been voice by my fellow Commissioner. I was particularly concerned with siting a kit building in Wilson Park. After some study and much consideration, I talked to Mr. Frankenberger twice over the telephone, we have a letter in our packet, he represents the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association, they are unanimous, I believe, in their approval of this project. When I use the word unanimous I mean that, I don't think there is one person that is a member of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association that objects to this. As far as siting the kit structure in the Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 11 park, after some study I learned that this is the most central location for you to do your work and that most of the plants that you will cultivate in this greenhouse will be transplanted in Wilson Park and that logistics would require that the greenhouse be there in the park. -We've also heard from our_Parks Boardand they too have no objection to the kit structure being sited. It is for those reasons, Mr. Chairman... Are we through, have we taken public comment and we are ready for motions? Odom: Yes. Estes: I would move that we approve Conditional Use 00-33.00 subject to all staff - recommendations. • Ward: • I'll second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and second by Commissioner Ward to approve Conditional Use 00-33.00, any further comments? Hoover: Odom. Hoover: Mr. Chair? Commissioner Hoover. I have a question for the applicant. I wasn't clear, I must have missed a meeting, were .there otheroptions lookedat for this greenhouse rather_than a kit that was something =that was more specialized that actually attached to the building, was part of the building? Paschal: I did not look at anything that was attached to the building. That is a very old structure down there and I didn't see that as an option during the time that I was researching it. When I first started looking at this, I looked at going way low end and not spending a lot of my budget money that I had allotted to me for this. I realized I wanted to get something as nice and neat as possible that looked good without going entirely off the deep end and getting like a glass greenhouse with a wood frame or something like that. I was trying to be as efficient as possible with my money and still have something that looked good and I thought was going to be a very efficient greenhouse for my needs. It sort of wound up to where I came up with an Agritech structure and I talked with a lot of people, municipalities, governments, states and a lot of those kind of operations are putting in this kind of structure. It is widely used and accepted and it fit really well into the budget that I was allowed, so that was why I did that. The area is actually 1100 square feet and is actually rather small compared to what a lot of cities are doing and a • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 12 lot of states are doing. I chose that size because it does fit nicely into the site that we - - have chosen. - - -- — Hoover: I have -issues -also-about-it—I-agree with -Commissioner -Hoffman. -I notice especially riding around the park that you can see the roof and you can see -the whole site especially in the winter time from all directions. That I have a concern about. Thank you. Allen: Mr. Chair? Odom: Commissioner Allen. Allen: When I went to see the site, I wondered how many hours of sun you could get from that side? It seemed kind of in a gully. I could see how you could even have more than a couple of hours of day of good sunshine. - Paschal: It actually does get quite a lot of sun there. We are orienting it north and south which is -the way you should orient a greenhouse so that it gets the full east sun and full west sun. Once the sun comes up over that eastern ridge that's past the castle, it's about, this time of the year, it's around eight or nine o'clock when that starts being in full sun and it stays in this particular location, the west side of this greenhouse will start being shaded probably around four o'clock in the afternoon this time of year when the days or short. As the days are getting -longer, it's going to be a little bit later. This building has given -us some, in the summer time, some relief from the sun in the early afternoon, about four - thirty when I'm getting ready to go home, then that side starts to be shaded. Where this greenhouse is located, it won't be affected by that. Also, in the summer time, I'm not going to be using it in the real hot part of the summer, the use will be a lot lower. Basically, that is a real full sun area. It will get a lot of sun. Allen. I would like to say too that I share the same concerns as Commissioner Hoffman. I feel it's important that our standards be applied equitably and I'll vote against the building of the greenhouse. I know it's a convenient site for you but I wish that it could be maybe transported in from another area, I know that's a hassle but I think of that as our mother park and I would just hate to see it there. That's my reasoning. Hoffnian: Mr. Chair? Odom: Go ahead Commissioner. What kind of warranty comes with the building? • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 13 Paschal: I believe it's a ten year warranty on the glazing. We chose that type of glazing primarily _ _for it's_toughness_because_there is -a softball field there and balls come over there and also, it doesn't yellow. It's guaranteed not to turn yellow. There is another product that I couldhave used, it -would -have been -more -expensive, -but -it -yellows sooner so the guarantee wasn't as god on it. -- - - Hoffman: The guarantee is only for ten years then after that point they are no longer going to warranty the glass. Paschal: It's ten or twenty years I would have to go back through the papers and see. That's pretty long term. Hoffman: I do feel that you have done very thorough research•.and I appreciate and I really don't want to convey in anyway any kind of displeasure with the operation of the park. I do not want to confuse the greatness of the work you have done with this park with this particular issue. I would put forth to the Commission that in the terms of sustain -ability which is a big deal for cities these days, we've got to get buildings that will be usable over a period of many, many years. If we have to replace all or part of this building within ten years, we've done ourselves a disservice and we haven't put in a building that's designed, that's a nice old WPA building, certainly it is in some state of disrepair but at some point maybe the Parks Department can budget some money to fix it up and attach a nicer greenhouse appendage to it that included some rock columns or _somethingiike_that._Again,_this_is a.standard that we've applied to the private sector -attempting-to get away from the use of metal -buildings -and -such; 1 view this as a very similar situation to that. Paschal: I see. I will say, to the best of my knowledge and from what I've Teamed in researching this, the structure, as greenhouses go, that I've chosen, is a more long term one than the plastic stuff you buy in sheets. Greenhouses, parts of them, do have to be replaced. If I was to put a glass structure in there, eventually some of the glass would have to be replaced on it. If I was to use a wood frame in there, eventually some of that would have to be replaced because of the nature of the moisture that's in that building. I'm not sure how to get a long term greenhouse. Parts of it will always have to be replaced, that's the nature of a greenhouse. Gulley: I'm Terry Gulley, Turf and Facility Coordinator for Parks. I met with you down there that day and tried to settle some of those fears you have What we have done, we've looked at it and the idea that we had a limited amount of budget that we could spend. We went with the best structure we can with that budget. In fact, we ended up • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 14 spending about 50% more than we had originally budgeted because we decided for the first amount, it was not going to be equal to what was acceptable to us on what we wanted it to look like. As far as the longevity of the greenhouse itself, we are looking at solving our needs-right-now.—We thinkwe-can-save-some-of-Lisa'-s_budget-money and be able to put more into the park and do more with it and provide more beautification. The -other thing -we -are -looking -at -down -the -road, this is -a -greenhouse, that -yes the glazing is going to be replaced, no matter what we do to it, in a few years. It will eventually get brittle, it will have some breakage in it, we'll need to do it just for economic value of keeping it a viable greenhouse. Also, we've talked to Susan Farrell who does the Square gardens and other people that might have greenhouse needs in the future, in the town. There is potential down the road that we may Jointly do a different greenhouse. She currently has one in town, this will be another one. This will serve our needs the best of anything we can do for right now. It is a greenhouse the way we are setting it in there, down the road, when and if we need more space or we decide to add more onto it, we are not going to do it there. We can take this one down, if we have to, and move it. We are going to put it in on a condition like that to where, down the road if we need to, we can move it and put that part of the park back in the same pristine area it is right now. -Right now, it is -currently and it has been used that way for 20 years or more, that was the maintenance.area for the Parks Department. It was only two years ago that we moved out of that. We've looked at all those issues. If and when, down the road, we do need to move it, we can move the greenhouse. It will be able to withstand the move, we'll be able to put it back up and as we need more greenhouse space, -I -anticipate that's -possibly towhat might happen. Currently in our - Master Plan that -is -ongoing right now, one of the big things we heard from them was that this is the way most cities are doing it, larger cities especially. They are building greenhouses throughout their park system and putting them in the parks to remove the damage that you get from transporting these plants from point A to point B. It's the most efficient use of the tools we have in our hands. We looked at all these issues. I would love to have a glass greenhouse with wood frame down there. We can't do it with a ballpark there. We are not at a point where we can move the ballpark, maybe at some point in the future if we get a multi sports complex or something, that park might not have to be there. Then we might upgrade it at some point or we may move it completely. We've even discussed joint efforts and maybe tying it in with the Senior Citizens complex at Walker later where we've got a lot more room and doing other ideas. We've batted around all these ideas. We're putting in what we are going to put in. It is removable, if we need to down the road. It's a really good greenhouse. It's commercial grade. It's about the best commercial greenhouse you can get. For that size we are spending a lot of money on it and we've really went in to make sure that we had the best bang for our buck not only for us but for all the citizens in town. Planning Commission • January 22, 2001 Page 15 Hoffman: Thank you. I can see your points and agree with most of them. Although, I think the _greenhouse areas_in_other parks,_that I_can think of, are usually and unfortunately Wilson Park doesn't lend itself to this, they are usually located in service areas that are -in a -comer, down -a-back_road_where you _see_thesignmaintenance_workers only" and that kind of thing and here, we have a much smaller park with less land area to use and this just happens to be right in middle of it. Thereinlies our dilemma. Thank you very much for addressing those points and I do see the validity of most of them. Gulley: We are thinking about all those things, it's just we are limited on where we've got and the uses we've got for the land we have. Everything she does in town she is doing with her and one other person as far as plant material. She does a bang up job for the amount of employees she has Hoffman: I.couldn't agree more. Thank you. Marr: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Marr. Marr: Just a couple of questions. One the site plan for the greenhouse are there any plans for composting areas or anything of that nature that goes with a greenhouse that is going to be in viewing or not screened that we need to talk about? Pascal:—As much as -I -would like -to; I know that's not reality. If you'll look in the left hand comer of that fenced -in area, we already have built some bins and I store wood shavings and mulch and I buy in mushroom compost from Miami, Oklahoma. I store the majority of it down at the recycling facility and then they bring over dump truck loads for me, like a flat bed dump truck and they'll dump that so I can use wheelbarrows full at a time. That's all that I'll have there. Actually, when we cleaned up that maintenance area back there this winter, the whole thing looks a lot better. When that facility moved, they were so busy moving that things were left behind. We got in there and really cleaned it up really well. We had some timbers, we've built a throw -out bed that's on the left hand side of your document. With some of the timbers that we had available to us, we went ahead and built those bins. It's much better contained, it doesn't have an odor to it. It looks like a nice facility for the nature of that facility. Marr: I'm actually in support of this. I think that while it may not be the Central Park • Observatory Greenhouse everyone would like to have it certainly serves a very Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 16 valuable purpose and economically it will benefit the City. I also believe that the money that we could sav_e_through being.able to grow our own plants and things of that nature over ten years or twenty years may afford us to build something much nicer at the time that_we have_taconsider_that._Lalso believe-in.looking_at_this.some_the..key.findings, at =least for me, on this Commission that are important that it will not adversely affect the public interest.