HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-26 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 26, 2001, at 5:30
p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
VA 01-2.00: Vacation (Scurlock, pp 756)
Page 2 Forwarded
LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640)
Page 3 Forwarded
LS 01-5.00A &
LS 01-5.00B: Lot Split (Hudak, pp 143)
Page 11 Approved
LSD 01-1.00: Large Scale Development
(Gregg Street Storage, pp 328)
Page 25 Forwarded
RZ 01-4.00 &
RZ 01-5.00: Rezoning (Myer, pp 208 & 209)
Page 43 Tabled
• Nominating Committee
Page 74
•
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
Lorel Hoffman
Sharon Hoover
Conrad Odom
Don Marr
Loren Shackelford
Bob Estes
Lee Ward
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Tim Conklin
Dawn Warrick
Ron Petrie
Sheri Metheney
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 2
Consent Agenda:
Approval of minutes from the February 12, 2001 meeting.
VA 01-2.00: Vacation (Scurlock, pp 756) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates
on behalf of Scurlock Industries for property located at 3725 S. McCollum. The property is zoned I-
1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 14.38 acres. The request is to
vacate a water line easement.
Odom. Welcome to the February 26, 2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission.
The first thing we are going to do tonight is the consent agenda which are items that the
Planning Commission will approve without discussion unless there is an item on the
consent that the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to pull from
the consent for discussion. The two items we have on consent tonight are the approval
of the minutes of the February 12, 2001, meeting and what was previously marked as
item number three on the agenda which is a Vacation 01-2.00 submitted by Al Harris
of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Scurlock Industries for property located at
3725 S. McCollum. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial
and contains approximately 14.38 acres. The request is to vacate a water line
easement. Does any member of the audience or Planning Commissioner wish to pull
either of those items for discussion? Seeing none, they will remain on the consent
agenda and I,ll ask that you call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call, the consent agenda is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0.
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 3
New Business:
LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) was submitted by David E. Lashley on behalf of Mary
Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49
acres and 0.51 acres.
Odom. That brings us to new business tonight and the first item that we have under new
business is a Lot Split. This was submitted by David E. Lashley on behalf of Mary
Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-
2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to
split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0.51 acres. Staff's recommendation is for
approval subject to six conditions of approval. Staff, do we have a signed Condition of
Approval?
Conklin: No, we do not.
Odom: Do we have any further conditions of approval?
Conklin: There are no additional conditions.
Odom: I'll ask the applicant to please come forward.
Lashly: Chairman Odom and Commissioners, I think you have a copy of my letter of request. I
think you have anything that I would want to say about this.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Odom: Okay. As far as that goes, let's do public comment and then we'll bring it back for
questions and so forth. I'd ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to
address us on this lot split request, please come forward at this time. Please state your
name for the record and then your comments.
Reynolds: My name is Ray Reynolds, I'm an attorney here in Fayetteville. I represent John and
Cindy Meares. There may be something attached to your information that came from
the Subdivision Committee down below. I don't know if there is or not. I'm not here
to speak in opposition of the lot split. My clients basically will be in favor of doing the
lot split. They just want to go on record saying there is a discrepancy between the
north and south lines of the boundaries as far as the Meares property is concerned and
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 4
what the trust property owns. I realize this is not the proper forum to do anything about
it but I just want to go on the record simply as I talked to Conrad before so if I didn't
come here, somebody wouldn't say you should have gone to the Planning Commission
and had them look at it before you went on. This is more or less " cover yourself up"
kind of stuff to make sure we've done what we were supposed to do. We do not
oppose the lot split in any way, shape or form, my clients don't. They just want to alert
you, it may well be a result that there may be some kind of lot line adjustment that may
have to be done later on. So, I just want to go on record as letting you all know that's
out there for whatever it's worth. I will answer any questions that you have. I don't
expect that there will be any but that's my only purpose in being here.
Odom: Staff, do you have any comment with regard to that issue, we see that occasionally.
Conklin: With regard to when there is a dispute between property lines based on surveys, that's
something that is a civil matter that the two landowners have to work out between them
or through the courts.
• Odom: That's is something that his client can be protected later on, there is nothing that we
need to do to address that tonight.
•
Conklin: That is correct.
Odom: There is no reason that we can't hear the lot split because of that issue?
Conklin: The property is zoned C-2 with regard to minimum lot area and frontage requirements,
there are none so even if there has to be a property line adjustment it should not impact
this lot split request tonight.
Odom: Thank you Ray.
Reynolds. Thank you.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Odom:
Would any other member of the audience like to address us on this lot split request?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant. Mr. Lashly, come on back up here for
questions and comment. The first question I have is, whether or not you've had the
opportunity to review the six conditions of approval and whether or not you are in
agreement with those?
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 5
Lashly: I have reviewed the conditions and I have requested a waiver from the setback
requirements and some exception because of the small tract that will be affected, the
half acre. It just wouldn't be appropriate to try to build a sidewalk there. I thought the
staff had looked at that and I thought we were going to get more information on that.
That's the only thing I have.
Odom. You don't agree with the sidewalk and you are asking for a waiver of that provision?
Lashly: Yes. I understand where you are coming from. My only purpose is to try to get the
property in somebody's hands that can use it or develop it or do something. Right now
it's being occupied by people who are passing through and it's difficult to keep them
out of there. Somebody needs to protect the property.
Odom. Staff do you want to comment on the sidewalk requirement?
Conklin: Sure. We do have Chuck Rutherford here, our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. On
page 1.4 he did send us a memo with a recommendation on that. It basically states,
"Sidewalk and Trails Division is currently moving forward with an ordinance that will
allow the City to collect money instead of a required sidewalk. The money would be
used to construct a sidewalk where it would function better for the citizens of
Fayetteville. At present, at this location, one of the existing buildings will be in the new
right-of-way. Because of the present conditions at the location of this lot split I
recommend collecting the money instead of requiring the sidewalk to be built. If this
ordinance does not receive City Council approval, then this lot split will need to come
back to the Subdivision Committee." Basically, what we are saying tonight is we do
have an ordinance in the works to allow a person splitting property to contribute money
in lieu of actually constructing that sidewalk and that's our recommendation. If the City
Council doesn't pass that ordinance, we'll bring this issue back to Subdivision
Committee to deal with this issue.
Odom: What kind of money are we talking about?
Conklin: I'll let Chuck Rutherford answer that question.
Odom: Chuck, do you want to come up to the podium please?
Rutherford: The cost will be figured out at the time that the ordinance is passed and if they want to
go through with this lot split, it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 per square
foot, six foot sidewalk for the length of the two properties.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 6
Odom:
Do you not already have that calculation?
Rutherford: I didn't prepare a calculation tonight. I was under the assumption that this was
agreeable by the clients.
Odom:
Lashly:
MOTION:
Hoffman:
That's not what we were hearing just a second ago. David, can you comment on that
or are your clients agreeable to paying the sidewalk fee as opposed to building the
sidewalk, without even knowing what it is?
The buyer that I have for the half acre lot says he will do that. On the other property, I
don't have a buyer so I don't know. The estate is very limited in funds so the property
would have to be disposed of before any money could be put up. I'm kind of in a
quandary to where I go from here. If it was $3 per square foot, I think the frontage
was 175 square feet, times six, times three, whatever that is would be the cost. That
probably would figure out about $3,000. That's where I am. I realize, from talking
with the Subcommittee, that you have to do what you have to do but I need to protect
my deceased client as much as I can on the property. I'll just leave it in your hands
unless you have a question for the surveyor that's here or the buyer that's here, who
wants the half acre lot with the building on it, where the sidewalk would have to go, if it
had to be built.
At Subdivision Committee and later at agenda session we did tour the property and
Mr. Rutherford explained to us how this ordinance would possibly work, should it be
passed. It's my understanding that regardless of if you sell this lot, by splitting the lots,
if you sell the lot normally you would have to provide a sidewalk now and this is a way,
a compromise, to defray that cost onto the buyer. The plat can't be finalized until the
City passes that ordinance anyway. There is a little bit of lead time there for you. I
don't think that it's advisable for the Planning Commission to be waiving sidewalk
requirements on major thoroughfares but, it's quite obvious that at the commercial
building that's existing there, it would be infeasible to put a sidewalk in front of it
because there is already a concrete paved area there anyway. When you do get a
buyer and they develop the property, that would a requirement that they would have to
follow anyway. So, I think I would like to move for approval of this item based on all
staff comments and just making sure that you understand that this contribution in lieu of
putting the sidewalk in is not an immediate requirement and you do have the right to
come back and have it reheard should the ordinance not pass. So, I'll just go ahead
and move for approval.
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 7
Odom. Sure. Come on up. You are the buyer, is that right?
Dramis: Yes. I'm John Dramis and I've been in the commercial building for about six years.
We don't, as a buyer, don't have a problem with putting the money in the fund for the
ordinance but I think David's problem he is running into is the property next door. He
doesn't have anybody to buy that at this time. Is it possible for us to get the lot split
with the understanding that we'll put in the money to the fund from our part and then the
future buyer on the other property put it up later. Will it hold up the split, this money
put in funds for the residence, the other half.
Odom: I don't think the split is going to be held up. I think the split is going to authorized and if
there is a problem, you can come back.
Dramis: Does money need to be in for both properties before the split is authorized?
Odom: I think you can go ahead and grant the lot split. I don't know of a way for us to require
that the lot split... Tim, help me out here. There is no definite ordinance.
• Conklin: There isn't. What we were suggesting is, if they would like to see if that ordinance will
pass that they be given an opportunity to put the money up. Our Staff Engineer here
has done the calculations, it's about $5,000 for the entire tract. Typically for a lot split,
as these properties are subdivided, we get the sidewalk built now. In the past we've
had some developers, Commissioners concerned about building sidewalks where there
isn't a lot of pedestrian activity and that it might be better to look at ways of collecting
the money and using the money in areas that would benefit areas where there would be
more pedestrian activity. I look at it as either/or. You build the sidewalk or you put the
money up to the City, not waiving that requirement. I think your options here tonight
are, if you don't want to see if that ordinance is going to work, require the sidewalk be
built within the right-of-way along School Street and have that coordinated with our
Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. If you want to see if that will work, pass it with this
condition and if for some reason we can't work that ordinance out at City Council,
have him come back to Subdivision Committee and let Subdivision Committee deal
with that issue. I'm very hesitant of waiving the requirement for a sidewalk.
Odom: You know there is certainly some uncertainty but the uncertainty is really out of our
hands because we are passing this contingent upon the City Council taking some action.
Dramis: We will get a conditional lot split as long as we are willing to put the money into the
• fund if that was approved?
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 8
Odom. If that's approved, yes.
Conklin: If that's approved, we'll set up an escrow account here at the City that will be interest
bearing
Dramis: My question is, would money for both properties at one time have to be put in or could
the one part be put in and wait for a buyer on the other piece of property, when it's
sold, to put his or her money into that other piece?
Conklin: We would need to have the money for both tracts. When you do create the deed,
transferring ownership of that property to you, that will leave the remainder as a parcel
already. Therefore, we need both to make sure that we don't let that fall through the
cracks. We'll go on to condition number two when you are ready.
Bunch: Tim, is there any way to defer payment on the larger of the two lots contingent on the
sale and that it would be paid at that time, it would be part of the transaction?
• Conklin: We have no way of tracking land sales, property sales in Fayetteville. Property is sold
every day here in Fayetteville and it does not come through the Planning office. When I
talk about existing property that hasn't had a lot split on it or subdivision, it's impossible
to track that.
Odom: Staff, did you want to comment on item number two?
Conklin: Yes, condition number two, there will be a waiver of right-of-way dedication along
School Street. That is classified as a principal arterial, it requires 55 feet from
centerline. As we already stated, there is an existing building that would be encroached
by this right-of-way. That will also have to go to the City Council and City Council will
have to accept a lesser dedication of right-of-way. Staff is in support of that waiver.
Hoffman: My motion is to include the waiver because if the building is torn down and a new
building permit is applied for, at that time the right-of-way will be required.
Odom. We have a motion. Do we have a second for the motion?
Shackelford: I'll second.
Bunch: I have a question for Ron Petrie on the sewer. We have a letter from David Lashly
• saying the sewer has been connected but it doesn't resolve the question of whether the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 9
sewer was connected across 71 or whether it went across the back lot and acquired an
easement. Has that been clarified to your satisfaction?
Petrie: No sir. That's one thing that will still have to be worked out before Planning can sign
that lot split.
Cantrell: I was there when they checked it. I'm Pam Cantrell, the business manager at Dramis.
There is a lot behind this subdivision and it's connected back there on two separate
lines basically where we want the lot split.
Petrie:
Okay. That's basic information. We knew it went into the sewer station. We just
know if the one house to the north went directly into it or whether it connected to these
other houses.
Cantrell: .No, they aren't connected. There should be a letter there from the City.
Petrie: Right but it did not strictly verify that. I can get with Paul Mitchell, that's who it came
from.
Cantrell: Yes, I was there when they did it.
Petrie: That will just need to be verified before Planning will stamp this split.
Bunch: The question I have is, do we have an easement on this if it crosses the property that is
being split off, are we required to have an easement and should we have that entered
into the record or would it be part of the standard conditions to take care of that?
Petrie:
It is mentioned in the conditions and I believe they do show a private easement. It's
shown about midway on the northern boundary, there is a small private easement that
goes over to the northern tract. That has been added. The one thing I would like
added to the final plat that's filed is them showing the separate service line going to the
northern tract. Just to insure that it is in that private easement that's shown.
Odom: Ron, are you able to do that as a part of condition number six?
Petrie: Yes sir.
Hoffman: I was under the impression that this item number four covered that.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 10
Marr:
Question for Commissioner Hoffman, who made the motion, exactly what is the motion
as related to condition number one. Is it taking money in lieu or is it requiring the
sidewalk?
Hoffman: It's either/or. It's up to the applicant whether or not they would like to construct a
sidewalk. I would imagine, to take it one step further, that the applicant with the
commercial building could put up money in lieu if that's an option available to him and
that the unsold lot, if need be, could actually construct a sidewalk and meet our
ordinances should that pass City Council. There is going to be a period of time that
they will have to wait before the plat can be filed if they choose to exercise the money in
lieu of option.
Marr: But the requirement itself is that either money or sidewalk goes? It's not a waiver?
Hoffman: No. The only waiver I'm intending on is number two with that right-of-way dedication.
Marr. Thank you.
Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call LS 01-4.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0.
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 11
LS O1 -5.00A & 5.00B: Lot Split (Hudak, pp 143) was submitted by Jacki & David Hudak for
property located at 4250 Sassafras Hill Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains
approximately 11.67 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.26 acres, 4.31 acres and 5.37
acres
Odom:
The second item under new business tonight is another lot split, LS 01-5.00A and
5.00B submitted by Jacki & David Hudak for property located at 4250 Sassafras Hill
Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 11 67 acres.
The request is to split into three tracts of 1.26 acres, 4.31 acres and 5.37 acres. Staff's
recommendation is for approval subject to four conditions of approval.
Conklin: That's correct.
Odom. Do we have signed conditions of approval?
Conklin: No, we don't.
Odom. I ask the applicant to please come forward at this time.
Hudak: My name is Dave Hudak.
Odom: Do you have any presentation that you would like to make?
Hudak: We do not have a presentation. We agree to the conditions.
Odom: You do agree to the four conditions of approval?
Hudak: Yes sir.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Odom:
Jones:
Let me ask, before we get to the questions and answers of the Planning Commission, if
there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this lot split
request? Please come forward at this time. Please tell us your name and then your
comment.
My name is Sue Jones. I have a petition that we would like access to our property
which is on the 1.26 acres. We went to the Subdivision Committee. I have some
pictures and other papers that they've mentioned. I have them with me if you are
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 12
Odom:
Jones:
Odom:
Jones:
Odom:
Jones:
interested at all.
Are you part of the lot split request?
No.
You are surrounding it?
I'm actually opposing it.
Your opposing it, okay. You have some access problems?
Yes.
Hoffman: On this plat. I think we gave you a copy of this plat at Subdivision. You have a gravel
drive showing that accesses your property kind of to the south where the fork in the
road is. What was confusing to me at first, at Subdivision when you came with this, it
sounded to me originally as though you did not have access to your property from a
public street or right-of-way without going through this gravel road.
Jones: Just right there. The top one is not ours.
Hoffman: Below.
Jones: That's true
Hoffman: In fact, your property does adjoin the right-of-way Sassafras Hill Road.
Jones: No, it does not. I have an aerial copy of our property and I have the warranty deeds,
the numbers which I don't understand. I know where we are. You have to go down a
half a mile, there is 60 feet that belongs to them and then the rest of it is like half a mile
onto our property. We have no road frontage at all anyplace else.
Hoffman: Staff help me out here. We did discuss this very item and said "If you have road
frontage then you're request for us to grant an easement through the Hudak's property
is irrelevant. But, if you don't have road frontage, we can't grant a lot split that land
locks a property.
• Conklin: I apologize, I was not at the Subdivision Committee meeting that day but we do have
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 13
Marr:
Jones:
Hoffman:
Jones:
Hoffman:
Jones:
Shackelford:
Odom:
Jones:
Odom.
Jones:
Hoffman:
Jones:
on page 2.7 in your packet, the best information we can gather with regard to how the
property currently exists out in this part of our northeast planning area. The only thing I
can tell you, if you would like to see the map we're looking at maybe you can help us
out here too. That's the County Assessor's parcel map. It contains the actual parcel
numbers. My understanding is Eddy Family Trust was the parcel in question that
adjoins the small triangle piece to the east. Based on this map, I can only tell you what
I'm looking at and what 1 can see. It looks like it has frontage on Guy Terry Road
which includes the entire northern boundary line of that parcel in question, 15298 parcel
and frontage on the east side of Guy Terry Road.
What space is yours, Ms. Jones?
I am on 15269. I don't understand this. I also have a picture of this. We have no
frontage except that driveway.
So you have to go through 15298? On this map, the hatched area is the one in
question and if you go across the street from that is the Eddy Family Trust. Is that
yours here?
I believe this is ours right here.
You have to go through there?
Yes. Actually, we go straight back.
She comes off Sassafras and right through there.
Does Guy Terry Road not continue?
Guy Terry Road goes ahead and continues, it's a paved road. Sassafras is a dirt road
and it T's right there. That's right where our driveway is.
Do you not have frontage on Guy Terry Road?
No, we don't.
So, it just stops at the corner?
We are just right in the middle of this property.
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 14
Shackelford: Where does the road go from right here?
Jones: What road is this?
Shackelford: This is Guy Terry Road.
Jones: Guy Terry Road goes on around to Butterfield Stagecoach Road.
Hoffman: So, Tim?
Bunch: Are you 15269 or 15269-001? Are you the little bitty one that's included?
Jones: We are like two acres right in the middle.
Bunch: That makes a difference. Can you tell Loren that? That makes a big difference.
Jones: This is us right there, we are not this. We are just the little bitty square.
Conklin: Based on this information, that kind of concerns me that we have a parcel of land in the
middle of 15269 without an easement. I'm not sure how this parcel was created and if
it came through this process. When did you purchase that?
Jones: It's in the country. Things just happen.
Conklin: Well, it's within our Planning Area and that's why we are here tonight with this current
lot split. It kind of concerns me a little that if we have a lot existing out in our Planning
Area that is completely landlocked, what year that occurred if that came through the
process.
Jones: We've been there for 15 years.
Hoffman: Based on this information, at Subdivision we really did try to figure this out and I
thought we had this figured out but it's not, I'm going to move to table this because we
can't approve a lot split that land locks property. You all need to come in with some
better information and surveys and so forth before we can do this.
Conklin: Let me make just one statement if I may. I don't see how this lot split tonight changes
anything with regard to her property that's currently landlocked in the middle of this
15269 because we have the existing roads there, Sassafras Hill Road and Guy Terry
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 15
•
Road. The only thing that's being considered tonight is to allow that little triangle to
exist on its own which it somewhat already does since you already have road right-of-
way on eastern and northern side already and then split the property to the east. I just
point that out because I don't think what you are looking at tonight impacts this
landlocked parcel that's located here.
Jones: It impacts, not the four or five acres but the 1 26 acres, impacts ours if they sell it as
1.26 acres and we are denied our driveway. It's 60 feet is what we are talking about.
Conklin: What I was looking at, it does exist that way currently right now. They chose to do
nothing and you still don't have...
Jones:
Conklin:
I have mentioned before the adverse possession.
The City doesn't deal with that. Welcome to looking at lot splits before the County,
that's what we've been doing since May and that's why we are talking about it right
now. Also, this whole issue is, if this was not split off, your piece of property was not
split off through the correct process, that also created this problem. The City of
Fayetteville, at least as we started looking at these first, we would require those
easements to make sure we don't land lock property. This property should have never
been created in the middle of 15269. That Planning Area has probably been out there
since 1970. This is not the only situation that the Planning Division of the City of
Fayetteville is trying to work out and clean up. It happens on a monthly basis.
Hopefully people can see the value of planning in the growth areas because of situations
like this that occur where you do have a piece of property completely surrounded, a
donut hole, in the middle of this larger tract with no recorded dedicated access
easement to a public street. That's unfortunate.
Hoffman: I think I have an idea that might help out. What if we just approve tracts 2 and 3 and
not tract 1? I don't think they were planning on doing anything with tract 1 at this time.
You can speak to that in just a second but I'm Just trying to figure out a way to
accomplish what they need to do without messing up the access to the other property.
Odom:
That's a thought and a good idea. Did you have another point that you would like to
make before you sit down? If you don't mind, what I would like to do is, for other
members that wish to go ahead and speak to this issue, let's come on up and get the
comment on the record.
• Morse: I'm David Morse and I join the property on the other side up here, the driveway.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 16
Those roads were built by our parents back several years ago. They didn't even exist.
Our parents got together and built these roads with their own money and machinery and
this driveway, access to their property, is part of the old original road that come out
years ago when our family got togther and they straightened that road out a little bit.
That's where that Y come to the bend, as it is now. That driveway is part of the old
original road that come up to the Eddy Trust property. When they bought that place on
that deed, the easement was on there. So, I don't see any problem. If they want to sell
the other two parcels that's fine but as long as that road stays there it's alright.
Conklin: I don't believe, just based on the survey, that they were planning on giving up that
easement for Sassafras Hills Road or Guy Terry Road. If you want to take a look at
the survey.
Morse: I've seen all that.
Conklin: Are the easements that you are talking about shown on the survey?
Morse: Yes.
Bunch: They are talking about having rerouted the road Was that road ever rerouted? Did it
used to go straight north and to the west of this little...?
Morse: This wasn't even existing 25 or 30 years ago, we built that. The old road that comes in
right here to the property and then it comes down to here. It was to steep and hard to
keep up and the neighbors got together.
Bunch: You built this road and developed this?
Morse: We didn't develop anything, Hays is on that and they all live up here and worked in
Springdale. Our families got together and we cut a road down through there. Guy
Terry and Cless Branning did the work and the rest of the neighbors split the money.
Odom: That's why it's Guy Terry Road.
Morse: No. Guy Terry Road is up here. This is the north end of Sassafras.
Bunch: When you cut that over, you followed the contour of the land rather than the property
line, right.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 17
Morse:
Right. We just came down, Hays' owned all this at that time and Eddy's owned all
this, Perry's owned the section over here and some of the rest of the neighbors. It was
just a community project.
Odom: David, her driveway then goes basically over your land? Right down your property
line, is that Sue's driveway right there?
Morse: Yes. The old road came up right here and went right down the hill. We took the sharp
L out and made it bow a little.
Odom: So, if we do this lot split, how is it going to affect Sue's driveway?
Hoffman: Because it comes through to here.
Morse: One little end of it right there. See how much it cuts off?
Hoffman: She needs to get a dedication or something if we do anything with tract one.
Morse: If they want to sell all this other stuff, we don't have a problem. That road has been
there for a long time and it's going to stay there as long as I'm alive.
Odom: Let's don't get the chuck wagons out yet. I think we might be able to figure this out but
it's going to require a little more work.
Morse: The road has been there.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Odom. Thank you David. Any other member of the audience like to address us? Seeing no
one else, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant.
Come back up here.
Hudak: As I see it, the problem with doing a lot split is, we are concerned about Sue having
access to her property. Well, she has an easement through the family property. This
was one unit of family property that divided out to the children. 100 yards, maybe 75
yards down the road is the Morse's driveway which connects to this road, they are the
same road I can appreciate them wanting our property to make a simpler road for
them, it's a direct route but they have access to their property, they have an easement
already established. Do they need two? If you look at the Eddy Trust Farm, they have
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 18
close to a mile frontage on Guy Terry and a half mile on Sassafras Hill. Access to their
property should not be a problem.
Odom: David, come here a second. This is where Sue lives. She is landlocked. Why that
happened, 1 have no idea.
Hoffman: This is her property right here. Where is the alternate route you are talking about?
Hudak: Right here, at the edge of her property, is another drive that connects to this road.
Hoffman: Is there already something built?
Hudak: Yes, there is another drive. In fact, their mailbox sets on this drive. They established
the mailing address right here. They have an easement, they have a mailing address.
Hoffman: You are trying to sell this right, not this?
Hudak: Yes, we are trying to sell this.
Hoffman: If we Just left this out until you sorted that out.
Hudak: I would lust assume to sort it out now.
Odom: Apparently Sue is kin to the Eddy Family Trust. Staff, do you think we are able to
address the lot splits without affecting the rights of the people here that have a
complaint? They would have a place to bring their complaint? You need to help us out
here.
Conklin: Well, I'm not an attomey here but we are talking about looking at an existing right-of-
way that the surveyor picked up and has shown on the survey. That includes Guy
Terry Road and Sassafras Hill Road. Whether or not there is anything with regard to
adverse possession for this existing gravel road back there, that's for the courts to
decide and the attorney's to get together and work out, if they do believe they have
access across tract one. Just one other issue that I'll bring up and I'm not sure how the
Eddy Family Trust and Diane Morse property was split but when you look at these
parcel numbers it starts to say 01, 02, 03, 04, that actually would have required a
subdivision under our regulations. I'm not sure when that occurred but we could have
picked up on that too if it came through the process for lot split approval or subdivision
approval to make sure that 15269, the parcel that's in the middle, had proper access. I
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 19
just bring that up because I would like to educate the Commission and the public and
those watching that live in the County, that you do need to come through the planning
process.
Odom: What do they have to do in the planning process in the County on this lot split issue?
Conklin: Once this is approved, we will send that approval letter to the County and those
minutes. At this point in time, I'm not sure if this is going to be a family exemption type
lot split that's administrative and approved by the County Planner or if it will have to go
to the County Planning Board. I'm not sure but Washington County will have to
approve this in some manner.
Odom: If we approve this, Washington County will have to approve this as well? -' -
Conklin: That is correct.
Hoffman: Just for the record, I don't have any problem with the waiver on the septic tank
requirement for tract one. The only way I can see, 1 said this in Subdivision and I guess
I'll just say it again, we can approve this lot split is that we are convinced that we are
not land locking somebody in doing so. That is the only reason we should not approve
this. I don't know enough about what I'm looking at to see if tract 1, if that's brought
into this lot split and approved as a part of this lot split, if we have enough information
to know that we are not land locking. I would like to hear the other Commissioners
opinion on it or the staff.
Conklin: Mr. Chairman, once again with regard to Ms. Jones' property, I just don't understand
when I look at this County Assessor parcel map, how splitting this property is impacting
her access. If she currently has access to that property and she believes that is through
adverse possession, if she is going to use a legal remedy to gain access, I just don't see
how creating these properties with this lot configuration impacts that piece of property.
The time to consider access for that would have been when that parcel came through
the process to be split out. If you do table it, please give me direction, or the applicant
direction, of what information to provide with regard to Ms. Jones' property. I'm not
sure exactly what we are looking for at this point in time.
Odom:
I think Mr. Conklin's point is well taken. Sue's rights aren't any different now than they
are if we split this lot. Your rights don't change any. You still have the same rights now
that you will when we split the lot. Us splitting the lot will not affect your right to do or
not do anything. In other words, I would assume that you have the right to have this
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 20
dispute, as it stands now, because they own the entire tract right now. They could,
worse case scenario, go and bulldoze your road out and then you can file a legal action
against them for adverse possession or whatever the legal terminology is. Us splitting
this lot doesn't affect that in any way. It really has no affect on that. We are not
affirming that this is their tract of land and that's how it's to be divided up, is that right?
Conklin: We are not creating Ms. Jones parcel as part of this action. I guess the way I'm
looking at it, the existing street rights-of-way, the County rights-of-way that are out
there, are not changing. What exists today is not changing what they use for access.
Odom:
Conklin:
Marr:
What we do won't take away or add anything for Sue?
As far as I can tell, I don't think we are vacating... I don't think we can do that anyway.
We are not vacating any rights-of-way or easements that currently exist.
Just so I'm clear on this, where is the 2nd access to the property coming from, if it is
not the current road that is going through this triangular part of this tract one? Where
would access be that doesn't change by them having this property and what I heard
wanting it resolved and not being accessed through this tract 1 property?
Morse: There is none.
Marr: My thoughts are, if there is none, then it is in fact land locking this from the current
access that's being used which it's been there in excess of 15 years. Based on that, I
would not support the tract one item. If the reason we decline it is based on access and
access is through the triangular part, I don't understand how we get around that, unless
there is another access. Where is the other existing access?
Conklin: If we do consider access for Ms. Jones tract, we also need to go to the Eddy Family
Trust and obtain an access easement from them and Diane Morse.
Jones: There already is one.
Conklin: Do you have access from them?
Jones: We do have an easement across there.
Conklin: From 15269 because it's a larger issue other than that triangle piece.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 21
Jones:
Hudak:
Shackelford:
Conklin:
Shackelford:
Marr.
I have a paper here, we do have an easement across that.
By law they already have an easement through their driveway on the same property to
the same house. There is no issue if they have a written easement.
Addressing what Commissioner Marr said and simplifying it because I like to look at
things in the most simple terms. If I'm understanding Tim correctly, either Ms. Jones
has legal access to this drive or she doesn't. We are not affecting that at all by either
supporting or declining this lot split. That is an issue that needs to be addressed in a
legal forum, not at Planning Commission level. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Basically, we are not affecting ownership of the property, we are not affecting rights-of-
way easements or anything like that. That's already there, it's existing. She is already
crossing property that's owned by the applicant. Whether or not there is a split doesn't
affect that contest at all. I guess where I am is, I'm not necessarily opposed to the lot
split because I don't think it has any affect on this argument and I don't think we are the
people that should be hearing this argument. I think we are just strictly looking at the lot
split and they need to go to other means to settle that dispute.
Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Today someone could put up a fence on that road
and deny access to it regardless of whether it was split or not? That the access is being
allowed today has nothing to do with this particular item?
Shackelford: That is my understanding. It is already a point of contention on whether or not they
have legal access to that road. Obviously, should they put a fence in, that would force
the issue to where it would have to be dealt with in a court system quicker.
Marr:
Conklin:
I guess my question is, do we knowingly do that knowing that is a real issue between
the applicant today who's "I want it resolved now", should we be dealing with that as
an issue or should we Just be saying "Resolve this and then split it". Which way do you
go? It doesn't matter as long as they fight it out.
If they came to my office and they all sat down in my office together and they said "Tim,
we want you to force the applicant to give us an easement", and there is no subdivision
or lot split, I would tell them that they need to hire some attorney's or work it out
between them and figure out if they have legal rights to drive over that piece of property
that they currently own. That's what I would tell them. I guess what you are hearing
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 22
tonight is, they would like you to require this applicant to give them a legal access on
that driveway. Typically we don't deal with those kinds of issues. If we are talking
about a street stub -out for future roadway construction, we typically would deal with
that. Typically, on a driveway dispute on who has rights to go on someone's piece of
property, we don't try to resolve those here at Planning Commission.
Odom. Are there streets going through this on the Master Street Plan that we need to address
or anything of that nature?
Conklin: No.
Hoffman: No I don't think we should be in the easement granting business at all, I just think we
shouldn't by any action we take, further degrade the access to other pieces of property.
My question for you is, by granting this lot split for tract one, do we have adequate
frontage on a parcel of land that has an easement to it to get to this woman's house?
Conklin: It currently doesn't meet our City Ordinances, Ms. Jones' lot split. I don't believe it
probably came through the process, I'm not 100% sure. If it did, an easement should
have been granted on this piece of property. Like I said, it concerns me the number of
lot splits I'm seeing that there should have been. I agree with you. If we can resolved
it, I'm all for that. But I guess I'm a little cautious about requiring an applicant, without
knowing the full history of when this road was built and how long they've been using it
and be the judge up here to say "Yes, you meet those requirements for us to have this
property owner give up his rights to property and let them have that road." It makes
me nervous playing judge like that.
Marr:
I would concur with Mr. Conklin's comments. I understand your argument at what
point you have access. In terms of our purview over this issue is really not one we
would resolve any type of easement. While I sympathize with you, I would concur that
you need to work it out with the applicant because it's not something that we would do
here. Assuming that there is access to the property which I'm hearing, we believe there
is adequate frontage to allow access to properties up here along this development, to
your parcel.
Hoffman: That's my question, is there access other than through lot one? I've heard two different
answers.
Shackelford: If there is not, then they are going to be granted access through lot one. You can
• petition the County Commissioner and if you own property, you are afforded the right
k_,
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 23
to have access to your property. My point is that right now they are using this gravel lot
on tract one, if it's split or not split, they are already using this gravel lot on tract one.
At some point, somebody that has the authority to make the decision, is going to have
to make the decision "Yes, that is the access to that property or no, it's not. Let's go
ahead and deed it and fix this once and for all." My contention is, we don't have the
authority to do that. Whether or not it's split into three tracts or it's all one tract owned
by the same person, does not affect that. I don't think that we are the source of relief
for Ms. Jones in this case. I don't think that it's our position to be worried about that.