—I-think we heard from an association tonight, the Wilson Park group that they are in unanimous support of that. I also believe that the screening is appropriate based on what was presented which is another item I support. Is it compatible, I think it's compatible to have the facility within the park to help with maintenance. Also, the opportunity to expand that and actually bring people more in that part of the park and with tours of how we actually operate a City Park. I think while it may not be the most attractive, it has education value and is economical for the City. I will move... Odom. We already have a motion and second on the table. Thank you for your enthusiasm though. Any other discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, CU 00-33.00 is approved by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Hoffman, Hoover and Allen voting against the motion. • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 17 New Business: AD 00-48.00: Administrative Item (Cooper, pp 602) Request for escrow funds to be returned to applicant. - Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is under new business as item number one, AD 00-48.00. This is a request for escrow funds o $3,800 to be refunded to the applicant. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the administrative request to refund $3,800, plus interest, to the applicant. Staff, do you want to go over the background just briefly? Conklin: Back in 1994 a lot split was approved, at which time $3,800 was required for improvements to Morningside Drive. It's been five years since that lot split and the applicant has contacted the City of Fayetteville Planning Division and did request that the money be returned. Under our Ordinance in Section 158.05, there are options available for the Planning Commission to refund money. One of those options, option number two, if you look at page 1.2 in your agenda it states "If the off-site improvement is not constructed within five years from the date of the first payment into the escrow account by a developer, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, after notification to all affected property owners, to determine the disposition of all money in the escrow account." Staff is recommending that the money be returned to the applicant. The actual total as of December, with interest, is $4,999.33. Our Staff Engineer has recommended approval of that. Improvements are not imminent in this area and therefore staff is recommending approval - Odom: Is the applicant here tonight? Would you like to please come forward at this time? Cooper: I'm Laverne Cooper and I live in Fayetteville. Odom: Do you have any presentation that you would like to make? Cooper: I think Tim has covered it. We were told at the time that we put the money in escrow that if it was not used it would be returned in five years to us, with interest. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this portion of the administrative item. Any here to talk about that item? Planning Commission • January 22, 2001 Page 18 • • COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing no one, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commissionlocquestions, comments ormotions MOTION: Ward: - --I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve AD 00-48.00 and refund the escrow funds. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve Administrative Item 00-48.00. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, AD 00-48.00 is, approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 19 LSD 00-26.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Town Homes, pp 403 & 404) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Dale Shultz of Lewis Street Town Homes for property located at the northwest corner of Lewis Avenue and Reap Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains 3.93 acres with 24 units proposed Odom. The -next -item -we -have -on -tonight's agenda is -item number three a Large Scale -- Development, Lewis Street Town Homes submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Dale Shultz for property located at the northwest corner of Lewis Avenue and Reap Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains 3.93 acres with 24 units proposed. Staff is recommending approval subject to eight Conditions of Approval Staff, do we have a signed Condition of Approval? Conklin: No we do not. Odom. Do you have any further conditions of approval besides the eight? Conklin:—There-are-no-further Conditions -of -Approval. - — — — Odom: I'll bring it forward to the applicant for your presentation. Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill, representing Dale Schultz. We are requesting approval of a 24 unit apartment -complex on Lewis Street. With regards to the items requested, we —do request -that you consider a waiver of street improvements along Lewis Street. Currently about 90% of that street, if not more, is fully developed. The street currently has no curb and gutter along the entire length of it, ditches on both sides and there has been recent development in the area where no improvements were required on Lewis Street. I was just asking that you consider that. Odom: Any other problem with any of the other Conditions of Approval? Rudasill: No. Odom: Any other presentation that you would like to make? Rudasill: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Planning Commission • January 22, 2001 Page 20 • • Odom: Let me ask, if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this large scale development? COMMISSION_DISCUSSI ON Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments or motions. Hoffman: Mr. Chair? Odom: Go ahead Commissioner. Hoffman: On the street improvements, the Subdivision Committee, as I recall,:could have passed _this item administratively without it coming to the full Commission. Since the waiver has been requested, I think Mr. Petrie was going to look at give us some direction on that in lieu of costs, cost sharing. Would you address that please, Ron? Petrie: Since the Subdivision Committee we have received some estimated costs of these improvements, we've also done some traffic counts and got some projected traffic. I've compiled all that information, it is included in the report, pages 3.5 to 3.9. Based on that, Engineering has made a recommendation that they widen Lewis Street three and a half feet adjacent to the development which would meet the local street standards. However, we have changed the original recommendation and that is to leave the open ditch as is. As I stated in the staff report, we prefer the open ditch be eliminated, installing a storm pipe but the rational nexus calculations did not Justify this recommendation. I have also included a memo on page 3.4 which explains how I did the rational nexus calculations. I would be glad to answer any questions. Hoffman: Did you actually recommend that we escrow any money for this one or just decide that we weren't going to be widening Lewis at any time in the foreseeable future? Petrie: That's correct. It's not on the CIP plan and I know of no plans to do that. I don't foresee that happening within the next five years. MOTION: Hoffman: Thank you very much. With the stipulation that the sidewalk be installed because it is adjacent to the elementary school, I'll go ahead and move for approval of LSD 00- 26 00 subject to all staff comments with the waiver for the open ditch. Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 21 Ward: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Ward to approve -LSD -00-26.00 with all -staff comments.--Do-we-have-any-further- discussion? —Marr: —I -guess, -just -a -question -I -have -for the City since we still have -an open ditch remaining, I guess my concern is, is there a safety issue between having a sidewalk and an open ditch with children walking down this that we could have some type of safety issue and apparently not since we are continuing this but I would just like to hear what the process included. Petrie: Estes: Odom: It's definitely an issue that we will look at in more detail when we get the final construction plans. More or less, we will probably see some improvements to that ditch such as not making it as steep. I don't really know exactly how close it will be tot he sidewalk until I get those plans. We may set that sidewalk back and we may require them to make the ditch slopes 3:1 if they can't meet and they are close, we may have to have some kind of a hand rail So, we will be looking at that in more detail. I am disturbed by a large scale development without curb and guttering to meet local street standards. I understand 100% that the rational nexus calculations do not justify this recommendation and that's the reason we are presented with what I consider to be a dilemma. I am going to vote for the motion but I would certainly encourage staff to .take a-good-look.at.this_when.it comes through and iLwe need to do something such as a widening -of that ditch out, let's be very much aware of safety issues, let's be very much aware of the close proximity of the school and who's going to be using that sidewalk and take a hard look at it when it comes back through. It's tough for me to vote for because we are voting for a large scale development and we are not going to have any curb and guttering and we are not going to be meeting local street standards but I understand the reasons why and I'll vote for the motion. Let me have a point of clarification with regard to the motion. The recommendation of the staff is that Lewis Street be widened 3.5 feet adjacent to this development with curb and gutter to meet local street standards which is 14 feet from the centerline with the open ditch remaining. You don't have any problem with the curb and gutter? The problem is with the open ditch? You didn't want to fill the ditch? Rudasill: Well, originally we didn't want anything but if that's your decision that you are going to require curb and gutter, we'll go ahead and build it. Originally, I had actually submitted the curb and gutter with an open ditch behind it. Staff comments requested that a • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 22 design be prepared for consideration of a full enclosed storm sewer. What my stance is, we.arelooking at putting road improvements in there and putting in storm sewer that the entire road is not being improved up to this point and there is none in the foreseeable -future. There has been recent development in the area and it was just that I feel my client shouldn't have to burden that expense if no one else has. Like I said -there has been a current development that -has occurred in the last -five years or so that there was no curb and gutter required. My client is under the stance that if you require to build it, we'll build it. That's where we are coming from. Odom: Let me ask the mover, is that what your intent was? Hoffman: My intent was to follow the staff recommendation with regard to the curb and gutter, • open ditch and sidewalk arrangement. Did I state that clearly enough? Odom. You did now. Hoffman: I would like to just bring up one other point that was discussed at some length about —this -development concerning the tree -easement -and -just -make everybody aware that although there have been no current changes.or-changes adopted to the tree preservation ordinance, from here on, the staff and Subdivision Committee will be dedicating actual easements on the plat showing the area of tree preservation to be maintained in perpetuity. This developer has accomplished that, I believe, on this plat. Conklin: That will be shown on the easement plat and that is a condition of approval to make sure that future owners and developers are aware that this tree preservation area will be preserved in perpetuity. Hoffman: Right. To sort of put everybody on notice, it's not a change, it doesn't substantially change anything to do with the tree numbers that we are looking at, we just more clearly define the area so nobody is confused later on. Thank you. Odom: Marr: Petrie: Marr: Commissioner Marr. I guess I'm still trying to get clarification on this motion because I've heard the curb and guttering is in this motion as written, it's the storm pipe that we are not doing? That's correct. The safety issue of sidewalks and location is what we would look at when it would Planning Commission • January 22, 2001 Page 23 Petrie: Allen: come back through as a large scale? Yes sir. When the construction plans come in for final review. I just wondered, Commissioner Hoffman would you restate the motion please? Hoffman: Do I have to? Allen: Well, it's just unclear to me. Hoffman: I'll go ahead and move approval of LSD 00-26.00 subject to all staff comments and specifically granting the waiver from meeting the complete requirements for street widening which would normally include a storm drain to be added in lieu of an open ditch. All we are doing is leaving the drainage system pretty much as is but we are adding a sidewalk because there is a separate sidewalk requirement. We are widening the street to the minimum street standards and providing curb and gutter on the street side of the ditch. • Allen: That was a longer motion than I thought. _ • Petrie: You are not really granting an actual waiver, you are just requiring them to widen the street three and a half feet. Hoffman: -Because this was a deviation or I'm not sure I understood quite correctly, we didn't want to approve it at Subdivision level without having the full Commission's input. That's why. Thank you. I don't remember if it got a second, did it? Odom. Yes. Commissioner Ward seconded the motion. I'm going to go ahead and speak against the motion. Staff states in the recommendation that it is preferred that the open ditch be eliminated by installing a storm pipe but the rational nexus calculations could not justify this recommendation and while the numbers themselves could not perform a rational nexus, I think that the safety, if you included that issue in with regard to the rational nexus, that it would require the compliance with certain City Standards that we have This is in a high traffic pedestrian area that has a lot of children and a lot of visitors that come into this area because of the soccer fields that are nearby and it is because of those issues that I will be voting against this project without the storm pipe in. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 24 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, LSD 00-26.00 is approved on a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Allen, Marr and Odom voting_against.the.motion • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 25 AD 00-45.00. Administrative Item (Fayetteville Sidewalk & Trails Committee) was submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of the Fayetteville Sidewalk & Trails Committee. The request is for Bike Parking Ordinance. Odom. The next item we have on tonighi s agenda is item number five which is an Administrative Item from the Fayetteville Sidewalk & Trails Committee submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of the Fayetteville Sidewalk & Trails Committee. The request is for a bike parking rack ordinance. The staff's recommendation is to forward the proposed ordinance to the ordinance review committee of the City Council for consideration and further action. I thought this had been to the Ordinance Review Committee? Conklin: It had been to the Ordinance Review Committee last year. It has not gone back to them. They would like to review it one more time. I decided to bring this forward to the Commission and move it along to Ordinance Review Committee. Odom: I would ask Laura to come forward at this time. Kelly: Hi. I'm Laura Kelly. I have been doing some research on bicycle parking ordinances for the past couple years and I've found that they are the most popular bicycle related ordinance in the United States right now. I have been aware of the trend and retum of cycling as a popular form of transportation. Even Just today, I received some statistics saying it was the second most behind the automobile. I think accommodating these cyclists at new developments would be very responsible and friendly livable City move. I've drafted an ordinance based on the ordinances across the United States, slightly less drastic because I know this is the heart of America not California. I think it's very reasonable and complete, well defined. It says when parking will be required for new commercial or residential developments only if they already require more than 25 automobile spaces. Similarly, if there is a change in occupancy which requires additional parking and they now have more than 25 spaces, they will also be subject to the ordinance. An example, there is a chart saying if you are required to have a certain amount of parking, this is how many racks. An example would be, if you are required to have 80 automobile parking spaces, say you are a large restaurant, you are required to put in 3 bicycle racks within 50 feet of an entrance so that they are visible. The definition of the parking space outlines the dimensions required between the racks, the sizes of the racks, how close they can be placed on center, the position of bicycle parking and number four outlines that it needs to be clear of pedestrian movement, street furniture, there needs to be enough light to operate a lock which is basically the same amount of light required to read your watch and then number five, vanations and • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 26 requirements allows some developers if they have a particularly dense site and they are having trouble fitting in parking, they can remove up to ten percent of the required automobile parking and all they would have to do is for each parking space removed, they add one -more rack. There is an allowance for shared bicycle parking with any other business that can also be within 50 feet of the racks. The procedure for compliance outlines that bike racks will be shown on your site plan that is regularly submitted to the Planning Division, for instance, for large scale development projects. Then there is a small sketch of the inverted U shape bicycle parking racks which are the standard in most ordinances across the country and have been recommended to me also by the physical plant at the University of Arkansas because that's their standard for the University now and they produce them. Also in your packet, there is a note of approval from a local developer who has written to the paper and asked that this ordinance be approved. They find it a very developer friendly ordinance. Also, I've submitted a draft copy of some bicycle parking guidelines which is an example of something that a lot of the cities who have an ordinance have also this simple guideline that helps the developer follow the ordinance basically. It lists a whole bunch of suppliers, it lists possible signage to help make your parking rack more visible, it lists the exact pipe dimensions and how to mount it in the ground. I would also like to include the finishes of the pipe before this is done and this will be approved by the Sidewalk and Trails Advisory Committee before it's done. Does any one have any questions9 PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: I've got some questions but, before we do questions what we do is take public comment and then we do questions. Any member of the audience like to address us on this issue? Would you please come forward at this time? Druding: Hi. I'm Dave Druding and I live here in Fayetteville, have for a couple of decades now. I'm a bicyclist. I have on several occasions wound up at a place with my bicycle and have nothing to do. I once carried it in with me and said can I park this here next to the door? Also, I think Laura did a very thorough job because some of the places at the University that I park my bike...a few years ago the print in phone books got smaller and all sorts of things started to change, but I've noticed that there is not adequate light in some spots and I think that she mentioned that there needs to be enough light. I really think this is an ordinance that would make the City more attractive to a wider variety of people. I think there is a lot of people who are bicycling now. I have a manufacturing facility on the south side of Fayetteville and we've had a bike rack there since we moved there ten years ago and it get's used by people who are • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 27 working with me too. I think they are something that needs to be in stores and locations people are coming to and. I really_ support it. I think she's done a good job of looking at the issues involved and I hope that you will support it. Odom. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? Please come forward at this time. Dufour: My name is Rex Dufour. I'm a bicyclist in the community and have been for several years. First, I would like to congratulate Laura Kelly on a very thorough job and persistent job on following up this ordinance. I think it's something that is very needed at this time. It's a relatively inexpensive addition to our ordinance portfolio, it's very timely in consideration that the City is just about very close to finishing a Master Trails Plan for the bicycle and multi -use trails. The volume of bicyclists will increase rather - surprisingly. In the near future, there will some new trails in the north of town along Mud Creek very shortly and I think the volume of bicyclists will increase as well. It's something that is very needed, timely and relatively inexpensive. Odom: Any other member of the audience like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. I've got a couple of questions._Item number two shows the total bicycle racks required and it says one, two, three, four, five, depending:on how it relates to how many automobiles are going to be used. Was there a reason you tied the relation to the automobiles as opposed to the patrons that are going to be in the development? Kelly: Well, the automobile parking requirement in our ordinance is related to the amount of patronage of the development. Odom: That's how you tied it to the amount of patrons that are going to be there? Kelly: Right. It's much more effective for me to use the handy formulas already devised for the different typical uses. You know how there it's different for commercial retail, different for commercial restaurant? I just used the nice formulas and tied it to the automobile parking. Odom: You also say in here that each rack equals two bicycle parking spaces. That's a pretty small bike rack. • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 28 Kelly: Right. They are just a simple inverted U shape. There is a couple of them shown on that last page there. Odom: _ The_one thaf_s-shown_on_that_page,_does_that-accommodate-two? Kelly: - There are two -racks shown -on -that page, that will accommodate -four bicycles, showing how you can overlap their access space. Odom. Item number five, which is the variations in the requirement; it says up to ten percent of required automobile parking spaces may be substituted with the bicycle parking at the rate of two additional bicycle spaces, is that for the applicant to ask for or staff to impose? Kelly: The applicant, if they want to reduce their parking requirement which I have been informed by Tim, who deals with many applicants, that this is a very rare occurrence where someone wants to reduce the amount of parking there. Odom. -We ought to reverse -it, -maybe give them more parking spaces if they will put racks in. Kelly: I must work at a very unusual architecture firm as we do a lot of in -fill developments where we can't quite squeeze enough spaces in. Odom: Lastly, it's for any new construction requiring 25 automobile spaces and I posed this to you at agenda session, there are probably a lot of smaller ones that really it ought to apply to. Downtown, in fact, if you have a new construction, you don't have to have any parking at all and therefore it wouldn't trigger anything in those. Have you thought about putting anything in there for those zoning districts? Kelly: I've spoke to the Benham Group in Tulsa. They have been working on the street furniture of the Dickson Street Enhancement Program and there are going to be many racks put in. In -fill developments it's much more a case by case and it's very different to legislate here is where you have to put a rack and there is nothing in this ordinance that says as a business owner you cannot put a rack out there. You will leam that you happen to have two employees that ride every day. Thank goodness the business owner where I work has put in a rack and I probably would have pushed the point until he did. Nothing stops anyone from putting in a rack, it's just not required until you trigger 25 parking spaces by code. • Odom: You've done some good work here and I'm certainly in support of that. Any other • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 29 questions or comments? Marr: I guess I missed it in the materials. What is the economic impact of installing a bike rack? Kelly: -Ws-not-in the -ordinance but hopefully you can see that list of bike rack suppliers. The reason I included outrageous a number of bike rack suppliers is so that a contractor• could get a really fair estimate -very -quickly -and they do run about $100, probably $150 installed. You can get them for as little as $60 each uninstalled. I'm not sure exactly what installation costs are. Conklin: There will be some additional oversight from our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator to do the inspections to make sure they are installed properly in the space and lighting has been installed adequately. There are some costs associated with this ordinance, for the developer, the purchase of the bike racks and then the inspections by the City. Marr: Through this process has there been any form of public comment or developers with questions? - - - - - - • Kelly: We've presented it at the Sidewalk and Trails Committee and it went through one Ordinance Review Committee. There were quite a few people there to respond to it as well. Shackelford: Has there been any study done showing the uses of bicycles? Do we have any idea how much this would be used if we put it in place citywide? Kelly: The one study I brought with me tonight is a national study, is that at all pertinent to your question? Would you be interested in those numbers? Shackelford: I was more interested in if this service is actually needed in Fayetteville. If there is enough people using bicycles as alternate services, to require this on every new development going forward with the City. Kelly: If Fayetteville falls in line with national transportation statistics, there are 20% of Americans that have used a bicycle within the last 30 days. I don't know how many of those trips were for transportation purposes. Of that 20%, 22% of them which is 9.2. million people in America, use their bicycle more than 10 days of the past 30 days in question. There is an increasing trend for cycling. It's becoming more and more popular. If you have 20% of American's that have used a bicycle, own a bicycle, it's in • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 30 Estes: shape, they've used it in the past 30 days, those are people who have the potential of saying `°I just don't feel like scraping off the windshield. I'm just going to put on my gloves and scarf and get there in the same amount of time. I hope there is a parking --rack.''