I think we look at the lot split on it's own merit knowing there is another source of relief
for Ms. Jones to find access to her property.
Marr: That's what I'm agreeing with.
MOTION:
Hoffman: You convinced me. I'll make a motion to approve this lot split, based on all staff
comments, with the notation clearly in the minutes that we were concerned with access.
That when the County Commissioners take a look at it, that they are aware of that issue
as well.
Conklin: I think that's a great idea. The Circuit Clerk allowed this deed to be recorded, creating
this landlocked parcel and the County Planning Office should have looked at this and
reviewed it first. Therefore, maybe the County can resolve this issue.
Marr:
I also think that this type of work should be done before it gets to the Planning
Commission so we are not having these kinds of discussions here if it's not something
we should be considering.
Hoffman: We talked about this at Subdivision.
Odom: We have a motion on the table, do we have a second?
Shackelford: I'll go ahead and second.
Odom. We have a motion and a second, do we have any further discussion?
Hoover: I have one question for Tim Conklin. You have here that the State Health Department
requires a septic system permit for all lots under 1.5 acres and my understanding from
the State Health Department is it requires it on all lots. It doesn't matter the size.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 24
Conklin: With regard to if you have a septic system, you do need to get a permit from the
Arkansas Department of Health, no matter what size. There used to be a ten acre
exception to that, I think that has been removed.
Hoover: I guess that's just how I was reading it that you are saying only for lots under 1.5 acres.
Conklin: What we have decided to do was require a perc test for any parcels that are less than
1.5 acres. The reason for that is that, when you start going below an acre and a half,
there can be issues about siting a septic system on that size acreage. Therefore, it's
over an acre and a half, we have placed a condition that they have to have one. If it's
below an acre and a half, we have said, you have to dig a hole, tell the person doing the
test that you are going to have a three or four bedroom house, fill it with water, do the
actual test, layout the septic filed and design it and submit that to the County Health
Department. It goes to Little Rock and you get the permit in hand. With regard to this
1.26 acres, they were concerned about the trees on this property and having to remove
them in order to do that test. Therefore, they asked for this waiver in order to save the
trees since they have no plans on developing it. That's why we are asking for a waiver
tonight.
Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and second by Commissioner
Shackelford, do we have any further discussion? Call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call LS 01-5.00A and 01-5.00B is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0.
Odom: The motion carries on a vote of 7 to zero. You all now have to go forward to
Washington County Planning or whatever appropriate body that is, for approval.
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 25
LSD 01-1.00: Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) was submitted by Dave
Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located
between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini
Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in I-1 district.
Odom. The next item we have on tonight's agenda is a large scale development submitted by
Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for
property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is
zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres.
The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use
unit 21) in 1-1 district. The applicant is proposing to construct 650 to 800 storage
units. The property is located north of Ridout Lumber on Old Gregg Avenue. Staff is
recommending approval subject to 11 conditions of approval Are there any further
conditions?
Conklin: There are no further conditions.
• Odom. Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval?
•
Conklin: No, we don't.
Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time.
Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with Jorgensen and Associates, representing Sweetser's on this
project. I don't believe that there are any position to the conditions of approval. I
believe that was all worked out in Subdivision Committee.
Odom: Do you have any other presentation that you would like to make at this time before we
take comments from the public?
Hennelly: No sir.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Odom: Let's do this then. Let's take public comment. any member of the audience like to
address us on this large scale development issue?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 26
Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant.
Let's take questions and comments from the Planning Commission.
Shackelford: I have a question of staff. Condition number 6 talks about the tree preservation act
being violated and a fine being assessed, it doesn't state how much that fine was. I was
just curious how much it was and how it was calculated.
Conklin: Sure. Kim Hesse our Landscape Administrator is here this evening and I'll ask her to
come up to the podium and explain to you how that fine was assessed.
Hesse: What we assessed was a $500 apiece fine for each tree, $1,000. That fine has not
been assessed at this time, I'm waiting for approval for that initiation.
Shackelford: Is that a set fee, $500 per rare tree?
Hesse:
Odom:
Hesse:
That's the maximum fine by state law.
By state law, is that what you said Kim? The applicant is in agreement with that?
I presented this to the applicant prior to review by the City. He's aware of it and is
willing to pay those fines.
Odom: In addition, no additional tree canopy will be removed from the site, is that correct?
Hesse: That's correct. The existing tree canopy that remains on the site, is on either side of
Skull Creek, to the far west of the site. There may be one other tree near the right-of-
way. They propose, through additional plantings that's required for other ordinances,
they will be planting back 17 pin oaks. In my memo, I pretty much go through the
percentages. What was existing on the site was 8.15%. With those two trees that
would have added about 2%. They would have had approximately 10% counting
those two trees that were removed.
Allen: I still didn't hear what you said. Are you saying 10%?
Hesse: There was 10% including all the trees that were existing on the site. After the two
walnut trees were removed, that brought it to 8.15% canopy coverage. I guess what
I'm saying, they never had 15% existing to begin with.
Odom: The commercial site development standards, they are adding an additional 3.04%, is
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 27
that right?
Hesse: Yes.
Odom. So they are going to have a total tree canopy of 11.2% and you are in agreement with
that?
Hesse: Yes.
Bunch: Kim, could you please develop a little further how come the 10% penalty was not
assessed that the tree preservation ordinance calls for if trees are removed within 5
years prior to the development of the site?
Hesse:
Basically I think there are two ways to interpret that. If you look at the ordinance, it
says, if trees have been removed below the minimum percent canopy within five years
of application for development, the replacement canopy requirement shall be increased
by 10% of total canopy. To me that means they have to add 10% of the total canopy
which is not 10%, that would be 1.5%. Whether or not that was the intent of the
ordinance, that's how I interpret it. I've had people interpret it both ways. To me, I
think that clause was put in there for a less severe avoidance of the ordinance or maybe
no knowledge of the ordinance and more for a situation where you have a landowner
that possibly would clear a site in preparation for sale. This situation, I felt was a little
bit more, I felt quite confident that they knew that those trees were there obviously, the
applicant knows of the tree preservation ordinance, it was quite clear to me by the date
that it was submitted to the City that this specific development was already proposed at
the time those trees were removed. I received a phone call from a citizen that they
were removed the day before this phone call and within ten days, this was submitted to
the City. Certainly, he was aware of the situation at the time they removed the trees.
That's more of a blatant avoidance, Just not following the ordinance at all. I really have
always felt that the five year clause was more for something a little more subtle. It's up
to this Commission to determine whether you want the additional 10% or if you prefer
the fine. It really is going to depend on the number of trees on how you interpret that.
Odom: I think it's up to you. If the applicant disagrees with you then it's up to us to interpret
your decision.
Hesse: My recommendation is that we fine.
• Bunch: Does the ordinance read that it's mutually exclusive? It seems like it's not a double
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 28
indemnity, both parts can be activated. Was there a tree preservation plan submitted
prior to any grading work?
Hesse: No.
Bunch: So, that's a blatant disregard for the ordinance there?
Hesse: Right. Which is why I chose to fine.
Bunch: All parties involved and the applicants are not new to the process in Fayetteville are
they? They have been here a while and should be well familiar with the ordinance.
Hesse: Yes.
Allen: Why would they not have to bring it up to the 15% and pay the fine?
Hesse: I can see them, by this ordinance the way I interpret it having them bring it up to maybe
1.5% more than the 15%.
Bunch: Or possibly the 25%?
Hesse: It depends on how you interpret it. In my interpretation, it does say 10% of the total
canopy. I've had to interpret that in the past in other situations. Not for this specific
thing but for other ordinances where possibly there was a stipulation that they had to
come back and save all the trees. It didn't talk about percentage, it talks about trees or
individual canopy. It's kind of the same thing. This says 10% of the total canopy. I'm
reluctant to have them add more trees because of the fact the condition of the site, the
condition of the soil. It has been used as a storage facility for Washington County. I
don't know how many layers of gravel has been put on that site. For them to prepare
for trees that they require, they are going to have to do some cutting and get some soil
in there. I'm just not confident those trees would survive and the more we put out
there, I don't know if we would be gaining canopy.
Odom: I'm just trying to understand. The total canopy, if you add those two trees back in
there was 10.5% of the site. That's what you are saying, right?
Hesse: It was just barely over 10%, like 10.1%.
• Odom. So the 10% penalty, what you are saying is they would have to add another 1%
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 29
Hesse:
Bunch:
because that's 10% of the canopy that was on the site before they cut the trees down.
That's where you get your additional 1%?
Yes.
That was part of my question as whether or not it's just a flat 10% across the board
that would be added to whatever the existing canopy was or to the 15%. Where does
the 15% come in? We know that it was less than 15% initially. We really don't know
because it was cut before the tree plan was filed but the photographs do show.
Somebody snuck in the middle of the night and cut the trees down. We can't count
them because they got rid of them already. To me, the penalty for a blatant disregard
on that, $1,000 is a pretty light penalty that would open up Pandora's Box to wholesale
tree cutting in Fayetteville prior to the time that our new ordinance is finished and voted
upon. Right now we are kind of in limbo and this situation is fairly critical. Another
thing I'm looking at is the extensive amount of building and asphalt on this site with
nothing to break it up. That's one reason I was looking at the increase percentages to,
in some way, offset the effects of all that asphalt. That's going to create a tremendous
hot spot even though it is right next door to the University farm. I would tend to be in
favor of exercising a 10% as a mitigation in addition to whatever has to be put in for
other design standards. The penalty, the fine, as well as additional acreage and if it
requires soil removal and replacement to accommodate that then, that's the way it is
because those trees that were existing that were cut, apparently their root system had
found good soil.
Hesse: Yes, that's possible. Those trees were likely there before it was used for it's latest use.
I'm sure those trees were there at the time.
Bunch: How large were they? Where they walnuts?
Hesse: They were walnut trees.
Bunch: How large?
Hesse: They were over 24 inches in diameter but I do not have an accurate size.
Bunch: They probably predate the invention of asphalt and County Road Departments and that
sort of thing.
Hesse: They predate the use of the County Road Department, certainly
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 30
Allen:
1 have the very same concerns and agree with Commissioner Bunch. I wondered
whether or not you saw the trees? Did you go out to the site before the trees were cut?
Hesse: No. I'm basing this off of information just from remembering what was there, from
aerial photographs. The trees were removed from the site when I got to the site.
Allen: I talked to Ralph Ness, who's office was there for a long time and he recalled a good
bit about the number of trees. There were six or seven in back and three or four in the
front, as best he could recall. I drove by and I see no trees unless they are way back,
those scrubby trees. It said "keep out", so I obeyed the rules but I want them to obey
the rules too. This certainly, a realtor who's been here since the 1960's I think, I would
like to send a real clear message that we obey our rules and our ordinances.
Marr: Kim, I have a question. If the requirement for I-1 is 15%, why we not be requiring
15%?
Hesse:
The ordinance only requires that you replace or maintain what's existing on the site
prior to the development. What was existing on the site prior to development, as far
we can tell is 10%.
Allen: As far as we can tell.
Hesse: Yes. From aerial photos that go back to 1997.
Marr: What I'm reading the requirement in an I-1 zone is 15%, what is that? Educate me.
Hesse: If you had a site that was half covered, 50% covered, you would have to preserve 15%
of the whole site, meaning you would have to lose 35% of that canopy. If you started
with no trees, you would not be required to preserve or replace any trees based on our
current ordinance.
Allen: So you can fairly cheaply cut your trees down and be fined $500 a tree?
Odom. Let's address the Chair before we speak. Commissioner Shackelford?
Shackelford: I just want to make two points real quickly. First of all, we are talking like we are
letting the developer off and we need to remember that we are penalizing them to the
maximum letter of state law. We don't have the choice to set what our fee is. That is
set for us and it's my understanding that state law dictates $500 per tree is the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 31
Marr:
Odom:
Hesse:
maximum. She is fining him the maximum. Second, I think we need to remember this is
I-1, heavy commercial zoning and it's been used as a storage facility for the State
Highway Department for quite some time. It's not like this was a pristine forest two
weeks ago. We did lose two trees and that wasn't right. We are fining the developer
the maximum we can fine them as defined by state law. I agree that probably shouldn't
have been done but I think we are addressing it with the fine. That's what Ms. Hesse
has done in this situation and I support her recommendation to go forward on the
landscape.
I agree with Commissioner Shackelford. My thoughts on it are, would a more
appropriate fine be to say we should require the minimum if they would have been a
brand new development, is that more of an impact to say, let's require the 15% which
gives us 4% more as opposed to the dollar amount fine of $500 per tree. I'm just
wondering if any consideration was given or if it's purely a fine versus a beginning site
coverage.
The way I read Kim's report, and you can jump in, basically the reason you decided on
the fine is we don't have a good way of insuring the replacement trees that we have are
properly maintained or survive.
That and basically, in the past, we have always allowed to use our Parking Lot
Standards or the Commercial Design Standards as replacement trees. With the
Commercial Design Standards, they are installing 17 oak trees which would reach that
replacement plus the 10% of that existing canopy. If you interpret it that way, they are
paying a fine and they are replacing the trees. Based on the way we have always done
it since I started and prior to my employment here, they've always allowed the other
requirements to equal replacement trees. So, they are doing that by meeting the
Commercial Design Standards.
Marr: That's 11.2%?
Hesse: That's if you interpret it the way I look at it.
Hoffman: I would like to expand our discussion concerning the landscaping of the site. We've
got before us a really large mini -storage facility going in and filling in an already
developed area of town. Directly south of the property there is a Master Street Plan
proposed and I believe a SWEPCO utility facility of some sort proposed to go into
that. The master street would then be constructed by SWEPCO that would directly
adjoin this property and, at some time in the future, connect with the Ernie Jacks
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 32
•
Boulevard. With the replacement canopy in mind, with the fine, I agree with your
assessment as you've made it. I would take it a step further though and say that we
need to consider the development as a whole and when we're thinking about it, we
need to think about what's going to be passing this on the south property line in the
future. I would propose, in addition to what's been shown on these plans, that the view
obscuring vines along that fence be planted, the landscaping along the fence line would
additionally mitigate the view and screen the property. That is required in the
Commercial Design Standards for a commercial development, this is heavy
commercial/light industrial. Could you give a recommendation on that item?
Hesse: Whether they should be required to put up screening?
Hoffman: They've got chain link fence around three sides of the property, a nice looking fence in
the front, wrought iron with brick, but on the south property line if we are going to have
a street going in, I would like to see more than just a chain link fence. I think it's an
ordinance requirement. On page 4.6 of our packets we've got screening for
commercial buildings and development, "that shall mean a view obscuring fence, view
obscuring berm, architectural treatment or vegetation or a combination of the four."
Conklin: That section of the ordinance is talking about mechanical and utility equipment, trash
enclosures. We had this discussion early on with regard to what is required to be
screened for mini -storage. We actually have an ordinance section that states if it's
adjacent residential, then you have screen. We informed them that they had to screen
until we figured out that it wasn't adjacent to residential.
Hoffman: This says screening for commercial buildings and development in my packet. I'm
looking at page 4.6, item two.
Conklin: The things that we screen at that section are utility equipment, trash enclosures. We are
not trying to hide our commercial development. This is an industrial development, it's
an industrial use, it's warehousing. We have not in the past screened warehousing
unless is was adjacent to residential zoning. I think it's a great idea.
Hoffman: I think it's a requirement, the way I'm reading this. The reason I say that is, we have
screened or applied the Commercial Design Standards which is almost impossible to do
with mini -storage buildings to areas that can be seen from a public way. WalMart has a
berm.
• Conklin: We were trying to screen their loading dock area
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 33
Hoffman: We've got loading docks here. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to
consider the aesthetics of this project as a whole.
Conklin: I agree. I think it's a great idea. Typically we've had these requests in C-2 zoning
districts through a conditional use process and, as you are aware as the Planning
Commission, we have gone out and made them build fences and put in shrubs or pines
or whatever type of vegetation to help screen. This is zoned I-1, heavy
commercial/light industrial. There are many storage units used for warehousing.
Hoffman. I don't have a problem with the use. I think they are indeed a use by right and I think
we have an obligation to make this development as attractive as we can from all
potential views.
Conklin: I understand that. I believe we do have an ordinance in our code book that states,
when you do have to screen mini storage units and that's when they are adjacent to
residential. I do believe the ordinance does address that. I don't think it would be
appropriate to hide these buildings in an I-1 zone. If you feel differently and you want
to place a condition on this, you could certainly do that as a Commission. We had a
discussion with the applicant regarding the screening requirement. Initially, I thought
across the street was zoned residential to the east, actually it's SWEPCO's shop area,
which is zoned I-1 and therefore doesn't come into play. To the south is Ridout
Lumber and also the SWEPCO Substation that will be coming to you in the next few
months, zoned I-1. Once again, I don't think we can require that screening.
Odom:
I think we need to have clarification before you make your next statement. The
Planning Commission does not have the authority to make an additional requirement
that is not in the ordinance to a use by right. We don't have the authority to create
another obligation. Lorel may have her interpretation which is that it is required, I
understand that. You can't say that we have the right.