=So-there-is-a-lot-of-potentia]_users-out_there..L may run in a small crowd but all of us have arrived at places where there is nowhere to park. Perhaps in response to some of Commissioner Shackelford's questions, a bicycle parking facility is going to provide some security. In other words, you can lock your bike there. I have personal knowledge of two young people who this last weekend lost bikes because there was not a place to lock their bikes when they went in the store. They were both in high-end bikes that they had received for Christmas and they are gone now. I have two sons that I ride with sometimes and it is not an uncommon occurrence for us to go to Harp's or Blockbuster or whatever and one of us stands outside with the two bicycles while the other one goes in and picks up whatever we need. I'm very much in support of the ordinance and certainly intend to vote for sending it on to the Ordinance Review Committee for their consideration. Bunch: --I-would like to preface -my -comments saying -that -I -too -am very -much in favor of having an ordinance that addresses this. However, I can see some considerable failings in this and maybe they can be worked out so that as this ordinance is presented it would be much more effective. The types of things that I see are very similar to the ambiguities and intemal conflicts that were included in the tree preservation ordinance and I think . we all know what sort of problems that caused. In ordertohave this be successful, I think there are several things in this that need to be considered. I don't know at what time that it should be considered whether it should be sent back to your committee for further review or whether we should attach notes to it as it's sent forward to Ordinance Review. Some of the internal conflicts that I see are, there is no process for waivers to be granted as projects come before this Commission. If there are exceptions, I don't see a process for that. Things like a comment on change in occupancy that kicks this in. There is no real definition that shows if that is a change in occupancy by owner or by tenant. How would it apply to malls, to shopping centers, to mini malls like on the south side of the square. In downtown area and Dickson Street when we have parking that is waived, there are still certain numbers of patrons that patronize a business that the parking has been waived. Since this is tied to the parking levels, are we also waiving parking spaces for bicycles? Also, with the downtown Dickson Enhancement Project where easements are being granted on the fronts of buildings all up and down Dickson Street and of a sudden those businesses have no property in order to place bicycle racks and it would be up to the someone like DDEP to place them. • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 31 Kelly: Bunch: Kelly: That's one of the reasons they are exempt. It's just so difficult. I'm not trying to be nit -picky on this, I'm just saying, by virtue of having gone through an ordeal recently where we had considerable ambiguities and an ordinance that maybe no one played devil's advocate with. I would be happy to sit down with you. I don't —think -this meeting is the time or place to -rewrite an ordinance. I would be -happy to work personally on it or to send it back. I would yield to the opinion of my fellow -Commissioners but I think we have -a very wonderful concept here but there are problems in how that concept is translated into practical application. I've been looking for these kinds of ambiguities and problems. It's probably been drafted in rough form for a year now. I love it when someone points out something that can be made more specific. I feel I definitely had a specific idea when I said change in occupancy, I meant change of, the code has different uses and business is one and assembly is another, by occupancy I meant by the code, I should Just state that. I'm really glad you have pointed these out and I'll call you and perhaps we can work them out before that Ordinance Review Committee. Conklin: I guess looking at the ordinance too, you state changes in occupancy which result in additional automobile parking shall also require bicycle parking. I read that and I don't mean to define all these terms but when something requires additional automobile parking that's when we take a look. If it's retail and someone else goes into the retail it's not going to require any more parking. If it's industrial warehouse and they change —it to retail, -then it does require:additional-parking.-With regard to Dickson Street and the Square, C-3 and C-4 has exempted any existing building from providing parking as long as you don't expand. So, that kind of takes care of that issue. With regard to where do we go from here, what I would like is the Planning Commission to forward this Ordinance Review Committee and then I would like Commissioner Bunch to sit down with me and Laura and go over this ordinance and see if we can clarify some of these before we get to the Ordinance Review Committee. Keep in mind this will go to the Ordinance Review Committee, we'll be working with our City Attorney's office to make sure it's clear what the ordinance requires and then it will also go to City Council. We are fairly early in the process and I do appreciate Commissioner Bunch bringing these issues up because we do need to make sure that staff, public and the Commission understand what is in this ordinance and when bicycle racks are required for new developments. Odom: Commissioner Hoffman. • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 32 Hoffman: I would like to throw my two cents worth in. I love the idea of the ordinance of course. I would suggest that the -ordinance be triggered also when parking lot improvements are triggered, the Stein Mart remodeling that took place at the old WalMart at Fiesta _Square, that's.one-way_to_get-more bike racks in. You-need_to-provide a different alternative. This is a good one but it takes up quite a bit of space. There is another, what I call type two bike rack, that's like a bunch of squiggles and you can get, for a larger shopping center, you can get 12 per rack or something like that. Kelly: That used to be the campus standard. Hoffman: You may show type one and type two racks. Kelly: They don't support the bicycle at two points and they often fall down. That's the only problem with them. Hoffman: Are there any other ones you can come up with besides this? • --Kelly: - There -was an amazing consensus on inverted-U—amazing;-overwhelming, because they keep the bike from falling down..You can actually fit 18 bikes in one automobile parking space. The cost of that is maybe $1,800 for 18 parking spaces when you talk about $5,000 for an auto. • Hoffman: You can get 9 of these_m one automobile_space? Kelly: Yes, 9 racks. Hoffman: I just wanted to look at a way to make sure we can pack them in there. Great, thank you. Kelly: I just use the front wheel rack everyday and I make it work but it's not near as nice as this. Odom: MOTION: Hoffman: Anybody else? Any motions? I'll move that we forward this to the Ordinance Review Committee and that a copy of our comments tonight be distributed to them. • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 33 Bunch: Second. Odom. We have a motion and a second to forward this ordinance to the ordinance review committee _along with_our_copies_ofthe_minutes_from_tonight._Laura,_thank you very - —much for your work. -Call the roll: ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, AD 00-45.00 is forwarded to the Ordinance Review Committee on a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 34 AD 00-47.00: Administrative Item Master Street Plan for Eastern By-pass Review. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is item number six which is AD 00- 42.00_for_thelvlaster StreeLPlan Eastern Bypass revie_w._lotations here_state that during recent meetings conceming the update to the City's General Plan 2020, questions arose -regarding the eastern -bypass -which is•a•part of the Master Street Plan that was adopted in 1995. During a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on December 7, 2000, staff was directed to review the proposed bypass and to present findings to the Planning Commission for further discussion and public comment. The eastern bypass as it is currently shown on the Master Street Plan has been a part of this planning document since the adoption of the eighth draft of the Master Street Plan on March 7, 1995. Staff has been and is still collecting information from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, and the City of Springdale regarding the Eastern Bypass. The Eastern Bypass findings are noted that in 1995, the City of Fayetteville placed on the Master Street Plan a proposed Eastern Bypass that would begin at the southern terminus of the 71 Bypass and end at the Planning Area Boundary northeast of the current city limits. The City placed this on the master street plan as part of a plan to provide a loop circulation concept around the existing developed areas of Fayetteville and to avoid building new roads through the developed parts of the City. This project is not on the Springdale Master Street Plan. This idea was further identified and studied in 1996 and 1997 and a Major Investment Study (MIS) was completed by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission which identified the costs of such a project and altemative routes _To date, there has been no environmental review, surveys, or engineered route study. Furthermore, only one right-of-way dedication has occurred as part of a lot split request. The City has not been able to proceed beyond this point due to the financial constraints associated with a project of this magnitude. This project is located in Washington County within the City of Fayetteville and City of Springdale Planning Areas. Only a very small portion of this project, at the southern end, and where it crosses Highway 16E is within the Fayetteville City Limits. In 1997, the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission amended the 2020 Plan and showed a corridor for the Eastern Bypass. The 2025 Plan also shows the same corridor on the plan for the Eastern Bypass. The staff has listed for our consideration the possible options that we may consider. The first is to show a corridor on the Plan that is the same as the Regional 2025 plan, second possible option is to eliminate the Eastern Bypass from the plan, the third one is to relocate the Eastern Bypass on plan, the fourth is to leave the current line on map that indicates the Eastem Bypass on the Master Street Plan, the next option is to downgrade the road to a principal arterial and the last option is to conduct further studies before making any recommendations to the City Council. Tonight we are going to do two things, we are going to receive a report from the Regional Planning Commission and after we hear the report of the Regional Planning • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 35 Commission we are going to take public comment for those interested. I would hope that many of you that are here tonight have some comment that you would like to make on this issue. I would ask that when you do this that you keep a couple of things in _ mind._Eirst,_there_are_severaLpeople_that_want_to_talk_so_we_need_to_be_mindful of_ those who -Want to speak -and do our best to limit comments to your opinion or your point of view that perhaps hasn't been already presented to us That way we can avoid duplication and being here all night. You can get up and say Amen all night, that's okay. Let's just do our best to keep on new points as we move along. Also, let's keep in mind that we are doing our best up here to follow the plan that we have. We cannot simply without public hearings and so forth, make decisions based on emotions and what we want to do or not to do. That being said, I'm going to, at this time, ask that the representative of the Regional Planning Commission come forward to make their presentation. Conklin: Commissioner Odom, I would like to welcome John McLarty, he is with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. He is here this evening to kind of go over where we are at with regard to the Regional Planning Commission, what a major investment study is and what our planning area or NARTS boundary is. Welcome John and I appreciate you corning down to the Fayetteville Planning Commission tonight. • McLarty: My name is John McLarty. I'm the Transportation Planner with the Regional Transportation. I'm going to probably instruct you a little bit. We kind of wear two hats at the Regional Planning Commission. We do planning for the entire two counties and we are also the MPO which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization. That's kind of a transportation entity. We need to exist because the Federal Government requires that for federal money to come into an area that has our density of population that they want some regional planning so that highways aren't just kind of scattered willy nilly with things that don't match or that