Conklin: You do not have the right. Let me just clarify that too, if you do disagree with my
interpretation, that does go to the Board of Adjustment and you can have me overruled.
They meet once a month.
Hoffman: Let me be specific. In this item 2A, I read the first part of it but it's screening for
commercial buildings and development, the use classification of this zoning is heavy
commercial/light industrial so I would say that we at least have the commercial wording
in the zoning designation itself'. The vegetation or a combination of the four should be of
sufficient height to prevent the view of the screened items from vehicular and pedestrian
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 34
traffic on adjacent streets and from residential property. I'm saying that we have an
adjacent street here.
Conklin: What are the screened items though? That's what I'm looking at.
Hoffman: The building. The screening for commercial building development.
Conklin: Then the ordinance talks about mechanical, utility equipment, trash enclosures and
outdoor storage and material and equipment shall be screened if visible for the highway,
street right-of-way or from residential property.
Hoffman: That's item B, I'm not even looking at that. I'm looking at item A. I'm pushing this
because I'm seeing the area is primarily residential. We will have a street by it. We
could conceivably, back in the interlines back there, have some residential development
passing by this.
Conklin: I agree. The reason why I'm being conservative on this is that we also have an
ordinance that talks about when you have to screen mini -storage units from view. That
talks about if it's adjacent to residential zoning districts. When that ordinance was
passed, that was only about five years ago, there was discussion with regard to when
you screen mini -storage units and they stated that is was adjacent to residential zoning
districts. That's why I'm taking a hard stance on this. I really believe this ordinance
doesn't require us to hide these mini -storage units in an I-1 zoning district.
Hoffman: I want to back up and say that I do want to be fair to everybody and, in all fairness, it is
a general rule that when you have a more specific ordinance, Conrad was pointing that
out, that a more specific rule applies. However, I think I do have a case here for at
least some consideration. We have Commercial Design Standards that we always
apply to commercial developments unless they are completely and totally industrial.
Conklin: I guess that's where we are at odds. Is this a commercial development or is this a
warehousing mini -storage development?
Hoffman: Of course we've got the commercial up front. I think they have dealt with that. We
can move on. I think I've said enough and I don't want to repeat myself too much.
They have dealt with the front facade with the brick and with the wrought iron fencing
and screening and the living quarters and office. That's all I have to say at the moment.
Bunch: Just kind of a housekeeping note here. Tim, is the existing fence line for the southern
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 35
border of this property, is that same as the property line? Maybe Tom could answer
this.
Hennelly: That fence line is until you get to about the western quarter of that south boundary
where there is a creek and the fence line deviates slightly from the property line.
Bunch: Who owns the piece of property between the fence line and the driveway that goes to
the private residence? I saw some flags out, to the south is a private drive that goes
down to a house.
Conklin: That is Max Parker. He currently owns that property.
Bunch: I guess part of the question that I'm trying to determine is, where is this new road going
to go? The Master Street Plan requirement and the SWEPCO considerations, is it in
the property between that private drive and the fence line? Is the private property
going to be sold to SWEPCO?
Conklin: My initial meetings with SWEPCO representatives, I believe they are purchasing the
• remainder of that property that Ridout Lumber didn't purchase so they will own the
property all the way up to Gregg Street. I have made them aware of the requirement of
the Master Street Plan. With regard to where the Master Street Plan is located in
relationship to this mini -storage unit, I would say it's approximately 30 to 50 feet south
of this property line.
•
Bunch: It's being purchased and will no longer be residential? That has a bearing on residential
view across the street from this.
Conklin: That's a very good point that you make. My understanding is that the house will be
removed.
Bunch: Is that house part of this so-called SWEPCO deal?
Conklin: That is my understanding.
Bunch: How do we determine that?
Conklin: They told me that. That's all I have and if SWEPCO backs out of the deal and walks
away, we have no guarantees. There is a single family home on that property owned by
Max Parker, zoned I-1, heavy commercial/light industrial at this time. That is the only
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 36
residence that would be close to this mini -storage.
Bunch: I don't know if that answers all the questions. If it's close to it, we still don't know if
we have residential abutting this process.
Odom: Well we don't have residential zoning but we have a potential residence.
Conklin: Just for the Commission to be aware, it does say residential use. If you want to use
Max Parker's property and try to justify screening, it does say residential use, for
screening.
Hoffman: That wasn't my intent.
Conklin: I did not think about Mr. Parker's house back on the end of that private drive as
residential use as I've been talking with SWEPCO about their ambitious plans for their
new transmission lines through Fayetteville.
• Marr. My question is the person currently living in that residence, have they expressed any
concern about screening of this?
•
Conklin: Mr. Parker has not expressed any concern to me at this time.
Hoover: I wasn't at Subdivision so, if I'm considering this under the Commercial Design
Standards I would like to know what the materials are and how the articulation are
done and all that. Would you mind presenting that?
Hennelly: That's the reason Mr. Sweetser came up with the illustration was to try to get across
the idea that he is not trying to put in a standard metal building that would be viewed
from Gregg Street. I don't know whether or not it's clear from the illustration, from the
distance that you are from, but the facades of all the buildings that will be facing Gregg
Street will be brick. There is a two-story building on the north side, the east end of the
north row of buildings, that will house a 24 hour caretaker, a live-in couple or person
that will stay there and oversee the property. The upper story of that is a stucco.
Again, this is not intended to show you exactly the colors this is Just the best that the
illustrator could do in the time available to show the materials that he intended on using,
something other than sheet metal, more like brick or Petra stone or something of that
nature to face the buildings with. As well as the fence that was alluded to earlier along
the front is a wrought iron fence with either brick or stone columns on 30 or 50 foot
centers, I can't recall. It won't look like your standard mini -storage facility as you
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 37
drive down Gregg Street.
Hoover: I just want to say one of my struggles with this whole project is, if you look at the map
and you look at what is I-1 zoning along here, it's this small pocket along Gregg Street.
I'm trying to understand what our vision is for Gregg Street. I know that this is their use
by right. I think that if I'm going to look at this as Commercial Design Standards, I
don't see that all these garage doors facing the street qualify. The other issue I had, the
others, when I was reading the 2020 Plan and I know this is too late to do on this piece
of property but, under industrial areas it says, identifying rezone inappropriately zoned
industrial areas to more appropriate uses. I certainly see that this is the case for that. I
know it's too late and I guess what I'm trying to appeal to, it also notes in here that
south of this area that it was down zoned, is that something that a property owner
brought in to down zone their own property? How do we take care of this in the
future?
Conklin: The City in the past has not initiated downzoning of private property. There are several
areas in Fayetteville that we have been approached by neighborhoods regarding
downzoning property. One of those recently was University Avenue where that entire
east side of University Avenue just south of California Avenue is zoned I-1. We could
have this mini -storage project in that neighborhood. That's one area. There is also an
area up on Mission Boulevard that we have been concerned about. I would be more
than happy to sit down with our new interim City Attorney and talk to him about the
process of downzoning private property without the actual property owner's petition.
Hoover: How did this just south of Gregg get down zoned?
Conklin: South of Gregg?
Hoover. Where it says that some of the industrial land on south Gregg has recently been rezoned
to allow high density residential use near the University. Was that originally I-1, where
all that multi family is?
Conklin: That is where a property owner comes to our office and requests that the property be
down zoned. For example, we recently had the rezoning off of Shiloh Drive south of
Wedington where it's currently zoned C-2 on I-540, they petitioned for R-2. That's
how downzoning does occur.
Hoover: So it did come from the property owner on that.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 38
Conklin: Yes, as a city, I think we do need to take a look at areas that are inappropriate and I
we do need to implement that part of the General Plan 2020.
Hennelly: If I could also say, in all fairness to the applicant, he has made several attempts to make
this project more visually appealing than what the standard mini -storage unit would be,
to include curb and gutter along the entire frontage in addition to the fence and different
facing. So, as far as this being an eyesore, there is a need for this type of business in
the city and I think he's done a really good job at trying to make this as appealing as
this use can be.
Hoover: What would make it more appealing for me is, if the front part was some type of
commercial or office space so there was a buffer between it. When I was going down
the street, I didn't have to look at this. There is several of those along College Avenue
that I don't even realize there are mini -storage units behind some commercial buildings.
Was that ever a consideration?
Hennelly: The one thing that was considered, to answer your question, no ma'am, it was not. The
one thing that was considered is, the configuration of these units individually has not
been settled upon yet. They range from 5 feet wide and 10 feet deep to 10 feet wide
and 40 feet deep or the width the building. The garage doors were shown on the front
of these buildings that face Gregg Street to indicate that could possibly be the case. It
doesn't necessarily have to be the case. There will be facilities in here, units in here,
that will be as deep as the building is wide which would preclude a garage door from
being on that side. I'm sure that every attempt could be made to try and configure it
that way. Like I say, he hasn't settled on how many different, the reason for the large
variance in 650 to 800 units, because he has not settled on the configuration of each
building yet.
Hoover: I also have an issue with, if we have a street on the Master Street Plan which you are
saying we do, that this will be viewed from the street All the sides of those, what
material are the in walls out of?
Hennelly:
Allen:
Hennelly:
Currently they are sheet metal.
Do you plan to have a sign and if so, what kind and where would it be placed?
Yes ma'am There has been an addition since this illustration was done of a pole sign.
I got with Sara Edwards from the City Planning Office and she faxed me the guidelines
for how tall. If you'll look on the plan, the recent plan that was submitted, there is a
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 39
pole sign indicated just south and east of the handicap space. That sign will be, I
believe from the right-of-way that's indicated on our plan is allowed to be 27 feet high
and have a total square footage of 34 square feet. It will obviously comply with the
ordinance that regards to freestanding signs.
Allen: Can you point to where it would be on the illustration?
Hennelly: Yes. Roughly in this location here. That's 12 feet behind the right-of-way which allows
the sign to be 27 feet tall and have a square footage of 34 square feet, where we have it
located.
Hoover: I have a question along the same lines, if we are considering that all these structures
should fall in Commercial Design Standards, should we be looking at a drawing of the
signage?
Conklin: I guess I'm at odds with the Commission this evening with whether or not these are
commercial buildings. I consider them mini -storage warehouse buildings. With regard
to the actual pole sign, staff is not recommending a monument sign at this location.
Ridout Lumber does have a pole sign directly south of this location. Once again, if you
believe that the Commercial Design Standards apply for the sign, these are mini -storage
units used for storage of items, warehousing.
Hoffman: Does any Commissioner have anything to say before we take public comment? Did
you have anything that you wanted to finish up with on your presentation?
Hennelly: There is one thing that was brought up at one of the earlier meetings, I would like to
clarify the description of this project does call for 17 buildings and there are 18
buildings that is shown. I just wanted to clear that up.
Bunch:
Petrie:
Ron, since this is quite an expanse of paving and buildings, have you had a chance to
review the drainage considerations and are they adequate? Also, in the southwest
corner where the floodplain crosses it, have those issues been met satisfactorily?
Yes, they have submitted the required information for preliminary drainage report and
they have shown detention will not be necessary for this site. They will be required to
get a floodplain development permit for any development in the floodplain. They have
gone back and revised their plan to eliminate any fill in the floodway. You can look on
the plan, they are not going to do any work in the floodway even though all this has
been filled by the County. They have met the engineering requirements.
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 40
•
•
Shackelford:
Hennelly:
MOTION:
Shackelford:
Odom:
Question of the applicant, it was noted earlier that we don't have a signed Condition of
Approval on this, I believe you also noted you are in agreement with all that. Is there
any other issue on the 11 conditions that we need to discuss? Anything else?
The only issue that came up, as Commissioner Hoffman brought up, is the screening,
whether or not that is required as well as the dedication of the right-of-way. You
should have a letter in your packet that addresses the dedication of right-of-way. The
applicant has agreed to construct the required sidewalk for this development on the east
side of what is four lane Gregg Street right now, up against the fence that bounds the
SWEPCO property. The reason for that is because the Sidewalk and Trails
Administrator, Chuck Rutherford, felt that would be the location where this sidewalk
would be most beneficial to the public. The applicant, Mr. Sweetser doesn't see that
he's going to have much walk up traffic to a mini -storage unit.
With that being said, I think I'm ready to form a motion here. I'm in agreement with
staff comments, I believe that storage units are not commercial buildings. I feel that this
is a right by use in an I-1 heavy industrial property. So, I'm going to go ahead and
make a motion for approval of LSD 01-1.00, based on all staff comments.
I'll second. We have a motion and second to approve LSD 01-1.00 subject to all staff
comments.
AMENDMENT:
Hoffman:
Odom:
Hoffman:
Marr:
Hoffman:
Marr.
I just want to make an amendment to require view obscuring vegetation on the southern
property fence line to be added to the conditions of approval.
We have a motion for an amendment to include view obscuring vegetation.
To be worked out with the Landscape Administrator. She'll know best what will grow
there.
The south side is the Master Street Plan right?
Yes.
I'll second.
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 41
Odom: We have a motion and a second for an amendment which we will vote on first and I will
give you an opportunity to comment on it before we vote.
Hennelly: The applicant does have a contention with that requirement for the same reason that he
didn't feel that it should be required for him to screen the fronts of these buildings. He
has a significant investment of what will end up being a couple of a million dollars in this
trying to market a product to the public and doesn't feel that it is fair for him to have to
hide this project from the people that he is trying to market it to. Additionally, I
understand that SWEPCO will, sometime in the future, to develop that property into a
substation and I guess subsequently dedicate the right-of-way. However, right now the
right-of-way is not dedicated. So, really that boundary is not bounded by anything but
a proposed street on the Master Street Plan.
Shackelford: I'm concerned about this. My understanding from earlier conversation, it is the way
that you read the ordinances that affects this that, it is not required given the conditions
of this, this is not a conditional use but a use by right. You, if I'm remembering
correctly, showed some concern in requiring additional conditions of approval on this
property considering we may not have the right by ordinance to do it if it's a use by
right. Can you expand a little bit on this please?
Conklin: Sure. I do not think the Planning Commission has the authority to require screening on
the south side since it adjoins I-1 zoned property. The ordinance states that if it adjoins
residential property, you can screen a residential use. Basically, I don't think the
Planning Commission has the authority to do that.
Shackelford: With that being said, I don't think I'll support the amendment. I don't think it's a bad
idea, I just don't know if this is the time or place that we need to weigh into that. It
sounds like the Board of Adjustment is the area that should be heard instead of this
level. I will not support the amendment.
Bunch: In support of the amendment, the applicant just stated that SWEPCO has not done
anything on this property. Therefore, we should not be looking at that and reverse to
being a residential use at this time. Even though it is zoned industrial, it is a residential
use. So, in looking at that as it is a residential use with no SWEPCO presence there, I
will support the amendment.
Odom: Any further discussion on the amendment? Call the roll on the amendment.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 42
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call the amendment to the conditions of approval for LSD 01-1.00 is approved by a vote of
4-3-0, with Commissioners Marr, Odom and Shackelford voting "No".
Hoffman: Let me explain a little bit to you about the reasons for this amendment and my feelings
about it. I think you are really going to know that there are mini -storage facilities there,
particularly with the 27 foot sign. I'm not objecting to that, I'm not objecting to the
overhead doors although I do share your concern. With 18 buildings and the publicity
and it's a highly traveled street, I'm just trying to raise the benchmark a bit on our
commercial developments. I do think this is a heavy commercial use because it's called
out thusly in the zoning ordinance. I'm really not trying to be punitive but just trying to
add some amenities.
Hennelly: I can see your point however, I can also see that on the south side of this right-of-way
will be a huge SWEPCO substation which I believe everybody will agree is not
pleasing to the eye, much less so than some mini -storage units. To me the addition of
some screening on the north side of this right-of-way really would have a minimal affect
on obscuring any unpleasant view on a short stretch of street. I guess if we were to
contend this, if this was approved with this condition, that we would be able to appeal it
to City Council, is that correct?
Conklin: Yes, on a large scale development you have ten working days to appeal that decision.
Odom. We have a motion and a second on the underlying motion to approve LSD 01-1.00, do
we have any further discussion?
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call LSD 01-1.00 is approved by a vote of 4-3-0, with Commissioners Bunch, Hoover and
Allen voting "No".
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 43
RZ 01-4.00: Rezoning (Myer, pp 208 & 209) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, &
Associates on behalf of Paul Myer of Myer Multi -Family Development for property located west of
Hwy 112 and north of 71 By -Pass. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains
approximately 19.05 acres The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office
RZ 01-5.00: Rezoning (Myer, pp 208 & 209) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, &
Associates on behalf of Paul Myer of Myer Multi -Family Development for property located west of
Hwy 112 and north of 71 By -Pass. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains
approximately 26.09 acres. The request is to zone to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Odom. The next item we have on tonight's agenda is item numbers five and six which are two
rezonings. The first one is RZ 01-4.00 submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, &
Associates on behalf of Paul Myer of Myer Multi -Family Development for property
located west of Hwy 112 and north of 71 By -Pass. The property is zoned A-1,
Agricultural and contains approximately 19.05 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O,
Residential Office. The second tract which is next to this is RZ 01-5.00 submitted by
Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Paul Myer of Myer Multi -
Family Development for property located west of Hwy 112 and north of 71 By -Pass.