one city is building a major collector and it meets a dirt road in the boundaries of another city. We've been in that roll for several years. Then the MPO is made up of a committee called the Northwest Arkansas Regional Transportation Study. That is comprised of 16 government entities that are within what is called the study boundary and that's outermost line that you can see on that map. That was based on the Census Bureau telling us in 1990 what our urbanized area was Then we project what might be an urbanized area in 2025. The cities that fall within that boundary to make up the NARTS Study Commission and I say that because the eastern corridor was a decision made by that committee. Just the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission in and of ourselves, if we are wanting to erase it off the map, we couldn't. It would take an action of those same 16 government entities which includes Washington County, Benton County, Fayetteville, Springdale and the rest. A • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 36 little history here, back in 1995 when the 2020 Plan was being developed, the corridor that went, the 412 Northern Bypass that is going to go to the north of Springdale was on the map put there by the Highway Department and it went quite a ways further toward -Beaver -Lake -than -that -shows, -it -swung -way -out -to -the -east. At thesametime as that2020-P an was put together and aftef that was approved it was noticed by somebody, I'm not -sure -who because I wasn't there then, that Fayetteville kind of almost at the same time put a corridor on their Master Street Plan for an Eastern Bypass and -the two corridors didn't line up, they did this kind of thing. The NARTS Committee, at the request of the City of Fayetteville, did another study and amended this map to make those corridors line up. The significance of that is the corridor for the Northem Bypass was pulled in further to the west. One of the logistic problems or topographical problems is that crook in the White River there. I think you can notice that. That prevents any proposed Eastern Bypass from swinging out further to the east. That bypass almost has to be pulled back to the west. Those things were taken into consideration and a major investment study was undertaken. An MIS is undertaken when projects that just involve massive amounts of funding. An example would be the Northern corridor around Springdale, the access road to the airport, the Bella Vista Bypass and things of that magnitude require a major investment study In 1997 there was about a six month to a year long process of public hearings, ads in the paper, a lot of participation, Kevin Santos was on that committee, several representatives from Fayetteville, all of those committees and they made those corridors line up. That kind of in a nut shell is where that corridor came from. The major Investment study never put a specific line_on-the.map, it was just the corridors were just lined up. That MIS -did -not take into account any of the engineering, the environmental impact studies. If you are aware of what's going on with the Northern Bypass around Springdale, that's been there a long time and they still don't know the route. They have like four or five lines intertwined in there, now they are doing the environmental impact and they are considering neighborhood costs. I just heard a figure the other day of just property acquisition will cost them 15 million dollars. That's just to buy right-of-ways, no pavement being laid. These projects are very expensive. Just in terms of the reality of it, they are looking for money to build the Northern Bypass. They are talking about toll roads and they are looking for money to build an access road. They are looking for the money to build a Bella Vista bypass. In most of these corridors, like in Bella Vista, the citizens in Bella Vista are crying for that bypass. You might have a few that are saying not in my back yard. The general consensus is for the Bella Vista Bypass, for a Northern Bypass around Springdale. I think my point is, that Fayetteville is the catalyst to the Eastern Bypass, I don't think we have the Highway Department wanting to shove this project down the throat of the region because they are scratching their heads to get the money to build other bypasses. It took decades to get 1-540 in and 71 had to be • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 37 declared one of the most dangerous highways in the nation. So, with that being said, _the corridor-is_on the map_and we cant. just throw it out. I think any good project should withstand rethinking it and looking at it again. From our viewpoint, Northwest Regional -Planning -Commission -and as the MPO, we are certainly_willing to take another hard look at that bypass, at the comdor and have more rounds of public --hearings.--It's-nothing that we are wanting to throw out or just hang onto unreasonably. It would take an action of that NARTS Committee. We can't have a meeting overnight and take -some kind of action because there is quite an extensive amount of study put into that. I don't have those facts and figures. I might not be able to answer all your questions tonight in terms of the exact rational for that Eastern Bypass. Engineers from the Highway Department participated and Dr. Alguire from the University and planners, so it wasn't just done in the corner, it wasn't some midnight thing that was stuck on the map. So; we have to weigh all those factors as we consider what to do with it. I'm willing to take questions. Odom: John, thank you for those comments. I don't necessarily think that the objection we have heard is to the corridor as much as it is to the proposed route that we have, like a line in -the -sand, on our Master Street Plan. - McLarty: In a lot of cases within the corridor the exact line on the map is one of the last things to go on after environmental studies. We could have endangered species out there. Odom: For some reason we have it the first thing this time and we are all trying to figure out -why. My question to you is, is that line that we have now detrimental or vitally important to the corridor itself? That corridor is going to exist without the line that we have, isn't it? McLarty: Yes. Odom: If we remove that sucker today the corridor is still going to be there but we are not going to have that thing that's there first that really should be coming last? McLarty: Right. One of the reasons to keep the corridor there is because even though there may, just for speculation, there may never be an expressway built to the eastern side of Fayetteville. Fayetteville does have congestion problems on 45 and 265 and down on 16 and we have to consider that. According to our studies, our projections in our area, the two counties have increased in population by 80,000 people in the last decade. We anticipate that to happen again. We are looking for 80,000 people to move into the two counties in the next decade and then 80,000 again. So, we are looking at a Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 38 population by 2030, that's if that trend continues, of over a half a million people living in these two counties There_probably_will need to_be_some_form of relief in that corridor area, if not an expressway then some kind of networking routes to get people coming in from 16 and.maybe-routed-around-to-thebypass andmaybe- coming in.45_another way to get up to 265 rather: than coming to the 45 and 265 intersection. There are other ways to talk about -that -networking -short -of a -limited access expressway. There will be some kind of traffic solutions needed on the east side of Fayetteville over the next 20 to -30 years. So, people living in that corridor need to be aware of that, there will need to be some traffic relieving measures in that area. Estes: John, is the corridor study that is shown on the large map, is that the same as the Regional 2025 Plan? McLarty: That is the 2025 Plan right there. Estes: If we were to remove from our Master Street Plan the 2000 revision, the Eastern Bypass as it is showing and replace it with the corridor study that is shown on the 2025 plan, will that in any way impede or hinder the planning -process? McLarty: No. Estes: Would that be consistent with the planning process? McLarty: The only thing that it may do, the reason this is somewhat timely is, you have the Highway Department in the process of making their decision on where 412 will reconnect with Business 412 and they are trying to figure out where that terminus will be. They are wanting to match a Fayetteville bypass, they tend to pull that into the west but if Fayetteville seems less interested in that bypass there may be other considerations. Strictly coming from the north down, the terrain up above 412, they may decide to shift that to the east. Their original plans had it further to the east. Conklin: Keep in mind when we say Fayetteville bypass, we are also talking about Springdale because our Master Street Plan ends at our planning area boundary. So, Springdale is also involved in this process and as I stated in these findings, this information that I presented to you this evening, that it is not on the Springdale Master Street Plan. Another important difference on this 2025 Plan, the 412 northern loop or bypass is the State Highway project. Our bypass is a City of Fayetteville project. It is not part of the State Highway system. What Springdale did on their Master Street Plan, they showed the northern 412 Bypass on their Master Street Plan as a corndor to let the • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 39 public know that this is where the Highway Department is thinking. It's a little different _ _ hecause_we_are talking about.a multi:million, 150 to 300 million dollar project, I'm not sure what the exact figure would be for the City of Fayetteville taxpayers through a CIP process-or-something_to-build.-I-don't-think_that_s-goingto_happen. We cannot afford - thatTlt will have to become a State highway, it will have to have federal funding at the minimum if it -ever -is achieved: -There-is-still-a lot of work -with regard to -if -this is going to ever get built to get the highway department to accept this and make this a part of their program for highway building in -northwest Arkansas. Odom: John, I have a real concem. This highway which we can't afford to build, it's not on the plans to be built, our Planning Director can't conceive that it's ever going to be done, it's on our Master Street Plan and the State Highway Department says "Hey look, they are going to build this thing that's on their Master Street Plan. Let's curve our project in some." We may be holding them or detriment to them bringing a project in that we are never going to build. Do you see that being a problem? McLarty: That's a possibility. • Conklin: We also, this past fall and winter, we went through a process to fund State Highway Estes: projects for the next 25 years I can tell you this evening that this Eastern Bypass is not one of those projects that's on that constrained list for funding. Even the funds that have been identified for State Highway projects for the next 25 years, we do not have funds.targeted or identified for this Eastern Bypass. Once again, I guess I'm discouraged a little with regard to one, the City can't afford to build this, it will have to be part of the State Highway system and two, we just went through a planning process identifying what State Highway's will be built the next 25 years and it's not on that list for a constrained project. The pragmatic issue that I deal with and my thinking is that on the Master Street Plan we have the Eastern Bypass and that as people come to us and want to develop property that's contiguous with that then we start talking about easement dedications and we start talking about costs and I said pragmatically, pragmatically this has a chilling affect on people developing property that's out there that is contiguous to this. John, what would happen if we deleted the current line on the map that indicates the Eastern Bypass on the Master Street Plan and we show the corridor on the plan that is consistent with or the same as the Regional 2025 Plan? Would that be an intelligent thing to do or would that be a foolish thing to do? • McLarty: I think it would be intelligent because the line on the map as it exists, is not the result of • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 40 Estes: any kind of extensive engineering or environmental studies Anybody that lives within that corridor needs to be aware of the maybes but that line, if it's ever built, could be way off from where it is on that map. Usually those specific lines are the last thing that's put within a corridor afteLextensive cost, topographical,_environmental_studies of where —the cheapestplace would be to build that:: --I think what we don't want as a region is -something like-a-WalMart-Distribution Center -that takes.40 acres -to go in or something like that, that would kind of raise some questions. They would need to be aware that they are in this corridor. I do see the -point of Just the property owners wanting to develop their property without that particular restriction Another thing I might add is, if the State Highway just looks at where they put the terminus coming down from the north and then wherever that falls and they put less weight to the Fayetteville Bypass and then in 30 or 40 years, this thing is built and it has to connect at 412 and someone has to go on down 412 a mile before they access back to the north, it's doable, it's not something that can't be dealt with. Our children may look back and say we were a bunch of dummies to not make them line up but we do have that pragmatic consideration. Here now, we don't know what things are going to look like in 40 years. Tim, what are we supposed to do with this administrative item? Are we supposed to forward this to the City Council with recommendations after hearing public comment or why did you put this on the agenda? Conklin: On December 7, 2000, we held anoint Planning Commission/City Council meeting. At that time, the public did speak -out regarding this Eastern Bypass. I believe it was Alderman Kevin Santos who suggested that we leave the line on the map as part of the 200 revision to the Master Street Plan and then start early this year to take more public comment regarding the Eastern Bypass. That's why we are back before you tonight. With regard to the Planning Division and my recommendation to you, the line is problematic with regard to planning for subdivisions and lot splits. I don't believe that line, we should be able to require the right-of-way because it's in areas that I believe you are not going to be able to build this Eastern Bypass. Also talking with Charles Venable, the former Public Works Director, he was a Chief Engineer at the State Highway Department, his comments to me when I did bring this issue up to him was that, in his experience working for the Highway Department that you have to do your engineered route studies, your environmental review and to determine where the actual road will be located. At this point in time, if we are actually talking about a controlled access freeway/expressway system, it's almost impossible to tell where that right-of- way should be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville. What I would like to see this evening, it's on the 2025 Plan. I do realize there's been a lot of planning and work that • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 41 has gone into looking at the Eastern Bypass and the need for the Eastern Bypass. I'm _ not_prepared_this_e_vening to_say_that it.is_not.needed.in.northwestArkansas or in -Fayetteville but what I would like to see is the corridor that has been identified through - the-major-investment-study-to-be-shown-on-our-Master_Street-P-lan. The-nextitem on your agenda is an ordinance to amend our subdrvisibn regulations not to require right- - -of-way for expressways ight---ofway-for-expressways or freeways -on -our Master Street Plan. That would -take care of both problems. It would remove the line and then also we wouldn't be required to have -the dedication of nght-of--Way when we do have a lot split or subdivision. Estes: So, there should be a motion of some sort sending this matter to the City Council? Conklin: Yes. I would like to amend our Master Street Plan to remove the line from the map, show the corridor that's currently shown on the 2020 Plan of the Regional Planning Commission, also shown on the 2025 Plan as the same corridor, show that on our Master Street Plan. The public is aware that the Regional Planning Commission does have a regional plan that shows a corridor for a controlled access facility but not to require the right-of-way or have the line on our Master Street Plan. • McLarty: I'll add one more thing and then I think I'll be done. We are going to undertake the 2030 plan early because we are kind of at a disadvantage on our 2025. We have a lot of census data that we are really anxious to look at that's going to tell us the real numbers and population an not only that but where they are on the census tract by tract. We are very_willing and intend to look at this corridor very closely starting now and try to have -an -update in -three years and really take another -look at -this eastern corridor. We'll be working with Tim, City of Fayetteville and the City of Springdale and revisit the issue with a lot more data, studies and traffic counts and more of the computer based modeling that we are getting into. I think we'll have a lot better rationale one way or another. I think what I've heard tonight would be a wise decision and then just take a harder look at this eastern solution because there is traffic congestion. We don't want to just hide our heads in the sand and that's not what I'm hearing here tonight. Something this expensive, we need to look at every alternative. So, we will be taking a close look at that over the next months and years as we develop the 2030 plan. • Odom: John, before you sit down we have some other Commissioners that have questions for you. Hoffman: I want to get to public comment really quickly but I agree with staff's position on this that this line on the map is in an area that certainly doesn't seem to be the appropriate one from an economic or what's in place standpoint. I do strongly believe that we need • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 42 to keep the corridor and that the corridor can move according to the census data. I _ _ just wanted to point.out that the river need not be, in my mind, a boundary because we already have a bridge across the new 412 extension. Possibly, if we are talking about the-kind-of-increasing-population-over-the-nextdecades,_that.it_could_be.even-east of 11—at; in the eastern portion of the county.- I would like to lay that out as a possibility not -something I -'m pushing for. — McLarty: I don't think we should rule out any alternative. People have suggested a western bypass with all the growth trending out that way. Hoffman: You have to look at the growth and where the subdivisions are going in Springdale. Have we grown as far as we are going to grow out east of Fayetteville due to the more hilly terrain as you get further east and things like that. I will not vote for any that removes a corridor but I will vote for something to remove the line. Marr: I guess my only comment Commissioner Bunch, Commissioner Shackelford and I have been on this 2020 subcommittee and this has been probably the most talked about. The thing to me as I was reading through the study that we were given a copy of, I guess I have questions about how a line got there because in reading this, it says we're concerned with identifying certain corridors and cross-sections not specific routes which is why environmental assessments and impact studies weren't done, which to me says we shouldn't have a line anyway, as a result of what this report says. Secondly, the question is why now_in this study are we worried about siting this thing. The rational —that he gave -was the -right-of-way protection. - - McLarty: What study are you referring to? Conklin: He's referring to the Major Investment Study. I did make copies of that for each of the Commissioners not the background or technical information that was used throughout the study. They did not receive a copy of that. Marr: So, if the main reason for "Why now?" is right-of-way protection and in not wanting to do that and the study was done without environmental impact and without environmental assessment so that you don't have a specific site and that when we are talking about corridors and cross-sections it makes no sense to me to have it sited as a line on a map particularly when the weight of public feedback and the weight of the Commission and the City Council was we don't want to dedicate land which is the whole reason why we had it sited. So, I guess that's my initial thought on why other than getting validated at the reception should we have two hours of public comment • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 43 when the majority of, at least what I heard, relates around these two questions. Odom: It's necessary for us to get public comment. We were charged with having a hearing to —hear_a_presentation_from_Regional_P_lanning_Commission.and_to_take-public- comment. Marr: -- –I -guess my -point -is -not to not -take -public -comment but if the -public comment is about the siting of the line on the plan as the whole objection of this, I think we have that -clearly identified that we are talking corridors and cross-sections. I would be interested in new public comment outside of that particular matter or land dedication. Odom: If we could, does anyone have any other questions or comments for John? I'll let you go ahead and sit down. Would you mind sticking around just in case we have any questions that come up during the public comment portion? McLarty: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Now what we would Tike to do is take public_comment and we do want to hear your comments. I think you've heard from the tone of the Commission that it seems to be the consensus that we don't want this line and that we are moving towards getting away from that and perhaps doing a corridor. We would appreciate your public comment at .this time so_ if you could please come forward and state your name for the record and where you live. Does anyone want to come up and speak? Come on; you all sat here forever. Alexander: Fran Alexander, Fox Hunter Road. I wanted to thank you for discussing this particular line and deciding that although you have not taken a vote and I think public comment ought to be in regard to your discussion as well as the impressions that we are getting but you have not taken a vote so I believe public comment should address what is being discussed. The situation about drawing a line is that you are, at that point in time, doing strange things as far as land speculation goes. Residentially you might be depreciating land and commercially you might be increasing land values. I would Just ask that you get that cart and horse straightened out because the way I look at the topography in the county area where I live, even if you could get from 16 toward 45, in that particular vicinity, you would have to helicopter up to 45 from where you would wind up in the valley down near the sewage treatment plant for example. The sewage treatment plant is another issue which to me is certainly one that is a large obstacle and some of this line drawing could be for a limited access expressway. I want to emphasize to you that • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 44 drawing that line can be there for years and years and make people really uncertain as to how they -want to think about wherethey live and what they want to do as far as investments in their property. Even if you draw a corridor, you need to start thinking about land acquisition_somewhere-ifyou_draw it_because-right now,-ifyouu_were trying -to acquire land where that line is, you are -running into 2001 residential areas where --there are $300,000 -to -$500,000 houses. You've got to think about what that line would be running through in 2001 dollars not to mention 2030 dollars. If we are going -to think corridor, I think we do need -to think -about land acquisition at some point in time. I have been to the Regional Planning Commission reviews, I've looked at the 2020 plans over the years, I have made comments periodically about this but as you probably know, I kind of keep an eye on things in the City and what the City is doing. It can't be said for folks in the County and they really don't keep that close of watch on the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council. If you are going to start establishing corridors or lines, please try to work in the County people, via the Quorum Court or whatever technique you can come up with. Generally the attitude of the public is to tune out something that's not really brought to their close attention. I noticed at some of the hearings that I've had to call neighbors, very close -neighbors where this -line -would be affecting them and remind them that this was occurring. They really were not well aware_of what was going on. That's just a housekeeping hint. I also wanted to point out to you on environmental studies that I've been involved with in highway development, that over and again one of the major concerns of limited expressway construction is that it's building a wall. The land use thatisgoing to be done_on the east side of this city, we need to understand that if you -are-building a limited expressway we are putting the Great China Wall between one side of that expressway and the other. You can't get ambulances and fire trucks on a lot of roads easily back and forth across that on that east/west direction if you've got a north/south wall. As far as your planning goes, please look at that in your thinking as well. I think that's the main thing that I wanted to bring up. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Fran. Estes: Tim, has the County Planning body been involved in this process? Conklin: With regard to the Regional Planning Commission and this Northwest Arkansas Regional Transportation Study, yes, they do have officials that attend those meetings and participate in this. I think overall, what we've found out this evening which I already knew, this is a regional type project that takes regional cooperation and planning. I think that's best done through the regional MPO that we have with Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. When we do talk about the • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 45 Estes: Womack: corridor in this location if we want to make it further to the east, we are into the City of Goshen Planning Area We don't even have the ability to plan in that area. Right now we have Washington County, City of Fayetteville planning area, City of Springdale planning area-and-if-it-does-have-to-move-further_east_it will_be_outside_ofour_jurisdiction and into the City of Goshen. Thank you. My name is Robert Womack and I live very close to the current line that you have drawn on the map. After listening to the conversation this evening and the input from the State Highway Department, it would seem to me that we did get the cart before the horse, that we did put the line out there. I applaud Mr. Estes' observation that perhaps the corridor shculd remain but the line should be removed. Thank you. Odom: Anyone else wish to speak to us on this issue tonight? Please come forward at this time. Bemis: My name is Chip Bemis and I'm currently under contract to purchase some property at 409 North Fox Hunter Road. Lwould.like to say first of all that I have spoken with Mr. Conklin about this particular project and it was a surprise. I will say that it's our first land acquisition so just the idea that at some point that property might be taken away, it was quite a shock for us. I'm not concemed with the line. I applaud you all _for_considering.the removal of the line from the Master_Street Plan but that line is =exactly -what -prompted me tocometo the meeting. It was by accident that we saw the line in trying to apply for a lot split, we came in to find the papers, we saw the line and that did prompt us to investigate. The next day we met with Mr. Conklin and he cleared up lots of issues in our own minds. He explained to us the finances involved, .the studies involved, the cart before the horse sort of thing. We can certainly appreciate everything that you are doing to try to rectify the situation. I do have some concerns about the origins of the line If it landed on there once and no one seems to know how it appeared, I have some concerns with that issue. Public awareness, I'm aware now there is a corridor study. I wasn't aware of that on the Master Street Plan. I didn't see that. The line that was there, the proposed highway, was the only thing that brought my awareness to that issue. I just wanted to say those two things to kind of make my presence known. As I said, it's our first acquisition so this is all brand new to us. One other thing that I did have, thecurrent city officials of Springdale, they don't have it on their Master Street Plan mainly because it's so very early in the game Any opinions from them would be most valuable to the public and to our awareness because even if it's not on paper yet, the opinions are quite important because those are the • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 46 things that become realities to us all in the future. I thank you very much. Odom: Thank you Chip. Yazwinski: 1 -appreciate the comments concerning the hopeful removal -of that line out of the - corridor. I -appreciate that. -Three concerns -I have; one is, so few people out there realize that there was ever a line on a map that went right through their houses. My wife and I handed out about -50 flyers of people who lived -on that line and maybe 2 people knew about a proposed East Bypass, 2 people out of 50. I know you are trying to get the word out, we're assured of that fact but evidently people out in the County don't read their newspapers that well or whatever. There should be some additional attempt made that when you plan a big street development like this that you draw lines on a map, the people should be notified somehow. We're required to notify you all and everybody when we want to do this with our land or that with our land, put signs up on the sign of the road of this anticipated use. It would be nice if you put a huge highway through the eastern part of town, every so often you put a sign up "proposed 300 linear foot freeway road is planned for this area". You would have --gotten people's attention -if -you put a sign like -that -in -some of the places out there. Another two factors that are of concern is one, that Springdale Northern Bypass and how important the eventual placement of that is going to be with perhaps an Eastern Bypass in Fayetteville? Somebody has to decide it. Somebody has to talk to those folks and see how important. Maybe it's the Arkansas Street Commission or state _highway people that are going to decide how importantthat line of the Springdale road -is-going to be, where Fayetteville gets to put perhaps a road or the state is going to put a road. It would be nice if that was going to be nailed down, how important that Eastern Bypass is going to be around Springdale for the placement of this one. The other important issue is, every week that you wait, how many new houses are being built out there? It's probably on a weekly basis that more $300,000 and $400,000 houses are being built out there. So, you are almost putting that whole area of town in a corner there as to how massive a destructive move it's going to be when a bypass is eventually required out there. The sooner it is decided how important that bypass is going to be, I think someone ought to bite the bullet and put a line on a map and say "This is where it's going to be." It might be 20 years from now, it might 30 years from now but please stop building these $500,000 homes right here, because the longer you wait, the more optimal routes will get clogged up with houses and developments out there. It needs to be decided by someone that it's needed and if it's decided it's needed, then it needs to be decided where and when that's decided then people should stop building in those areas rather than letting people continue to build out there. I guess that's about it. Thank you very much. • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 47 Odom: Bunch: Odom: Wyatt: Thank you very much. Commissioner Bunch. On the issue of public notification, one of the things we did do at our past meetings of the 2020-P-lan-Update-is-we-did-take-a-list-of_citizens-either_in_the_City_or_in_the_County Ha wanted to be notified of the various stages of the process in addition to television and newspaper type notifications. I would like to ask the people here if they would mind if City Staff forwarded our list to the Regional Planning Commission because I think many of these concerns will be handled. If it would be alright to you all to forward that working list or if anyone wants to be added to it. We can give that information to Regional Planning and then Regional Planning could contact interested parties in addition to the media publications. - Any other audience member like to address us at this time? Good evening. My name is Patricia Wyatt. I live at 2488 Fox Trail. The view out of my window is the view of the highway that you have just removed from the map, I hope. I would invite any of you to comeout there and see what it looks like too. We chose to live out -there -as most of my neighbors did because it is one of -the most beautiful parts of Fayetteville. People are building out there because it is a gorgeous view. I would like to recommend serendipitously after hearing the previous agenda that perhaps, if the land is there and available, that is be considered for a multi- use bike trail because it is a gorgeous area and it's overlooking the White River. I would also like to reiterate_what._ran-said-about_the. concept of a wall being built. I think most of my neighbors consider ourselves to be part of Fayetteville. We are about three minutes outside the limits and we are the virtual city, within 20 years I'm sure we will be part of the City. If a wall is constructed, that won't happen. If a wall is built that would limit what Fayetteville can someday become. I would urge you in making the decision to think imaginatively. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Ms. Wyatt. Scoggin. My name is Cliff Scoggin. I live right off Sassafras Hill Road which is inside of the line. After hearing what came out earlier in the evening we were talking about a project that was not on the 25 year plan for the state and costs more than what we could afford to sponsor here. I guess I'm up here to encourage the Planning Commission to take a look at the possibility of maybe working with the State and County to come up with some improvements to some of the county roads because having to drive in from that eastem part Washington County on a regular basis, you do find yourself going on a combination of county roads and dirt roads to try to get around to Springdale and there • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 48 may be an affordable, I'm sure you guys are trying to look at that, but there are some dirt roads and county roads that if they were patched together might well serve as and really, to some degree, are already serving as a makeshift bypass for the folks that live out way east and are trying to get around. That may be an affordable option that -inaybe the Planning Commission could also encourage, it sounds like that was one of the things that -was -on the list initially, I want -to encourage thatassomething going forward here to look at. There may be some relief for the congestion there at Crossover and Mission along those routes. Thank you. Odom: Thank you Cliff. Any other member of the audience like to address us? Johnson: My name is Mike Johnson. I live on State View Road which is just off Sassafras. My concern was not so much with the line on the map as it was the whole concept of the Eastern Bypass. Quite honestly the line on the map didn't go through my house so it was no great big concem. I guess with the removal of the line, I don't know if I've won or lost with what I think is fixing to happen in the future because now the line could come right through my house. I guess my concern would be, I don't know who is -really in charge of putting -this corridor together -or -taking if off; that I don't know. I guess I would say let's take a realistic look if there is a need for corridor and a bypass on the eastern side of town. If it is then I agree with the comments that had been made earlier. If there is not a need for the corridor, let's put a line on the map, let's make it definite. If there is a need for the corridor, let's take it off. If it's unrealistic, if it's not _going to happen, ifiCs dust something that's being..put on there for the sake of putting it on there, let's not do that because people still don't know what's supposed to happen out there. If the corridor is not necessary for the eastern side of town, then let's remove the corridor. Odom. Thank you Mike. Would any other audience member like to address us at this time? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Then I'm going to go ahead and close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further questions or comments of John or the staff. Conklin: Just to respond to the last individual. I do believe we need to sit down at the Planning Commission level and look at this and conduct more studies and determine what's the best approach to determine what the transportation needs of northwest Arkansas are. I think Just this past fall and winter sitting down and looking at you have one pot of money and how do you spend those federal dollars in northwest Arkansas. We do Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 49 need to make sure that we are meeting the needs of northwest Arkansas. It's not just the City of Fayetteville or City of Springdale, we do need to work together so I'm looking forward to working with John McLarty and Regional Planning Commission to look .at_how_we_can-do_additional_studies tadetermine what_is_needed-for_this region so I think there will be -more information when the 2000 -census information comes out and that -will -help -us -better -to guide and direct where we spend our federal and state dollars. Odom. - I would like to thank everybody -also for their public comment but just a little reminder that what we do really doesn't matter, the City Council are going to be the one's to take this issue up and make the determination as to what to do with it. They may take our recommendation and they may not. MOTION: Estes: Hoffman: Odom. Conklin: I would move that we recommend to the City Council that the Master Street Plan 2000 revision be amended to delete the current line on the map that indicates the Eastern Bypass and show a corridor on the plan that is the same as the Regional 2025 - Plan and -consistent with -the Major -Investment Study. -The reason I make that motion, I _feel.like_I need to sort of summarize my thoughts at this time, after we've had the benefit and pleasure of public comment, is that the current line on the map is fiction. It's very doubtful that line as now sited would be constructed. That is the reason I suggest we take the line off. The reason I suggest that we leave the corridor on the plan, as shown -_ in the Regional 2025 Plan, is_that-it would not be fair to take that off because someone looking at the map and studying the map would not see that area -was even under consideration for an Eastern Bypass which of course it very much is. I, with total concurrence with everything he said, will second the motion. We have a motion and second to move forward to the City Council our recommendation that we remove the current line on the map that indicates the Eastem Bypass on the Master Street Plan and that we show a corridor on the plan that is the same as 2025 Plan and consistent with the Major Investment Study. Do we have any further discussion? Before we vote, let me ask you this Tim, we've currently taken the right-of-way from one individual that had to do a lot split and that's the only person that's been impacted as a result of that line, is that correct? That is correct and just a coincidence on our next Planning Commission agenda I do have two lot splits that are impacted by this Eastern Bypass. I haven't seen any or just one in eight years now but we do have two that are coming up. One is Chip Bemis • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 50 who spoke this evening. What I plan to do is take those to City Council and ask that the right-of-way not be granted and with regard to the one that I have acquired right- of-way from, take that back to City Council and give that back to the developer. Odom: --You-can do that on -your own, it doesn't have to come through the Planning --Commission or -be -recommended -by the-P-lanning Commission? — Conklin: That was at Subdivision Committee, I could take that one back to Subdivision Committee and have that recommendation made to go to City Council. Odom: The ordinance addresses future, it doesn't address retroactive. Conklin: I would like to at least have that right-of-way returned back to the developer. This is one area where I went out and took the City vehicle and actually I almost got stuck going down towards the White River. That shows you how steep it can be in some of these areas. I think it's highly unlikely, in that particular location, we are going to have the road. Odom: I've ridden with you Tim, I'm not sure it was the terrain that was the problem. Allen: I wondered if there would be any time table as to when a study would be done and a line would be drawn again? Odom: That -would be a question best posed to John from the Regional Planning Commission, I believe. John, you said you were actually beginning your work for the 2030 Plan? McLarty: We kind of see the finishing of our 2025 Plan as the beginning of the 2030 Plan because with 80,000 people moving into this area in the next ten years, this regional concept has got to really get up and running more and more. It's been there but it's got to accelerate. Where Springdale is sitting down with Fayetteville and Johnson and we are all looking at these things. We want to immediately. We are waiting on the census data. We are now getting the State data but we won't have the good stuff for another eight months to a year. That's going to tell us the tract by tract so we can look at not only population growth but where. We want to immediately begin looking at that. I do want to emphasize even if a corridor is really established, I think the Northern Bypass is the perfect example of that and the gentlemen's questions back here are legitimate questions, its kind of a catch 22, you draw the corridor and then you have to commit major amounts of money, millions to do the environmental impact study to ever draw your line on the map. The northern corridor around Springdale, they don't have the line • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 51 on the map yet and they have spent millions and millions of dollars in engineering .studies._ You will see the crook in I-540 going up there, well that was Ozark cave fish. You can be going along and think you have a line going straight would make sense and then you_get-intoan_endangered_species_sort_ofthing_and just.end_up with.a.big.crook in the line. That costs enormous anibunts of money" Unfortunately, when the line would -ever-be put on -the map, -that -would be when -somebody, whether it's Fayetteville -or Springdale or State Highway, pulls together enough money and a lot of money to begin -to-do the engineering and the environmental impact studies. Even with the corridor on the map, the line is way off. Odom. Thank you John. Allen: I understand -that.. Thank -you. Odom: Any other comments? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call, AD 00-47.00 is forwarded by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 52 AD 00-49.00: Administrative Item Amend Sections §156.03 (D) (1) (a) (3); §166.03 (c); §166.04 (3); § 166.05 (C)(6); and §.171.03_(A)(1.)_of the-UDO-regarding dedication of right of_way An ordinance to exclude right of way dedications for freeways and expressways. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is an Administfative Item, item number seven AD 00 -49.00 -to amend Sections §156:03 (D) (1) (a) (3); §166.03 (c); §166.04 (3); §166.05 (C)(6); and §171.03 (A)(1) of the UDO regarding dedication of right of way: An ordinance to exclude right of way -dedications for freeways and expressways. The recommendation of the staff is to amend the Unified Development to exclude the right-of-way dedications for freeways and expressways. Conklin: Why am I bringing this to you this evening? Back on December 7`h we also discussed taking the right-of-way as part of this Eastern Bypass. At that meeting, I was directed to bring an ordinance forward to the Planning Commission not to acquire right-of-way through this Eastern Bypass shown on our Master Street Plan. What I have listed in this ordinance are the sections of the UDO that will have to be amended in order to not take the right-of-way. Based on your previous action, this is consistent with how we want to proceed with regard to planning for a freeway or expressway in Fayetteville. Bunch: Tim, since we have made the action we did on the previous item and forwarded that to the City Council, is this even required now? Could we table this pending the action of City Council on the item that we just voted to forward to them? Conklin: That's a very good question.- I was -also -thinking about showing -the corridor will -not be a line on our Master Street Plan. I would like you to act on this and let me get with the City Attorney to make sure there are not any conflicts in what we are showing on our Master Street Plan and language that we have in our Subdivision regulations and if it's not necessary to amend this ordinance, I will leave it at that. If it is, I will bring it forward to the City Council. Odom: Before we take any further comment from the Planning Commission, let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this particular issue, please come forward at this time? PUBLIC COMMENT: Bemis: Again, my name is Chip Bemis. This is exactly one of the reasons we were given birth to concern. We are trying to build a house, we are going to build a house about 200 feet from the center of Fox Hunter Road This was one of the concerns we discussed. • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 53 If we build a house there, we've got 16 acres potentially for the home site, we're bound at this particular moment to this particular site. Now, if this -isn't addressed, this house is consumed by a project of the magnitude that we are talking about. Granted the line is __gone but that was what dre-wounattention to the whole.scene. Odom: Chip, -just to -be -alert, the -line -is not goner -We -recommended that it -be -gone. -Just want to make sure you are aware City Council has to do that. Bemis: I understand. I wanted to draw your attention to that fact and I guess you probably are all very aware of that. With the size of that project, the road frontage is consumed. The front yard becomes the highway at that point in time if the highway were to land where it had been projected originally. We are also aware that the more money that's put into a project or to investigating the sites, the investment studies, impact studies, it seems to be more originally adhered. to. We wanted to bring that point forward also. We thank you again. Odom. I got a question. Not necessarily you Chip, just to use you as an example. One of the concerns I have about this ordinance, although I do tend to support it, let's just say that line stays there, Chip buys that piece of property and, because we are not requiring a dedication of right-of-way, he decides to put his house in a certain location, right where the line goes over it. Conklin: That currently probably is occurring in the County because there is no building permits required in the County. So, I have no idea where people are building in Washington County within our planning area at this time. That's an issue. The only time we get to have a say in trying to plan for this Eastern Bypass is during a subdivision or lot split and then the applicant is aware of that. I think we heard from the public this evening that there are many home owners that have built $300,000 to $400,000 homes out there that are not aware of this Eastern Bypass. With regard to Mr. Bemis, the procedure I brought him through was to have his surveyor show the right-of-way dedication required for the County street which is 30 feet from centerline. I informed Mr. Bemis that I would take forward a request not to dedicate right-of-way for the Eastern Bypass. That's how he is proceeding through this process. Odom: Okay. Thank you Mr. Bemis. Anybody else want to talk about this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Odom. I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 54 action. Hoffman: I have one question for staff. This ordinance is worded with the general wording to exclude right-of-way dedication for freeways and expressways, does that affect any other location in Fayetteville other than this.one? Conklin: The only freeway/expressway shown is what we call the Eastern Bypass. We don't have any future eastern bypasses shown. We do classify Interstate 540 and the portion that's 71 Bypass as a freeway/expressway on our Master Street Plan. We have not required right-of-way dedication as development has occurred along those corridors. Hoffman: The only reason I ask that is because once you leave I-540 and take the Fayetteville business exit towards the mall, is that designated freeway/expressway and would.we: • need to acquire right-of-way for any additional development north of that road? Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: MOTION: Hoffman: That is classified as a freeway/expressway. We have not required right-of-way dedication along the Interstate system or that section of the bypass next to College —Avenue. On -both sides up towards the end is-GMN,-we-have not required additional right-of-way. Because we have a proposed fly -over shown in that location. When that plat came through, we did require that they dedicate right-of-way to us. I also informed them they have to dedicate additional right-of-way in case that does happen to have access over to Mall Avenue and Shiloh. So this will not affect that? No. Thank you. That's my only question. With that being said, I'll go ahead and move approval of AD 00-49.00 subject to the staff recommendation. I'll second that. I just have one quick question. Is there a reason why we would not want it to specifically state that we would exclude right-of-way dedication for the proposed Eastern Bypass, corridor, freeway or expressway so if something happened, we wouldn't be addressing that? Is there a reason we wouldn't want to have that in Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 55 there? Conklin: I really can't think of any reason why you would want to make it just apply to the EastemBypass._Lthink_when_we are talking_about a freeway/expressway system, that's a much larger system that's serving a regional population and for a developer to —dedicate right-of-way for -a -facility that's serving the needs of an entire -region; I personally have some issues with that. I think we are talking about something larger than what's required to serve his development. I'm in support of making that amendment not to require right-of-way on all freeways/expressways. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: - Upon roll call, AD 00-49.00 is forwarded by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission January 22, 2001 Page 56 Odom. Staff, do we have anything further? — Conklin: I am passing down, to each Commissioner, a copy of Senate Bill 92. Staff has looked atthis_Senate_Bill.This-actually-applies-to. planning areas across_the_State of Arkansas. —Itlimit "the amount of Planning area a City can have. It also restricts what you can plan for within the planning area and it would have a direct impact on our discussion this evening with regard to our Master Street Plan, lot splits and subdivisions. I forward this —to -you -for your information:1f the Commission would like to -take -some type of formal action on this, please let me know and we can put something together for the next Planning Commission meeting. This Senate Bill is going to committee tomorrow and we'll keep you informed of the progress of this Bill with regard to our planning areas. Estes: Tim, is it correct that Senate Bill 92 limits the planning area in it's corporate limits in this municipality? Conklin: Basically it does. It talks about the Master Street Plan and the ability for the City to have a Master Street Plan only within it's corporate limits, what we have been talking - about this evening -with -our planning area. It also talks about subdivision regulations and that would apply to the lot splits also that we do in our planning area, it limits those to our city limits also. What we currently see and review as staff and as a Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission, a lot of that would be eliminated if this Bill does pass. Odom. Any further discussion? We are adjourned.--- - • • • PC Mtg. 1-22-01 Minutes of the 1-8-01 PC Meeting AD 00-48.00 Cooper, pp 602 VA 01-1.00 Winkler, pp 678 MOTION Ward Estes SECOND Shackelford Allen D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Y Y C. Odom Y y Shackelford Y Y L. Ward Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 9-0-0 • • • PC Mtg. 1-22-01 LSD 00-26.00 Lewis Street Town Homes, pp 403 & 404 CU 00-33.00 City of Fayetteville Wilson Park, pp 445 AD 00-45 00 Fayetteville Sidewalk & Trails Committee MOTION Hoffman Estes Hoffman SECOND Ward Ward Bunch D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Y Y Y L. Hoffman Y N Y S. Hoover Y N Y N. Allen N N Y D. Marr N Y Y C. Odom N Y Y Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Forwarded VOTE 6-3-0 6-3-0 9-0-0 • • PC Mtg. 1-22-01 AD 00-47.00 Master Street Plan - Eastern Bypass AD 00-49.00 Amend UDO Sections 156.03 (D)(1)(a)(3), 166.03(C), 166.04(3), 166.05(C)(6), and 171.01(A)(1) right- of-way dedications MOTION Estes Hoffman SECOND Hoffman Marr D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Y Y C. Odom Y Y Shackelford Y Y L. Ward Y Y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 9-0-0