The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 26.09 acres. The
request is to zone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff's recommendation is for
approval of the requested rezoning based upon the findings as included as a part of this
report. Staff we have your background and findings of fact. Is there any statement you
would like to make at this time?
Conklin: With regard to this rezoning, we did have quite a discussion back in 1999. At that time
there was a scheme to rezone it to C-2, C-1, R-0, multi -family. At this time, this year,
the request is to rezone this property to R-0, Residential Office and R-2, Medium
Density Residential. Staff is supporting this rezoning and it's consistent with out Land
Use Plan. We have had the public express concern with regard to the wetlands on this
piece of property. With regard to wetlands, that issue will have to be addressed during
the subdivision/large scale development process. With regard to zoning, we have not in
the past used zoning as a means to address the issue of wetlands. You can have
development in A -I zoning from farming operations to chicken houses, running animals
on the property to a Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club that's zoned A-1. Uses are all
over the board with regard to what you can do in A-1. With regard to the other zoning
districts, there are many impacts from single-family homes to offices to commercial. All
those will have to be addressed. The regulation of the issue regarding the wetlands and
any potential endangered species that may be on this piece of property are regulated
through the federal government and, of course as staff does review this, we do try to.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 44
Odom:
make sure that they are in compliance with all federal regulations. That is all the
information I have for you this evening on these two rezonings.
Staff, I believe in addition to some public concern with regard to the potential wetlands,
don't we also have a letter from the Environmental Concerns Committee that they
express some concern as well and, I believe that they have requested that we not
proceed with this rezoning request until after determination has been made with regard
to the wetlands. Is that correct?
Conklin: That is correct. Thank you for pointing that out Chairman Odom. The Planning
Commission did receive a letter on February 22, 2001., and it states "We understand
that on Monday, February 26, 2001, you will consider a rezoning of approximately 45
acres west of Highway 112 and north of the 71 Bypass, RZ 014.00 and RZ 01-5.00.
We recommend that you refrain from ruling on this issue until it can be determined if the
property involved contains wetlands." It's signed by Roxy Willis the Recorder and the
Chairperson of the Environmental Concerns Committee, Annee Littel. Once again,
since this issue is somewhat new to this planning process, I think this is the first time
we've had the Environmental Concerns Committee actually ask the Commission not to
act on a rezoning. Thinking about it and taking a look with regard to wetlands, that is
something that's regulated by the federal government. They do have to comply with
those regulations. In my opinion, I'm not sure how the rezoning will impact those
wetlands. As I stated earlier, if it was left as A-1 and you could have cattle walking
within these wetland areas versus R-1, single-family homes with backyards and dogs
and cats out in these areas also. I think you have to take a look at it and determine
whether or not this land use is appropriate within this area. This is north of 1-1
property, it's directly west of property zoned C-2, developed with the drive-in theater
and other commercial uses. Therefore, I think you need to take a look at how this
property is compatible with the surrounding land uses and, keep in mind, that when it
does come through the development process they will have to comply with all federal,
state and local regulations.
Odom: It's my understanding that under the current rules and regulations and findings as the
staff is required to make in making it's recommendation, as well as our consideration
whether or not we should recommend a rezoning or not, we've never taken into
consideration the wetlands issue, is that correct?
Conklin: That is correct. With all property, there is always environmental constraints. Those
environmental constraints have to be dealt with when they look at developing that
property.
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 45
Odom. There will be a time and place to address those concems. It seems like we are always
talking about wetlands when we are talking about LSD or subdivision, at that time, is
that correct?
Conklin: That is correct. Other projects that we've looked at, even our Research and
Technology Park, with regard to the wetlands on that it went from 8 or 9 acres to about
90 acres. When you do find out that information, you do have to be able to plan and
design your development meeting those federal regulations. It doesn't mean that you
can't have a certain type of land use, land use is determined by zoning. You do have to
comply with those regulations that control the development within or near wetlands.
Odom. I certainly appreciate the work and concern of the Environmental Concerns Committee.
However, barring a motion to table that's granted, I'm not going to allow this item to be
Just summarily removed from the agenda based upon the request. Regardless of what
our decision is here tonight, I would like for them to know that we appreciate their
comment and that those items will be addressed at the appropriate time. We are
tonight thinking that this is not the appropriate time to consider that.
• Conklin: I'm concerned that the Planning Commission is trying to determine the best use of this
land based on the issue of wetlands. That is not within your bylaws for staff to look at.
Just so the Commission and public knows, Planning is always concerned with
protecting the environment and we do want to make sure that all federal, state and local
regulations are being met. Once again, there are many areas in Fayetteville... First of
all zoning, we zone every piece of property in the City and there is property zoned with
industrial, commercial and multi -family, that all contains areas that have wetlands. Just
because you zone it in that manner doesn't mean that they are going to remove those
wetlands or disturb them. They will have to comply with those environmental
regulations. I think you need to take a look at what is the best use of this property, is it
consistent with the Land Use Plan and is it compatible with that area Therefore, staff
has made this recommendation for approval.
•
Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time.
Bates: My name is Geoff Bates, Engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates and I'm
representing the developer tonight, Mr. Paul Myer. He is also here if you have any
questions for him and the property owner is also here if you have any questions. About
the wetlands area, I talked to Mr. Ken Lion, Corps of Engineers today and he's the
one that's been researching the area on the Research and Technology Park. He said
that this property has not been delineated as wetlands area. He said it was further to
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 46
the north than the wetlands area that the Corps had already determined.
Odom: Geoff, regardless of whether it is or not, you understand that might be a concern and
you may have a problem with that in the future?
Bates: Yes, sir. I understand that. We may have to do an environmental impact study. I
understand all that.
Odom:
If you will refrain from making comments as to whether it is or whether it's not. We are
not even taking that into consideration tonight. Just move forward with your
presentation.
Bates: •- Okay. We are requesting that this property be rezoned from A -Ito R-0. We feel it
goes well with the current Fayetteville Land Use Plan. We also feel that this R-0 zoning
will provide a good buffer between the truck terminal and the proposed R-2 to the
north. That's all I have at this time, unless you all have any questions.
PUBLIC COMMENT'
Odom:
We take questions after we take public comment. Thank you Geoff. I would ask now
that members of the audience that would like to address us on this issue to please come
forward at this time. While he's passing that out, I'll read it. "We, the undersigned,
hereby request of the City of Fayetteville that the Myers request for rezoning of the
property on Highway 112 not be rezoned from its current zoning of A-1." It's signed
by 13 or 14 people.
Butcher: My name is Perry Butcher. I am an architect and a developer. I live on 3181 Dean
Solomon Road which is about three quarters of a mile west of the area that is being
considered. I would like to argue the point that the wetlands are to be protected. If
you will look at the pictures that I have given to you, they were taken this weekend. Of
course it rained this weekend but what better time to show what is happening. The first
picture is to the west of Johnson Road and the bypass. That's just to give you an idea.
The second picture is where we need to start and I'm doing this by memory but this is
looking north from Nelm's, I believe. The next one is the channel behind Nelm's that's
flooded. Since the property has been developed there already, to the south and east of
where we are talking about, we've had water going over the road and there was a
wreck there because of that, I've seen one. As a developer, I like to develop. I like to
build as an architect but, I also like to use some degree of care about protecting some
environmental things. As large as this is, this valley is not drained by a river, the valley
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 47
is not a river, it's a marsh. The soils are not conducive of big construction. The valley
has been there for many years. I have actually seen a wolf, coming home one night, in
my lights, just like a phantom that went across. They have coyote, deer, bobcat,
skunk, snakes, and beautiful birds all over the valley that sing. When we begin to
disturb these wetlands, we'll lose those. We are talking about a small portion. If I
want to protect my body, I don't want you to have me by the neck, strangling me. This
is the first step towards strangling this marsh. This marsh drains into the Illinois. That's
an important watershed for us and it should be protected. I know the value of land,
farm land, somebody offers you a lot of money for it. I can tell, as a developer and as
an architect, that you cannot go in and build normal foundations at this time without
expecting your buildings to lose value over a period of time. As an example, the school
that was built out on Salem Road which is a part of where this marsh continues on past
Salem Road, a couple of miles off. They spent $500,000 more on the foundation to
stabilize it than they would have if they would have built it in the normally good dirt that
we have around here to build on. Which brings up a point that we've got lots of good
places to build, we don't have to build here. The other point is, that on the housing
development in that same area, I watched that because I was building another one in
Bridgeport as an owner. I watched the other one develop and they spent the whole
summer pumping water out of the foundations because if you want to have a pond out
there, you just dig a hole and the water rises up. It's not because it drains into it, it's
just there. It's a marsh. One of the kids that I was visiting with out there, I went by to
see his father and he was not there, I said "I want to take pictures of this area " He
said "That is a swamp. I used to play out there when I was a kid." You should not ask
this area to support any type of program that goes beyond what it's best and intended
highest use is and that is natural. Let's leave it. We have geese that fly up and down
the valley, landing on different ponds. Why destroy that? The best and most valuable
land out there is the hills on the side where you can build a home and look out over the
valley and not destroy it. I'm not picking on one situation. We are talking about
running a road down there. I've seen the area where we are talking about putting a
major collector street down through the marsh in order to develop houses there. This is
not, your job is to help protect the environment too. I know you've not had this
marshland thing before but it's there. I deal with it all over the United States where we
have to work with people like yourselves doing the same job you are doing about
protecting the marshlands. It is important. East Fayetteville is developing very rapidly.
When I started out on the west side they said "Don't build any houses over there,
nobody will come." "You can't sell homes over there." We are selling nice homes
over there. The west side is going to develop. What would be wrong with leaving a
central area that we can enjoy 25 years from now, 50 years from now, that has walking
trails, bicycle trails, parks and leave it there environmentally safe. So far in the past,
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 48
we've had a drive-in theater that pretty much protects the environment, it's not real
bad. We have a golf course, that doesn't impact it too bad Now we are beginning to
look at people because it's kind of close to town, town is growing out there, that we
need to develop it. Why can't we develop around and past it and leave it as an enclave
for the future? A lot of times we are talking to you, we are always talking about the
future, impact of our designs, why don't we leave that there and impact the future in a
good way, a positive way? I know it's hard to turn down, to stop, but before you get it
done is the time to make that decision. Don't let it go a step at a time and say "Well
we've gone this far, let's go the rest of the way." There is not much that you have to
stop now. It's Just a couple of places where the road goes through where you have to
say "No. This is a part of the whole and we won't let it fall into the trap of
development because it's convenient." The people that are going to sell this property, I
don't know them personally, they have property that's up on the hillside that connects
to this. That property on the hillside will become less valuable because of building in the
lower level. The value is in higher ground, the building ground, not in the swamp. It's
nicer than that, it's a marsh. It's a nice place. It's not something we should say, "Just
toss aside and go on." It's something we need to keep. If you'll look, marked in
yellow, underneath this map that I gave you, look at this piece of ground you want and
put your finger down and look underneath and it gives you a soil type that is down
underneath. None of the soils in that valley are rated highly at all for building. They are
expansive soils. So, that means that when it's wet, they expand and when it's dry, it
pulls away from your foundations. These will destroy the buildings that you want to
build there. I've actually seen expansion clays, I don't know how much this is
expansive, but I've seen clays that expand underneath and push the floor drains up out
of the bottom of the building to where they are above the floor. Then they don't work
because of the expansion of the soils. You are talking about building as much as 7
homes per acre or 25 units per acres, depending on whether it's apartments or such.
Apartments, if it's two stories they will be putting 12,000 to 15,000 square foot of
building pad on an acre, plus another 12,000 square feet of parking. When you put
those footings down, you are forming a dam. The water is cut off. It's like you are
choking. I don't want you to have your hand around my throat when I'm trying to
protect my body. You are choking off the head of this marshland. In my letter I point
out that if you make a decision to go ahead and develop this, I think the type of footings
that's used should be very carefully studied so that the water can continue to flow
underneath, the subterranean water. Maybe put structural slabs up on top of piers
where we don't disturb what's underneath to much and/or to build in large patches of
connecting open space where the marsh can still find it's way through. I don't own any
property down in the valley, I would like to and 1 thought about buying some. If I
developed it, I would develop on high ground and run maybe horse pens or cow pens
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 49
or something out into the valley but leave the grass, leave the marsh. It's the best use
for it and there is nothing in this room that we can do better than what it is now.
Anything that we do is going to be detrimental to it. I just ask that you please consider
the future for my kids, whoever lives in my house in the future to be able to look out
into that valley and see the geese flying down in the valley, maybe catch a wolf some
night going through the lights, listen to the coyotes howl and not have houses or
apartments that are ill-equipped to take care of the soils that they go into. If they do
build them to do that, it's going to choke off the marsh. I wish I could convince you.
I've only lived in Fayetteville 7 years but I've lived in northwest Arkansas for 38 years.
I've made some mistakes and they are environmental mistakes too. We didn't used to
think so much about it, did we? I'm asking you to correct and rethink the planning
that's being talked about on this property, this valley. Not Just this one piece of
property. Relocate the road slightly, get them out of the marsh. Don't make the marsh
where everybody feels like they have to develop it. Am I getting in somebody's
pocket? I don't know but I still think it's the best thing to do. I hope that you think so
too. Thanks.
Odom: Thank you Mr. Butcher. Anyone else?
McCandless: My name is Don McCandless. I'm a resident to the north of this piece of property.
I'm very opposed to this property being an industrial area A residential area would
impact the area I'm in at not much of a serious problem.
Odom: Just so you are clear, you understand they are proposing residential or residential office,
not industrial.
McCandless: Yes. I do realize this. The property adjacent to that, in 1984, belonged to Joe
Sargent. I was employed by him. The sole content in that area is the same. We built a
pretty good sized truck shop there. Not a real big hitch, you Just do the precautions to
do things right, you don't have a problem. The area he is speaking of that has trees and
a few things in them, the summer of 1984 I moved there. I always thought, one of these
days I would like to have enough money where I could develop this. to just make a nice
place for everybody to live in northwest Arkansas. The access would be very nice.
Seven years ago I was fortunate enough to move out that way and I live right off
Highway 112. It's a lovely place to live because you can go to any section of
northwest Arkansas you want to easily. I don't really see much of a problem. Me and
my neighbors live north of there. I would rather see that than any other thing. Granted
we got the impact from Nelm's Motor Company which impacted the amount of water
that runs on south of us. We have to grow to be a good city. As far as my neighbors
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 50
Sabo:
and the community of Johnson, the people that live in the area I do, I don't see a
problem with it.
My name is Steve Sabo. I live just north of the property in question. I own several
parcels of land up there. With all due respect to Mr. Butcher. It seemed to me that he
was addressing issues that should not have been brought up tonight at all since this is
not a proposal for a large scale development or subdivision, it is a rezoning petition I
think the issues that we all need to be thinking about tonight are not the wetlands or
whether or not that land is suitable for development, it may or may not be. That will be
addressed in the future when a plan is submitted for that purpose. Tonight, what we
need to look at is, if the rezoning request is in compliance with the 2020 General Land
Use Plan. I think the answer to that is "Yes". Will any surrounding land or landowners
suffer any adverse affects as a direct result of this rezoning? I don't think so. I think
having that type of rezoning would enhance our property values up on the hill and I
think it would be a lot better than having that end up commercial or an industrial
development. It will be developed at some point in the future, it's unavoidable. The
city will grow and it's going to grow out that way. I think a year and half ago we went
through this process and the City recommended that might be set aside for residential
use. Now we've got an individual that would like to use it for that purpose and we
need to give that serious consideration. I believe that this rezoning request is in
harmony with the spirit and intent of the City's zoning ordinance. Also, I am under the
impression that the City's Planning Division recommended that the zoning be approved.
Is that correct?
Odom: Yes.
Sabo: When this hearing for this piece of property first started, was it not stated that the
wetlands should not be brought up as an issue tonight?
Odom:
Sabo:
1 can't prevent people from talking about what they want to talk about. I think I made
it clear that we weren't going to be giving consideration to the wetlands issue, that is for
another time. I think what we try to do is we try to derive from the comments that are
made what is appropriate and what is not and go from there.
I would just like to ask you to consider the rezoning of the property and not whether
not it is suitable for development, that will come at a later time during the LSD approval
or subdivision review. Tonight you are supposed to be looking at whether or not the
use of that property should be R-0 or residential and I think we should stick to that.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 51
Odom. I agree with you Mr. Sabo, it's just that sometimes people make a presentation, before
they come knowing what they are going to do and it's kind of hard for them to separate
some of those issues out. So, we allow those and we take what's relevant.
Sabo:
My worst fear, I drive past that property 10 or 12 times a day, is to see that turn into
industrial or commercial piece of property. My deck on the south end of my house
overlooks that valley. I would much rather see $150,000 to $200,000 dwellings and
some nice townhouses or multi -family dwellings than big trucks pulling in and out of
there time after time or whatever else can be done in a commercial or industrial zone. If
in fact you choose to rezone it to R-0 or R-2, they will be limited to that use, R-2 or R-
0 or whatever uses are compatible in that designation. If in fact it ends of up being
commercial or industrial, there is a myriad of things that could happen. Any type of
industrial or commercial use could occur down there. That's our worst fear. My fears
are shared by the people at Viewpoint and many of the other landowners to the north.
We would like to see that become residential property, not commercial or industrial.
Radwell: I'm Andrea Radwell and I'm a student at the University of Arkansas. I study stream
ecology. I've been involved with environmental issues, specifically wetlands for some
time. I would like to say that this has been a very interesting discussion and I'rn actually
glad that I am, I believe the fourth person to come up and talk on this issue because I
think that what I have to say is perhaps more relevant at this point than it would have
been earlier. I had asked about a week and a half ago that I have some time with the
Environmental Concerns Committee to express my concerns about the process of
planning and just how it was being done. I had asked because I was concerned. I
want to go back to say that my involvement in all of this has to do with the Research
and Technology Park. While we are not here to talk about that, it is very relevant
tonight. The reason it is relevant tonight is that we've learned some serious lessons
from that or at least that I would like to think that we have teamed some serious
lessons. I asked for some time with the Environmental Concerns Committee because I
was concerned that what we are doing is, we are going into sections such as this one
and we are addressing a very narrow issue. The last gentlemen said "We are here to
discuss whether this should be rezoned or not. We are not here to look at the bigger
picture." This is precisely what happened over a year ago when I came in front of this
Commission and I asked them to consider the entire picture at the Research and
Technology Park. I was told at that time, that was not relevant and we don't talk about
those other issues, we are just talking about the development of some dry land at the
upper end of it and this doesn't have anything to do with the wetlands. We are not
going to address that, we'll address that some other time. They went down that path.
That pathway has led them to a real dilemma. That is an unresolved problem at the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 52
Research and Technology Park. It has cost over 2 million dollars of investment in
taxpayers money and no one know whether we are going to get out of that and make it
a profitable situation. When I went to the Enviromnental Concerns Committee, what I
was trying to say is that we need be able to address these issues up front instead of
saying "We are just going to address whether we rezone this or not." Well, I
understand we have a dilemma tonight because we can't change our policies tonight
and I understand that and I respect that. I'm just telling you that we are going down the
same path as we went the last time. We are saying, "We are not going to worry about
those issues, we are going to address those later." Somebody is going to lose in this.
What's going to happen is the same thing that happened last time. If this is condoned,
so to speak, by saying "We are going to change it from agriculture to residential, then
we are going to deal with it later." When all of these people have already made
investments, they start making plans, this is exactly what happened to the City of
Fayetteville. It's almost amazing to see us headed down the same path. I could talk a
lot but I know Perry Butcher has brought up a lot of the issues there. I would like to
remind you of some issues that have to do with that property. That property is adjacent
to the Research and Technology Park. There are 90 acres of wetland. Much of that
wetland is on the same side and contiguous with this property. You can have someone
get up here and say "It's all going to get developed." I need to tell you folks, there is a
law, a federal law, called the No -net Loss Wetland Law. That says that we have
destroyed over 70% of our wetlands and we need to have wetlands. We have to have
them for water quality. We have been mandated to do that. So there will be some
places in this nation that will not be paved and that will include some of the wetlands.
We have to deal with the fact that Fayetteville is being asked to do something about
their water quality. It's all part of a bigger picture. We have the EPA coming in today
and telling us that we must have a storm water program. We must have some way to
mitigate against the pollutants that are going in as a result of all the pavement. Yet, we
are talking about paving over a wetland. Paving over a wetland is a direct assault on
the water quality. We need wetlands as a place where water can run off of impervious
surfaces and go in there and get purified. That's the reason we have these laws. There
are going to be those that are to contend, this is nothing but federal bureaucracy that
says "We can't do this, we can't do that." Those laws were passed because
environmental laws are necessary to protect our water quality. I'm here because I am
very concerned that there are major issues here. One of them that was touched on, that
Tim mentioned tonight and I'm glad that he mentioned that this picture is the bigger one,
he tried to convey that to you, is the issue of the Arkansas darter. I have sampled that
darter in Clabber Creek and there is a tributary, I believe, that goes onto that property.
So, it is a major issue. I know that the inclination tonight is going to be, "Let's just talk
about should this be agriculture or should it be residential?" One of the suggestions that
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 53
has been made that would perhaps help us in the future is to look at the possibility of
some other kind of designation of land, land that isn't going to be developed. I know
that you can't do that tonight but I need to remind you of that because I feel it is unfair
for someone to go down the path that we've been down once. We've lost a great deal
on it. Hopefully when you lose like that you learn something from it and say "Well
we've got to try to find a better path so this doesn't happen." This developer may
come in here and decide "Well, this Commission said okay on the residential", that
doesn't mean and, I know you said it very clearly tonight, that does not mean he has a
permit to develop it but it is a license for him to proceed. It's the same way that it went
on before. I just think that it is very timely to bring this up tonight because we are going
down the same path that we went down before. As I said, there is a number of issues,
everyone knows what they are, there are federal laws. It.isn't Just a matter that we like
this and it's nice, it's more than that. I need to remind you that Clabber Creek is part
of the Illinois watershed. It is a priority one with the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality which means that we must address the water quality problems.
The State of Arkansas was sued and they must address those water quality problems
and this is part of the basin. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality spent
the entire day on Clabber Creek on Friday looking at the possibility of getting federal
funds to restore the quality of Clabber Creek, to do something about the flooding you
saw pictures of. So, when we stand here tonight and authorize a change and encourage
these developers to think this is a good path to go down, which is basically what
happens tonight, then what happens is that we have to stand back and say to DEQ
"We can't discuss restoration of Clabber Creek." If they are going to go ahead and
there is going to be another insult to it, then there is no point in our going out and asking
for federal funds. We were talking about getting funds from the federal government to
do some restoration. There is no point in our going down that path if we are going to
condone the development of that land. I know what you are saying, it's a matter of
procedure and I have to respect that. If it goes that way tonight, the only thing I can
hope is that the comments there were made by myself and other people did make some
impression on the people that were involved in this. That they do in fact know some of
the issues. I thank Tim Conklin for bringing them out at the beginning and I understand
that the way this Commission works, we are supposed to look at the narrow issue.
Remember it is also your responsibility to serve the best interest of everybody involved
including the citizens of this town. Sometimes the little narrow picture doesn't quite do
it. I thank you for your attention tonight and I hope that those comments can be taken
into consideration. Perhaps we can look forward, at some point, to a different
approach to planning, one that is not planning backwards because I feel that's basically
what we are doing. We planned backwards before and it's been very costly to us.
We have to look forward, face our issues up front and hopefully we can come to some
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 54
West:
changes in the way that we do business in the future to avoid the kinds of problems that
we've encountered so far. Thank you for your time.
My name is Chuck West I'm a resident of west Fayetteville. I'm also a professor at
the University in the Crop/Soil Environmental Sciences Department and my specialty is
with grasslands, pasture management and ecology. Agricultural land which is the way
it's zoned now and the way I hope it stays, is normally considered the lowest use of
land, especially around the urban area. From what we know of grasslands, is that they
do provide a very important function. Ms. Radwell has outlined those very well but I
Just want to re-emphasize the importance of keeping that as agricultural because the
grassland area there does serve as an important filtration area for water, recharging the
groundwater and also purifying the water and slowing it down. For that reason, I
endorse your idea that we need to have some way of zoning or preserving land that
provides a very important function. That grassland in that particular area does that very
thing. Thank you.
Moorman: I'm Barbara Moorman, I live on 3450 Finger Road in Fayetteville. I dust hope to point
out to you that you do in deed have a right, possibly a mandate, to look at the bigger
picture. Not long ago, you reaffirmed and modified your 2020 Plan. I think that plan
suggests that this area should not be rezoned. Here is what it says in section 6.11,
Environmental Resources "Policies are intended to create a more compact community."
Would a rezoning here help that? I don't think so. Putting more apartments on the
northern fringes of town will act against, not for, compactness of the community. This
impetus against compactness will be compounded by inevitable future rezoning requests
because as the dominoes continue to fall, each new rezoning will be justified by the last
one. So a rezoning here is counter to your mandate to foster compactness, stated in the
2020 Plan that you yourselves voted to reaffirm less than four months ago. The same
plan, this 2020 Plan, also says that the City's "transportation policies are intended to
reduce air pollution and energy use." Would a rezoning be in line with this policy? I
don't think so. This new housing center means more traffic in all directions. Again, the
rezoning would run in opposition to your own policy Third, the 2020 Plan states that
the City's goal is to "identify areas of environmental concern and protect and preserve
environmental resources", section 6.11(a). It also states that your goal is to "define and
protect environmental resources", 6.11(b). It defines environmental resources as
follows: "all physical and vegetative features of the communities landscape which are
necessary to maintain the functioning, integrity and health of the natural systems within
the bounds of the community", 6.11. The plan also promises that the City will
"establish community wide greenways which incorporate the protection of floodways
and floodplains in areas determined to be of environmental concern", 6.11(c). I
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 55
Byer:
addressed this body on October 9, 2000, on this section of the 2020 Plan. I pointed
out then that, through this 2020 Plan, the City has a mandate to define, describe,
document and protect it's natural environment. Here we are again on the brink of
deciding to make agricultural land into more urban wasteland, to increase traffic to
further decentralize the town and to turn our backs on greenways. The environmental
policy statements in your 2020 Plan allow you to turn down this rezoning request. You
can reasonably refuse to change this zoning. It seems to me, you are required to find
out what aspects of this land are "necessary to maintain the functioning integrity and
health of the natural systems within the bounds of the community", 6.11. You should
insist on a list "of environmental resources", mentioned in 6.11, 6.11(a) and 6.11(b).
The 2020 Plan requires so that you can help "protect them as the plan also requires". I
urge you to refrain from making any change without first complying with the spirit and
the word of the 2020 Plan and asking for a study that will show what are the natural
features of this site including wetlands and other natural features. That will show how
your actions will promote the City's stated goals of traffic reduction, a more compact
city and protection of the natural environment. Thank you.
My name is Deborah Byer and I'm a resident of Fayetteville although I have no
property in this area. I come before you as someone who is concemed about the
environmental impacts of the rezoning you are considering. Speaking of a big picture, I
brought one. It's really a rather small picture of this area and it shows you a little bit
about the 500 year floodplain and how it encroaches up on one the Tots that is being
considered tonight. It takes up about a third of that lot. What we don't have in
Fayetteville yet is a map that shows us a comprehensive picture of our wetlands. I have
asked about this at GIS from whom I got this map and it is something that is absolutely
necessary to have before we can make really well informed decisions about further
encroaching on our sensitive wetlands. Right now we are doing this in a piecemeal
fashion, rezoning, making decisions about sensitive areas. The best course of action
tonight, I think, would be to hold off on further rezoning until at least we have a map
that shows us what we do have left in the terms of wetlands, what's already been
encroached upon which is considerable in this area because it doesn't even show you
to the east there, the whole CMN Business Park. We are losing these areas very
rapidly. The damage can be irreparable. At least, I think, we ought to respect these
sensitive zones enough to wait until we have a comprehensive overall picture. One
other point, the reason that a lot of us come before you now, in spite of the fact that you
have said wetlands wouldn't be considered tonight is, that we have a sense that a
certain momentum is gained every time an approval is given. Down the line when we
will get to comment, in a more appropriate forum perhaps, on wetlands, there is already
the momentum of this Committee behind the decision and it will be used by the people
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 56
here tonight for this rezoning and for future development in these areas. That's why we
speak up now, to have an impact earlier in the process. Thank you very much.
Johnson: I'm Phyllis Johnson, an attorney in Fayetteville. I represent the landowners adjacent to
the north. I'm not sure where some of the other speakers live but I do represent Dale
and Marti Benedict. They have the land to the north that is bounded on the east and
north by Highway 112. So, these are adjacent property owners. They are in
opposition to the rezoning for a handful of reasons. First, let me argue and I won't
spend much time on this but, I'm not persuaded that the 2020 Plan really takes the
position that everything white on the 2020 Plan was looked at carefully and was
intended to be residential. I think in the periphery of the City when you get toward the
edges of the City, 1 believe what was done in the early 90's in looking at the 2020 Plan
was, look at what exists and that shows up on the map and also look at nodes of
intersections and you'll see that often there is some commercial or something
recommended there. You look at the map at the 2020 Plan and you'll find almost
everything is white around the periphery of the City, this is white too and I don't really
think you can take that to mean that it was looked at carefully and thought everything
that's white out on the periphery of town should be some sort of residential. Just give
that some sort of consideration. I believe this rezoning is speculative and I think it's
problematic because it only deals with 45 acres, the owner's have 106 acres. It seems
to be that this is going to be a piecemeal approach. I think that means that you will see
this time and again if it's rezoned because if you don't see the whole package, neither
you nor the developer can really come up with a unified approach to the whole
property. On the edge of the City, I think this is too high a kind of rezoning. It's R-2,
it's R-0. Typically when you are at the edge of the City and you are butting up against
A-1 property, if you are going to see residential, you see R-1. This is a very dense
kind of development that is proposed right up against the A-1 property. At the core of
the 2020 Plan is to preserve the character of the City. Whatever it is that makes
Fayetteville unique, try to preserve and enhance that. That, I believe, is a part of what
is at the core. A development like this on the edge of the City R-2, could be located in
R-0, could be located Anyplace, USA. When I fly into DFW, I see these little pods
that have sprouted on the edge of town, a lot of times it's R-2 and you don't even have
an idea of where you are. They could as have well picked up one of those,
transplanted it and put it down here and I don't think it's an appropriate way to comply
with the essence of the 2020 Plan and what it was trying to accomplish. I think this
rezoning, at this point, is untimely. There isn't any goal that I've seen in the 2020 Plan
that really would be enhanced by this kind of rezoning. If you look at the 2020 Plan as
it relates to residential areas, it talks about 2 or 3 guiding policies. One of them is to
create compatible, livable neighborhoods. It's hard to be a neighborhood in this
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 57
Smith:
location because there is nothing to be a neighbor with. Another leading, guiding policy
is in 6.3(0 site new residential areas accessible to roadways, of course it is, alternative
transportation modes. Well, you wouldn't dare walk or bike in this area on Highway
112. Accessible to community amenities, infrastructure, retail and commercial goods
and services. If this is rezoned residential then, we've guaranteed that when anybody
goes for any service, he'll have to drive there. He'll have to drive to schools, he'll have
to drive to any kind of services because there is nothing to walk to in that area except
to buy a car and go to the drive-in and you don't do probably those two things terribly
often. So, it's premature, I think, for this land to be rezoned to a residential type
zoning. There is a problem with the sewer capacity. This is in the western part of the
City, yes we've bought land, yes I think we'll build a sewer but the citizens have not yet
been presented with a plan as to how it is that they are going to finance it. They haven't
voted on that. So, it seems to be that it's untimely to do a new zoning that is this dense.
And, of course you've heard all you want to hear about the four letter word that I'm
not going to speak again tonight except to say that, the amount, the density of rezoning
R-2, R-0, maybe there are places where because of the environmental concerns, it's
not appropriate to rezone there at all unless it is a very much lower level of rezoning
than R-2 or R-0.
My name is Scott Smith, I'm a Fayetteville attorney and I live in Fayetteville in a house
and I drive to everything. I represent Melba Graves, the owner of this property. I
don't know how many members were here a year and a half or so ago when this matter
was brought before the Commission under another contract for sale. At that time it was
brought up on two separate occasions. The first time it was brought it and those
particular developers had a contract for the entire 100 acres. They brought in a partial
plan to justify the rezoning and just wanted the front parcels rezoned commercial and
then a little R-0 and then discuss the idea that it would move from R-2 to R-1 towards
the back end of the property. 1 think at that time, Phyllis Johnson was the Chairperson
of the Commission and ultimately a decision was made for them to go back and come
back with an overall plan somewhat like she indicates today Today however, we have
a contract for only 45 acres. Mr. Myer is interested in developing that. We have no
backhanded deal, we have no plans to cut some sort of deal with him on the back end.
We would like to sell the remaining acreage in time but we don't have a deal to sell it.
So, there is not any other proposal that can come before you other than the acreage
that he has under contract The last time we were here as well, the wetlands issue
came up and I think it was Commissioner Johnson who said we weren't going to take it
up at that time, so we didn't. I'm proud to see that she didn't bring it up today. The
other thing that was mentioned then though, by her and by the Commission members
was the 2020 Plan and the fact that, at least at that time, this Commission was very
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 58
concerned about trying to have as much residential and residential office use out of that
property as possible. At that time, the Nelm's Auto was relatively new and there was
some concern that some portion of the property that abutted Highway 112 would be
best used for commercial purposes. What happened when the entire plan came back
was, the developers changed and came back with some industrial, 1-1 requests, a lot of
C-2 and C-2 and a little bit of residential. That was denied. It was denied on the
merits. There wasn't discussion about potential wetland issues and these environmental
concerns, it was denied on the demerits of the petition and that's the way it should have
been taken up. It was denied and we were sent packing saying come back with
something else. It's agricultural. Ms. Graves is not a farmer. I appreciate Mr. Butcher
indicating that he wants to keep looking out on her land and somehow know that he
wants this Commission or somebody to take it from her and dedicate it as greenspace
but I don't think that's appropriate. It's been for sale for over a year and a half and he
could have bought it and kept it if that's what he wanted to do but that didn't happen.
So, we now have a developer who has come forward, has a contingent contract to try
and follow the mandate that we were told as a homeowner that we needed to have.
Come back and comply with the 2020 Plan. When we do this, now all of a sudden it
becomes a wetland issue. Again, I submit that should be taken up at another time so
I'm not going to belabor that. There really isn't any other use for this land out there.
It's not going to function well as agriculture in the middle of an auto complex and
industrial park. The City has boxed this piece of property in and surrounded it by
commercial and industrial. I don't have the plat in front of me but the Benedict's, I
think, have either commercial or industrial zoning for their property. When they talk
about butting up to agricultural, we'll be butting up to our own property as agricultural,
the rest of it is Highway 112 and the Benedict's and industrial below that to the south.
This is the best use for this piece of property. Ms. Graves ought to be able to move on
with her life, to sell the property for a fair price and allow this land to be sold and
developed. R-0 and R-2 is at least in compliance with the mandate that we received
from the Commission last time. I'm not trying to hamstring anybody and handcuff you
with what happened, you all weren't the ones that made the decision but that's where
we are coming from. We try and present to you what I think will be a nice
development from a man that is a powerful hitter and bring forward nice apartments and
nice developments. When a large scale development plan comes before you then these
other appropriate concerns can be made up. To rezone this property in compliance
with the 2020 Plan as suggested by the staff is only right and only fair for Ms. Graves.
Let her move on forward with her life and let her sell her property and see the land
developed as opposed to just sitting there with 50 or 100 head of cattle running on it.
It doesn't do her any good, they are not hers. Any questions for Ms. Graves?
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 59
Odom: Thank you Mr. Smith. Any other member of the audience like to address us at this
time, please come forward.
Radwell: I just want to make one other comment.
Odom: Ms. Radwell, we don't typically go back and forth. You need to make your comments
and then have a seat. This is not a debate.
Radwell: Okay. One final comment dust for the record. The wetlands in the R&T Park which is
adjacent to it, there is consideration of turning that into a reserve and there is a
possibility that the land this lady owns could possibly be valuable for that reason and
that should be considered as well. Thank you.
Benedict: My name is Dale Benedict. Yes, Mr. West we are the neighbors immediately to the
north of the property being discussed. I wasn't planning to speak to you tonight at all
but because there was an inaccuracy, I think they need to be correct. Of the 34 acres
that we own, Mr. West...
Odom: Mr. Benedict please direct the Commission.
Benedict: Okay. 3 acres were zoned I-1 and they were zoned that way before we got the
property. 31 acres are A-1. Our pond, we have pictures of 100 or so Canada geese
that land there frequently as Mr. Butcher described, is a beautiful area and they won't
land there anymore if we have the residences right against our property. Our property
will be devaluated, we realize that, not that we have anything against Ms. Graves,
although we haven't had the chance to meet her very much, what I consider a good
neighbor and I have nothing against her but we don't want our property devaluated.
We bought this property under the assurance by the realtors that the property below us
would never be more than what they are now. That was the understanding that we had
when we bought the property. That's not the case. Do what you will. We hope that
good nature will survive. There is a rule I would like to refer to "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you." It's called a golden rule. I hope that gold, in a true
sense, is not the rule here but golden rule.
Odom: Any other member of the audience like to address us at this time?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
• Odom: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 60
Planning Commission.
Conklin: Mr. Chairman? I would just like to respond to a couple things. I would like to thank
Ms. Johnson and Ms. Moorman for bringing up the 2020 Plan because we are trying to
implement that and we all do need to think of that when we do consider changes in land
use. Thank you for brining that up. Thank you for identifying what policies we are
trying to implement. As a City we are moving forward and we do need to look at open
space and greenways and natural resource preservation and protection. For those who
heard the Mayor's State of the City address, he kind of talked about some of the
changes in the City of Fayetteville he's undertaking to try to implement some of these
policies. That includes transferring over to the Parks and Recreation Division, a Trails
Coordinator and transferring the Landscape Administrator over to the Planning
Division. We have to keep in mind the resources that are available to us through our
parkland dedication ordinance that need to be preserved. There will be a committee
that's formed to do that. We've got to keep in mind that we are dealing with private
property and we do have ordinances that we use to take a look at parkland dedication.
Development within the floodplain, floodway, stormwater management ordinance,
grading ordinance, the tree preservation protection ordinance, commercial design
standards that require 15% of the site to be left in open space. So, as we look at
zoning and how that zoning or land use impacts this land, we do have tools in place and
we will, in the future, have more tools in place to actually look at acquiring conservation
easements or actually fee simple ownership of certain areas through this tree and trails
task force. With regard to the timing of the zoning, something as staff we did take a
look at and talk about and it has been our observation that areas that have been zoned
or rezoned R-2 along the 540 Corridor, in this area, have developed and are
developing. We don't have very much vacant R-2 land. We actually had a
downzoning last month from C-2 to R-2 for additional dwelling units. We are
developing a regional commercial center with the CMN Business Park too. There will
be a lot of jobs there that individuals will need new housing for, so we are trying to
keep up with the demand for housing for those service type of Jobs that we are creating
within these areas. I think we do need to take a look at how we are going to create
housing and the people that work in Fayetteville can live in Fayetteville. That's
something we need to take a look at. Once again, overall I do think as a City we need
to take a look at our 2020 Plan and I'm pleased that has been brought up a lot this
evening. The City does have programs in place and is developing programs to deal
with some of these issues. Thank you.
Hoffman: In the 2020 Plan, does it clearly designate that R-2 is an acceptable zoning and R-0 for
• the myriad of commercial uses?
Planning
• February
Page 61
•
•
Conklin:
Commission
26, 2001
Hoffman:
Hoover:
Conklin:
What we have tried to do is designate areas as residential. The idea is to allow mixing
of land use types. R-2 allows single-family, duplex, multi -family, townhouses, a mix of
dwelling units. What we haven't had is an ordinance that requires that type of mix. R-2
does allow that. We do not want on the comprehensive plan, General Plan 2020 to
show areas that are all multi -family or single family. The idea was to encourage the
mixing of housing types. The same with residential office zoning. That's going to allow
single-family and duplexes by right and then professional offices and related services as
a use by right also. When you are taking a look at the site, as staff we do have
property that is zoned I-1 to the south and C-2 to the east, in our opinion, our
recommendation was that a single-family, duplex, multi -family, professional office type
use adjacent to I-1 and C-2 as appropriate in this area
The I-1 brings up an analogy that I would like to use for the consideration of rezoning::
of this property. I felt obligated to vote for a mini -storage warehouse facility on Gregg
Street tonight because it was already zoned I-1 and that was a use -by -right regardless
of whether I felt that was appropriate in our current state of development along Gregg
Street. So, for that reason, I am very carefully considering and I have been on the
commission for the last two proposals and this proposal of what needs to happen with
this property. I'm not against developing the property. I'm not, in general, against
development at all. However, I'll state as I did on the last two occasions that, it seems
to me that we would be better served if we could take zoning in a PUD sense and have
a sense of overall development scheme for this parcel of property, I understand we are
not talking about the 106 but the smaller parcel, to see how to cluster around and how
it would be in tune with the land, how it would make sense for the layout of that land.
For me to just say that I think R-2 is appropriate for a large piece of property and then
be stuck with that zoning later, it's not something I feel like I'm willing to do tonight.
I'm using the mini -storage as the best example I can think of as why we should proceed
cautiously with this zoning. So, that being said, I'll probably just state my opinion that
I'm not against developing this site in some responsible manner but can't support an R-
0 and an R-2 zoning at this time.
1 have a question for staff. Could you just explain a little bit about the Environmental
Concerns Committee, I think I might have missed that. I'm trying to determine how
much weight to give this Committee.
I was out of town at a conference the last half of last week and I wasn't aware of the
Environmental Concerns Committee meeting on this or discussing making
recommendations on rezonings to the Planning Commission until this morning. So, I'm
not sure what was discussed during that Committee and whether or not they were
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 62
making a recommendation with regard to land use or do we find out where the
wetlands are first and do we not rezone the wetlands R-0 or R-2? I'm not sure what
they were talking about Sharon.
Hoover: What I'm trying to get a sense about is if this wasn't Environmental Concerns and we
had the Trails Committee bring something, we have some development come to us and
they said "Please don't rezone it right now, it needs further investigation." I would be
inclined to stop it. I guess I'm confused why we are not taking this into consideration.
I don't know how the other Commissioners feel about it. I assume the Environmental
Concerns Committee that that's their task. I'm not exactly what their duties are.
Conklin: This is the first time ever that the Environmental Concems Committee has made a
recommendation to the City Council regarding a rezoning. First of all, whenwe say
"Let's investigate the wetlands." Does that mean that the City is going to hire someone
to do that? I'm not qualified to go out there and delineate wetlands. So now we hired
someone or they hired someone and we got the wetlands delineated and we know what
we think the Corps of Engineers is going to accept as wetlands. I'm trying to figure out
where we go from there. With regard to land use, once again, I've seen many different
land uses and I'm not sure if we've thought enough what land use is appropriate next to
wetlands. In R-0 we can get 15% of the site in open space. In R-2 we can have a
park land dedication ordinance used to acquire property. In R-1, it's probablygoing to
be very low density and you are probably going to end up with dogs and cats in
backyards within the wetlands. Keep in mind when we talk about wetlands, it's not
necessarily the are that's located within the 100 year floodplain and floodway. As
Andrea Radwell will tell you, with our Research Technology Park most of the wetlands
are not located within the 100 year floodplain and floodway, they are in areas outside
of that. I'm not sure where to go with this Environmental Concerns Committee. I
would be more than happy to attend one and ask them their input and ideas on what
they want you to consider. Based on your bylaws that you've adopted, they outline
what staff should consider to make a recommendation to you. That's what we have
done this evening. We've looked at those bylaws and tried to make those findings and
made a recommendation. We have wetlands in every single zoning district and I'm not
sure if we'll ever have a detailed map either because they change over time, the
definition changes at a federal level. We've start with 8 or 9 acres in the 290 acre
Research and Technology Park to over 90 acres. We could have a map today that
shows 5 acres and you end up with zero or 50.
Hoover: I just think that this evening having received this from the Environmental Concems
• Committee, I don't feel comfortable ruling on this. I have other issues with the project.
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 63
Odom:
I would like to see the whole plan This in particular would be like the Trails
Committee coming and saying "Please don't rule on this tonight."
If I can make the distinction. I think that it may very well happen during LSD's and that
type of stuff but you would not see the Trails Committee come to us during a rezoning
request.
Hoover: I'm trying to think of some other committees in the City that are put together. I'm trying
to figure out how much weight I should give this committee.
Odom:
I think what you have to do is you have to look at the bylaws that we have and
determine what findings we are supposed to look at and determine whether or not we
should recommend or not recommend a rezoning to the City Council. I don't find
anything in the bylaws or with regard to our findings that would allow us to give that
Committee any weight. I certainly don't want to discount that the Environmental
Concerns Committee but if there was a provision or ordinance that said that one of the
criteria you have to look at is to get a recommendation from the Environmental
Concerns Committee, kind of like we do when we are doing an LSD with the Parks,
we have to get a recommendation from the Parks Board if they want money in lieu of
park land dedication. I think if every time we get a letter from a Committee within the
City of Fayetteville saying "Hey, don't look at it", and we don't look at it because of
that, we may be acting just a hair arbitrarily.
Conklin: Chairman Odom. I would just like to remind the Commission too, I don't want to
discredit the Environmental Concerns Committee and once again, I haven't had a
chance to meet with them or talk with them. They did pass a resolution stating to all the
City Boards and Committees and Commissions that they are there if you would like
their assistance on any project you are dealing with. So, as a Commission if you want
to refer a matter to them, there is a resolution that was passed that you can go ahead
and do that. If you want more information from the Environmental Concerns
Committee, I recommend that you give a great deal of direction of what kind of
information you are looking for. As staff and the developer, the applicant, we are all
aware of what information that we are trying to gain from them and overall if we are
going to be taking a look at wetlands and try to create a recommendation to City
Council with regard to a rezoning, I think we need to know how wetlands impact that
recommendation.
Hoffman: I'm pretty much convinced that in critical areas or environmentally critical areas, that we.
• should find a way. It's not in our ordinances now that's why I purposely didn't talk
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 64
•
about it for this rezoning. I'm just looking at land use, I do have an issue with land use
but I think that it's imperative that somehow we get environmental impact statements
before we make rezonings in the future. We don't have that in place now though. So
in the Environmental Concerns Committee wants something to work on, I think they
could start there. As to who pays for it, it would be up to the applicant.
Conklin: I guess another issue this evening is, I haven't seen any documentation to show that
wetlands exist on the site. I just bring that up because I think we need to be fair to
everybody. I don't think the Commission has seen any documentation to verify that
wetlands exist on the site I think we need to be careful if we are going to be
considering that, we should have some type of documentation. At this point, I'm not
sure if there are wetlands or not because based on our Research and Technology Park,
the areas that you think would be the wetlands are not the wetlands, they are in the
upper areas of that park, a lot of them.
Odom:
I don't want to discount your opinion, if it's your opinion that we should be giving them
weight then a motion to table or something like that would be appropriate or whatever
you felt appropriate.
Bunch: I'm still having a similar dilemma as the other Commissioners, we have a catch 22
situation here. We don't want to give tacit approval on a rezoning because it might be
wetlands but we can't determine if it's wetlands until we jump through other hoops. So
it seems to be a considerable systemic problem and we've been told that we do it this
way because we've always done it this way and we've always been in this circle
pattern with this particular project. The question I have is, is there anything set in
concrete that says we have to do it this way, that we cannot look at environmental
concerns, cannot look at wetlands, cannot look at the overall water purification
potential of this before going through the rezoning process and winding up
piecemealing? Can we look at a valley or a system and say "We understand that this is
a problem, can we get grant money?" This one keeps coming up. We have people at
the University. We are fortunate that we live in a university community and we have
many of these resources available and we are hearing bits and pieces from people that
are developing but are unsure of this. It's such a can of worms. I'm trying to figure out
how, can we change our process or is it just a matter of interpretation of our process
that puts us in this position?
Conklin: When I made my statement earlier, the City is trying to be pro -active and I'm very
excited about the prospects of this Trails and Trees Task Force to start taking a look at
wetlands the City of Fayetteville should save in the future. It's going to take studies and
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 65
analysis to determine where those lands are and what lands as a city we should focus
on trying to protect. At this level, to answer your question, you as a Commission adopt
those bylaws. If you want staff to take a look at something different or require
something different, you are more than welcome to amend your bylaws and ask for that
type of information. We do need to be careful and make sure we know how that's
going to work with regard to if we are going to be asking them to actually have the
Corps of Engineers delineate those wetlands and what we do with that information. I
think if you go down that road and decide you want to do that, we need to understand
how that's going to impact your land use decisions, your recommendations to City
Council. Once again, we have areas in town zoned I-1 and C-2 that have been
developed and those wetlands have been saved or mitigated. If the idea is that we are ,
going to step in as a city and go over and beyond what the federal government requires
with regard to wetland protection and mitigation, that's something we'll have to talk
about with our interim City Attorney and find out and look at other cities and what they
do with regard to protecting wetlands.
Bunch: Is there any avenue since there is a reasonable question here whether or not wetlands
do exist if the City could call for the Corps of Engineers to make a determination of that
basin or in that neighborhood, the general region? Is there any way we can approach it
from that standpoint rather than putting the onus on individual developers or engineering
companies? Since we don't know which piece is a wetland, but there is a good
possibility that there are wetlands within this area. Is there an avenue for us to proceed
in that respect?
Conklin: I would be more than happy to get with our Engineering Division and talk to them about
how they looked at delineating wetlands within our Research and Technology Park.
We actually hired a consultant to do that. I'm not sure with the timing with the Corps of
Engineers how long something like that takes. My understanding is that if you want it
done in a reasonable amount of time, sometimes you hire these outside consultants to
do that.
Odom. I'm not so sure that the wetlands issue is what is hamstringing this project the first two
or three times that it came through. I think what hamstrung it before was the ideology
that they weren't consistent with the General Land Use Plan. I know that's why I
previously voted against it because the General Land Use Plan, in my opinion, does
delineate this are as residential. I think that the wetlands issue is sort of a new issue that
has come up this go around. I'm not so sure it's been around the entire time. Albeit
it's an important issue, I don't believe that this is the proper time to be giving
consideration to that. I don't think it matters whether it's I-1, residential, agricultural or
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 66
Bunch:
Odom:
Bunch:
Odom:
you call it blue, red or green. If it's wetlands, it's wetlands and there are federal
regulations that govern how you are able to develop that area. Just because it's
wetlands does not mean that you can't develop it. It simply means that you have to
abide by the federal rules and regulations for the wetlands protection.
My question, I guess, becomes where in our process should we insert this?
I think it currently exists in the large scale development phase which I feel is a very
appropriate phase for it to be in because that's when you are considering the
development. Not only the impact on traffic but you are also considering the impact on
water and drainage and all the other issues as well.
Is this a micro view rather than a macro view of a potentially...
I think when you are planning it and we are talking about general rule planning concepts
which I'm not so sure that this is the proper forum for that but I think when we are
doing that, since we are already there, you have to take both a macro and a micro
approach. You've got to take a macro approach when you are talking about the
General Land Use Plan, you don't micro manage it at that point. You can't even begin
to look at the micro management of it until you get down to the specifics of the
development. I think it requires both. I know we can talk about how we should have
done this sooner, we should do that later but I think by in large the process that we
have, while it's not perfect, definitely incorporates the macro and micro management all
together. I think it's in the appropriate place. There were comments from the public
which are very good comments but they are sometimes contradictory to what we hear
before. We hear people that are in the hills saying "Develop only the property that's in
the valley", and you hear the people in the valley saying "Protect the hillsides". I think
you ought to protect them all. To speak in general terms like that without knowing the
specifics of each of the sites, I think is a dangerous thing. We have a process here and
that's for us to look at the findings that staff has presented to us, make a determination
as to whether or not we as a Commission agree with the findings of the staff and, if we
do, then I think we are charged with making a recommendation to forward this to the
City Council for approval If we do not agree with the interpretations of the findings of
the staff that we have before us, I think we are charged with turning this application
down and letting the applicant make a determination as to whether or not they wish to
go forward to City Council. We can sit here and talk and debate all night but I would
like to try to bring to a head the debate as to whether or not we should be giving
consideration to something we've never given consideration to before, to try to focus
on the findings that staff currently has before us and move forward.
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 67
Bunch:
Warrick:
MOTION:
Man:
•
One quick little housekeeping question. Wilson Spring has been mentioned many times
in the various process of this property and of the City Technology Park. In agenda
session we requested to show the location of Wilson Spring to see if it was on this
property or in close proximity. Did we ever come up with that information.
We weren't able to produce the map for you but our Development Coordinator did
speak with Wayne Ledbetter who's the Engineer who has worked on the R&T Park
and Wilson Spring falls south of this property almost solely within the property that is
designated as the R&T Park. There are tributaries that run into it but as far as the area
that's designated as Wilson Spring, as we know it, through engineering staff as it was
related to me it falls south of this property.
As I sit here and listen to this discussion and look at the five findings of staff relative to
this rezoning, I think that there is a couple of questions that come to my mind. One is,
question one the determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent
with the land use planning objective, principals, policies and the land use and zoning
plans. I think as Ms. Barbara Moorman certainly brought up issues that were listed in
the 2020 Plan, 6.11(a) and 6.11(c), that certainly raised some questions in my mind,
without having that in front of me and I apologize tonight to be able to go into that detail
of it, I certainly would like a little more time to look at that side of it. Secondly, the
Environmental Concerns Committee be it though it is new, I tend to be an individual that
when some new committee is established to specifically address a particular item, I
weigh it heavy on the front end until I have a reason not to value the opinions to the
degree that it should be. For that reason when, it's kind of like when we ask some
group or ask someone in the City to wait on something until we had a chance to either
present our facts or information that I would want that respect. At the sense that I'm
the Commissioner that always never gets a second on certain motions, I am going to
move to table this item. I would like to get more information specifically from the
Environmental Concerns Committee relative to our five fact areas of finding. Their
concerns about whether or not this is applies with the 2020 Plan, whether or not the
proposed zoning is justified would create an increase in traffic, danger, etcetera. I do
believe that item one has potential information that they may have that may be
applicable I would hate to see this Commission vote it up or down without necessarily
having what may be their report, if you will. The other side, I guess just to throw it out,
I've listened to people and seen petition signatures and read through the information, I
do believe that there are some proposed zonings that would alter population density,
increase load on public services, schools, water, sewer facilities, while I realize we
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 68
don't have a mandate from City Council yet on controlling the volume of development,
I do believe this is, as Ms. Johnson representing the landowner communicated, could
potentially be a sewer capacity issue in the density of this project. I think that's another
finding area that something could potentially be there. It's for those reasons I'll move to
table Rezoning 01-4.00 and 01-5.00.
Bunch: I'll second. Since I'm the one that always makes a motion to table and it gets voted
down. 1 get the second sometimes but usually get voted down on it. Commissioner
Marr, I'll second the motion.
Odom:
We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Bunch. Do
you wish to address the issue of a motion to table? I will also remind you that you are
required five affirmative votes and you only have seven members here tonight.
Normally when there are six members, we tell you that early on, we give you the option
to pull out. You are required to have five affirmative votes for approval of the
recommendation for the rezoning.
Bates: If you table it when do we get to come back again or how does that work exactly?
Odom. After I'm off the Commission.
Conklin: You'll be back the next Planning Commission meeting which is March 12, 2001.
Bates: Who's going to do the environmental impact study and all that?
Conklin: I was going to ask that question. As staff, for the applicant, please give us direction of
what information you would like to have before you at the next Planning Commission
meeting, to consider.
Marr:
I thought that my comments were as specific as I think that they should be at this time.
We had a request from the Committee to not deal with this tonight until, I'm not sure
there was a reason give to it actually. Specifically, what I would want to hear back
from them is if there is something relative to the 5 findings that they believe that this
project is an argument for the rezoning of this project. If there is something in the Land
Use Plan, the 2020 principals policies, zoning, planning objective that they believe is
applicable to this. Specifically outlined as I heard some of the issues from Ms.
Moorman tonight. Secondly, if there are any of these other five that I would tend to
look at. I think specifically I would expect they relate primarily to item one and it's
finding. I wonder if there is something there that not having had any further information
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 69
Odom:
sent to you, if there is something else relative to that item that explains the reason asking
us to wait.
My only comment would be absent a specific reason that was founded in ordinance or
bylaw as to why we should not hear a matter, I don't think we should give credence to
just a simple request. Otherwise, we may be pulling items off of the agenda without
being able to give good justification to the applicant as to why we are doing it. The
Environmental Concems Committee may have an excellent reason as to why however,
they have not, in my opinion, adequately demonstrated why it would be necessary, at
least they haven't given me, as Chairman of this Commission the means by which I can
tell this applicant there is a justifiable reason why we are pulling your item at the request
of the Committee. I would be concerned at pulling it for that request only. Also, I
know there are other.reasons for your request too, Commissioner Marr, mainly that
there may be some things with regard the comments that Ms. Moorman has made
about the principals and policies with the General Land Use Plan and zoning plans. I
think while she has made some very valid points, I think that there are also issues that
point directly to why, I have spoken in the past against rezonings on this property
because they weren't residential in nature, that say that this property should be zoned
residential because it is residential in nature. Not only was it confirmed in the original
General Land Use Plan that we had but was re -adopted just recently. In that, after
knowing the exhaustive efforts that this Commission went to, stating repeatedly we are
tuming your requests down because these are not residential in nature, which is what
the General Land Use Plan asked for. While there may be general policies that you can
always point to at anybody, there are always going to be inconsistencies that you are
going to be able to point to. The policies that I had earlier illustrated remain there
today. I feel we are solidified when the General Land Use Plan was re -adopted having
the full concerns that we previously expressed on the property. Yes, while there are
general policies out there, nothing has been implemented. There have been some
movements made, I commend Mayor Coody for doing those and starting off in the right
direction but, until those policies and procedures are put into place for us to look at and
make specific findings, it's just sort of arbitrarily take provisions that aren't set in stone
and aren't currently in place I think would be arbitrary. Therefore, I'll vote against the
motion.
Shackelford: I would like to speak further against the motion to table. Basically, I'm thinking of a
couple of different issues, one that has not been addressed here, one which has. If the
purpose of tabling this is to try to get more information, I'm not sure that information
can be compiled before the next meeting. I'm not sure who is supposed to be
compiling that information and I'm not sure who has to pay to compile that information
Planning Commission
• February 26, 2001
Page 70
Bates:
so I have a concern there. My second point is that we need to remember that this is a
rezoning request. There are findings for a recommendation to City Council, I think we
should go ahead and vote on the motion to keep this progressing forward because the
applicant has the ability approval or denial to take it to the next level to City Council. If
we table it we are just postponing the inevitable and delaying the applicant his due
process. I will not support the tabling motion at this point.
I did speak to David Jurgens' assistant and he assured me that there is plenty of sewer
capacity and water in that area. So there is problem with water or sewer. It also
seems to me that Fayetteville is growing so fast and this particular location is so close to
the Bypass, it seems like the residents in this area would be happy to get a residential
subdivision in there instead of some kind of big commercial development, factory or big
store or anything in there. It seems like this would be the least impact of anything, going
residential.
Odom: Any further discussion with regard to the motion to table? Will you call the roll?
ROLL CALL:
• Upon roll call the motion to table RZ 01-4.00 and RZ 01-5.00 is approved on a vote of 4-3-0, with
Commissioner's Hoffman, Odom, and Shackelford voting "no".
•
Hoffman: Can we be more specific then, since we tabled it about what we are going to expect
when they get back?
Conklin: Thank you. Once again I'm a little concerned about what information we are looking
for. With regard to these findings, these are based on your bylaws. These are your
findings, these are the findings you asked the Planning Division to make. I heard from
Commissioner Man that he would like Planning staff to give these findings to the
Environmental Concerns Committee and a copy of our General Plan 2020 and have
them go through that and make their own findings. Is that correct?
Odom: I'm not interested personally. Don, this is yours. I'm not interested in hearing what
their findings are as opposed to your findings Tim. I think, if in fact this is going to go
back to the Environmental Concerns Committee I would certainly want to know under
what element these findings of the staff they feel as though this project needs to be
delayed and for what reasons it needs to be delayed.
Marr: That is my intent.
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 71
Odom:
My charge as Chairman of the Commission to you and correct me if I'm wrong in the
spirit of your motion Don, is to go to the Environmental Concerns Committee and ask
them essentially under what grounds and under what authority do we need to delay this
project any further. Find out any comments they have, not what their findings are just
what their comments are with regards to the elements that we are required to examine
when we review a rezoning request.
Bunch: Would it be beneficial for us to assign some sort of time limit to this so we don't unduly
delay the applicant in the process and get this into side tract in an endless committee
review. I understand that we need to exercise the motion but we also need to put
reasonable time constraints on it. Do you have any information?
Conklin: I'm .soglad you brought that up. I'm concerned about due -process, equal protection
for this applicant here who, in the first case since I've been here in eight and a half
years, has been asked to go the Environmental Concems Committee. I'm not saying
that's good or bad.
Marr:
Conklin:
Why do we have a Committee if we are not supposed to listen to them?
The only point I'm making is that there has to be a time frame in here because I'm
concemed too. If the idea is wetlands, you probably can't get an answer in two weeks.
I'm not sure about that. If there is a time frame that you want me to bring this back to
you or they may not meet in the next couple weeks either.
Bunch: Do we have any idea what their schedule is? Are they a regularly meeting committee?
Conklin: I'll contact them to see if they'll schedule a special meeting.
Odom: I'll tell you, if they are going to hold up our agenda, they better have a special meeting.
Marr:
I guess my comment to the Committee will be, so it's on the record is, 1 would want it
to meet immediately. They are the one's that asked us to wait, I expect them to come
back with information. I do think that if there is no value of this Committee then we
shouldn't have it. I feel like we ought to at least understand here what they have to say
on this particular issue. I don't care if it hasn't happened in 8 and a half years.
Personally, it's an item we are asking for information on I don't want to wait two
weeks either.
• Conklin: That's what I need to know in order to go forward with this and bring the information
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 72
back to you.
Bunch: At what point should we request this to be reinserted into our schedule? Does it come
back to Subdivision Committee or back to the full Commission?
Conklin: Rezonings don't go to Subdivision Committee. They come directly back to the
Planning Commission.
Odom: I'll ask that they be put on the next agenda.
Conklin: Okay.
Bunch: Our next agenda session is March 8, 2001, which will be for the March 12, 2001,
meeting.
Conklin: I will get with the Chairperson of the Environmental Concems Committee and see if
they will be willing to schedule a special meeting. I'll probably have the applicant
attend that also to explain their project and Planning staff.
Odom: Why don't you just give the applicant the opportunity to attend? I don't think you can
or should require them to.
Bunch: Do we need a motion requesting that committee meeting?
Odom: I'm not going to tell them what to do.
Conklin: I will figure it out. How's that?
Odom: That sounds good.
Hoffman: Since we are going to re -look at this, I would like to look at the land use issues. My
particular problem with the development is that again we are not given a full picture of
the possibilities of the R-0 site which seems to be the most environmentally critical. I
would like staff to take a look at traffic counts for both sites. We've talked about this
before and I don't know if we've ever actually done any traffic studies based on, do a
limited traffic impact analysis is what I'm saying. If we can get traffic counts for a
maximum density for R-2 zoning on that acreage. I'm not sure how we do it for R-0
because that's based on proposed use but take the most intensive use to R-0.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 73
Conklin: If you don't mind, I wouldn't mind taking a look at CMN or Millennium and kind of get
the standard square footage.
Hoffman: That would be really helpful and then if you could tell us, I know you touched on it but,
if you could give us a really clear idea based on the topography of that land and the
floodplain, exactly how much impervious cover is going to be on that R-0 acreage.
Conklin: Do you want to me take a look at an existing R-0 development?
Hoffman: You have a 100 year floodplain map for that property, I think?
Conklin: Yes. We do have a detailed map.
Hoffman: So, keeping everything out of the 100 year floodplain, I would like to know how much
impervious coverage in acreage is permitted on the R-0 site. Is that difficult?
Conklin: You can develop the 100 flood plain. What I wouldn't mind doing is take a look at a
existing R-0 development and I'll have one of my staff and take the paved surfaces and
building footprints and kind of give you an idea how much is covered in a typical
residential office development, if that's okay. It's going to be difficult because we don't
have a plan in front of us.
Hoffman: Exactly. We are just trying to put the cart before the horse I think and I want to be fair
to you and try to get as many of these issues out on the table as we possibly can at this
time.
Odom: I don't think the cart is before the horse, I think we are reinventing the wheel. Is there
any more discussion on this issue?
Bunch: I was wondering if there is anything on this we need information, since we are delaying
the process, to be fair to the applicant if there are any other requests of staff or
committees?
Odom: Does anybody else have any comments?
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 26, 2001
Page 74
Nominating Committee: Appointment of nominating committee for 2001 Planning Commission
officers.
Odom:
We have item number seven on tonight's agenda. This is the Nominating Committee
which by the power vested in me, I do shall hereby appoint Don Marr, Nancy Allen
and Lee Ward to the Nominating Committee. Anything further? We are hereby
adjourned.
•
•
PC Mtg.
2-26-01
Consent Agenda:
Minutes of 2-12-
01 meeting and
VA 01-2.00
(Scurlock, pp 756)
LS 01-4.00
(Reed Trust, pp
640)
LS 01-5.00A and
LS 01-5.00B
(Hudak, pp 143)
MOTION
Hoffman
Hoffman
SECOND
Shackelford
Shackelford
D. Bunch
Y
Y
Y
B. Estes
Absent
Absent
Absent
L. Hoffman
Y
Y
y
S. Hoover
y
Y
Y
N. Allen
Y
Y
Y
D. Marr
Y
Y
Y
C. Odom
Y
Y
Y
Shackelford
Y
Y
Y
L. Ward
Absent
Absent
Absent
ACTION
Approved
Forwarded
Approved
VOTE
7-0-0
7-0-0
7-0-0
•
•
•
PC Mtg.
2-26-01
LSD 01-1.00
(Gregg Street
Storage, pp 328)
Amendment to
Conditions of
Approval to
require view
obscuring
vegetation on
southern property
fenceline
LSD 01-1.00
(Gregg Street
Storage, pp 328)
RZ 01-4 00 and
RZ 01-500 (Myer,
pp 208 & 209)
MOTION
Hoffman
Shackelford
Marr
SECOND
Marr
Odom
Bunch
D. Bunch
Y
N
Y
B. Estes
Absent
Absent
Absent
L. Hoffman
Y
Y
N
S. Hoover
Y
N
Y
N. Allen
Y
N
Y
D. Marr
N
Y
Y
C. Odom
N
Y
N
Shackelford
N
Y
N
L. Ward
Absent
Absent
Absent
ACTION
Approved
Forwarded
Tabled
VOTE
4-3-0
4-3-0
4-3-0