Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 26, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 01-5.00: Large Scale Development (Allied Storage, LTD, pp 401) Page 3 CU 00-37.00: Conditional Use (J.D. China, pp 520) Page 4 LSD 00-36.00:Large Scale Development (J.D. China, pp 520) Page 7 PP 01-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Mcllroy, pp 439) Page 13 CU 01-2.00: Page 32 LSD 01-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439) Approved Approved Approved Approved Conditional Use (Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439)Approved Page 32 CU 01-3.00: Page 50 RZA 01-1.00: Page 58 RZ 01-6.00: Page 61 AD 01-12.00: Page 63 Officer Elections Page 66 Conditional Use (Cricket Communications Inc., pp 528) Annexation (TMC & Associates, pp 359) Rezoning (TMC & Associates, pp 359) Approved Tablecl Forwarded Forwarded Administrative Item (Multi -family Zoning Districts)Approved • • • • MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Lee Ward Bob Estes Don Marr Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Jim Beavers Kit Williams Sheri Metheney • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 3 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the March 12, 2001 meeting. LSD 01-5.00: Large Scale Development (Allied Storage, LTD, pp 601) was submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc on behalf of Randy Salsbury of Allied Storage, LTD. for property located at 85 W. 15`11 Street. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 14.98 acres The request is to add additional storage buildings. Odom: Good evening. Welcome to the March 26, 2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item that we are going to cover tonight is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda will be approved without discussion. We have two items on the consent agenda. The first item is the approval of the minutes of the March 12, 2001, meeting. The second item on the consent agenda is LSD 01-5.00 submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Randy Salsbury of Allied Storage, LTD. for property located at 85 W. 15th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 14.98 acres The request is to add additional storage buildings. Does any member of the audience or member of the Planning Commission wish to remove either of those items from the consent agenda to discuss? Seeing none, I'll ask that you call the roll for the consent agenda. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the consent agenda is approved by unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 4 New Business: CU 00-37.00: Conditional Use (J.D. China, pp 520) was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Jennifer Lee for property located at 1740 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C -2/R-2, Thoroughfare Commercial/Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.86 acres. The request is for parking in a R-2 zone for a proposed development in a C-2 zone and for parking in excess of that permitted. Odom: The first item we have on tonight's agenda under new business is conditional use 00- 37.00 for JD China submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Jennifer Lee for property located at 1740 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C -2/R-2, Thoroughfare Commercial/Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.86 acres. The request is for parking in a R-2 zone for a proposed development in a C-2 zone and for parking in excess of that permitted. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the conditional use permitting parking for a restaurant in the R-2, Medium Density Residential zoning district subject to the condition of approval that the Planning Commission approve of the accompanying large scale development. Staff, do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval We would ask that the Commission make two separate motions, one with regard to allowing parking for a restaurant in the R-2 district and the second conditional use to approve is for 20 parking spaces in excess of those allowed by ordinance. Just so our record is clear, we would like two motions on that. Odom: One is to allow parking in an R-2... Conklin: R-2 zoning district to serve the restaurant and then the second conditional use will be the 20 parking spaces in excess of what's allowed by right. Odom: I ask the applicant to please come forward. Are you the applicant? Feinstein: Yes. I'm Andy Feinstein with Engineering Design Associates. Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners, it's our pleasure to present this project to you. As your notes say, this is a 6,200 square foot facility. They are relocating from their current location at Evelyn Hills Shopping Center in an attempt to have more visibility and a little better traffic flow in front of their facility. They have the seating capacity of almost 200 patrons and that's why we thing the request for additional parking is consistent with other restaurants in this area. Do want me to discuss the large scale or just the conditions before you now? • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 5 Odom: Feinstein: Let's just talk about the conditions. We are going to do that separately. That's basically it. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. We'll do questions after the public comment section. Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this conditional use request? Any member of the audience here to discuss this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Hoffman: Odom: MOTION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the applicant. I would like to move for approval of this project in two separate motions. First to be the granting of the variance of the parking and the second to be the overall LSD. Let's just do one at a time then. I'll move for approval of the parking variance for CU 00-37.00 for the 20 parking spaces in excess of those allowed by ordinance. Odom: We have a motion then which deals with the additional 20 parking spaces in excess of those allowed by ordinance. Shackelford: I'll second. Odom: Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Shackelford, do we have any further discussion on that particular motion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the parking variance for 20 parking spaces in excess of those allowed by ordinance for CU 00-37.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Hoffman: I'll go ahead and move for approval of the conditional use. At Subdivision Committee • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 6 and agenda session we did have specific discussion regarding the tree preservation plan. The applicant has purchased additional property in order to meet that requirement. The Commercial Design Standards were found to be... Odom. Let's address that with regard to the LSD. If you have a motion with regard to parking in an R-2 zoning, we should address that first. Hoffman: I'm confused. MOTION: Estes: I move that we approve conditional use 00-37.00 with the specific provision of allowing approximately 8 parking spaces to be located on the R-2 property at the north portion of the site. Hoffman: I'll go ahead and second the motion. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes, second by Commissioner Hoffman to allow the parking in the R-2 zoning. Any further discussion? Are we all on the same page? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-37.00 is approved, with the specific provision of allowing approximately 8 spaces to be located on the R-2 property at the north portion of the site, by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 7 LSD 00-36.00: Large Scale Development (J.D. China, pp 520) was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Jennifer Lee for property located at 1740 W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C -2/R-2, Thoroughfare Commercial/Medium Density Residential and contains 1.86 acres. The request is for a restaurant. Odom. The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is LSD 00-36.00 submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Jennifer Lee for property located at 1740 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C -2/R-2, Thoroughfare Commercial/Medium Density Residential and contains 1.86 acres. The request is for a restaurant. The staff recommendation is for approval subject to eleven conditions of approval. Staff, do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Kim Hesse, our Landscape Administrator did submit a memo with regard to the tree protection preservation plan and that is before you this evening. Mr. Chairman, I will read that into the record if you would like. Odom: Go ahead at this time. Conklin: It's dated March 23, 2001. LSD 00-36.00, J.D. China. "I recommend approval of the tree protection plan for J.D. China Restaurant to be located west of Burger King on 6t° Street. The front portion of the property is zoned C-2, Commercial Use. The site is a narrow deep tract of land that it primarily tree covered with an average slope of 10%. It is this portion of the site fronting on 6th Street that is zoned commercial and where the restaurant and associated parking in proposed. There are several existing red and white oak trees ranging from 15 to 24 inch DBI -1 in this area. Four of these trees meet the City's definition of a rare tree. Toward the rear of the property, the portion is zoned residential, the site begins to level off and is heavily forested in oak, hickory and pine. I have worked with the engineering representative for this project since summer of last year to develop a tree friendly design. Originally, the developer of the property had planned to purchase only the commercial zoned portion of the site. After several attempts to locate the building and parking around the larger trees, it became apparent that due to the width of the site and the slope of the existing topography, little could be done to preserve existing trees if it were to be developed. In order for pedestrians, including handicapped individuals, to drive onto the site, park and walk to the building, extensive grading is required. It was my opinion that the only way to save the required canopy, or any canopy at all, was to limit the size of the development. It was at this point that the developer decided to purchase additional adjoining property in order to preserve the minimum percent canopy required for this • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 8 zone. As a result, the proposal before you includes .37 acres in forested land that meets the required percentage of preserved canopy for the entire development. It is true that the largest of the existing trees are to be removed. The ordinance does state that it is my discretion as to whether I believe the site can he reasonably developed and maintained and the trees saved. If I do not believe it can, I can approve removal of rare trees. This is a commercially zoned piece of property. The land is surely priced accordingly. It is not my discretion as to what is developed on a site or if a site can be utilized for it's zoned use. I can intervene only if the proposed use can be developed in such a way as to save trees. I was not able to find a way to reasonably grade this site for this use and save trees. Since additional land was purchased with the intent to save the minimum percent canopy, I feel an obligation to approve the tree preservation plan. The canopy that is being preserved is heavily forested and will sustain value for buffering adjacent residential zoning, wildlife habitat, pollution remediation and several other benefits." Odom. Thank you. There were no further conditions of approval? 111/ Conklin: No further conditions of approval. We do have a signed conditions of approval on this project. • Odom. Mr. Feinstein, do you have a presentation that you would like to make with regard to to the large scale development? Feinstein: Yes. We've tried to meet early on and several times with Kim and various planning staff to iron out some of the difficulties on this site. As Kim's letter states, it's a long narrow lot. We have almost 25 feet of relief from street level at curb to the top of the site. It's going to require significant grading. There will be retaining walls when we get done, on at least two of the sides. It's very similar to what you see at Burger King drive through area. There is a retaining wall on two sides of their tract. Working around the trees was very difficult, trying to go through plan after plan to come up with some feasible design that would save these rare trees. Unfortunately they are located not in one convenient area as we would wish, but throughout the site. To do what we were directed by the client, we found no way to preserve these trees. As the letter states, we have acquired a residential tract as more or less a tree bank which the City has required we put into easement. That's basically it. If there are questions from the Board, I would be glad to answer those. Odom: We'll do that question and answer session after we take public comment. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. Any member of the audience wish to address us on the large scale development portion of this, please come forward at this time. Moorman: My name is Barbara Moorman, I live at 3460 Finger Road I'm talking only about, I think if I read the map correctly, the part of the property that's zoned as C-2. The trees on this property, as you know, are large and they are visible from Highway 62. Highway 62 West is a really dismal drive and it's a dangerous one with entrances and exits onto and off of the highway to and from a very confusing hodge-podge of eat shops, pawn shops, salvage stores and massive parking lots. These trees that we are talking about removing provide one of a few pleasant sites in this area right now. In 1990, as I'm sure you know, the City required and got a Bill of Assurance in exchange for rezoning this lot C-2. The Bill of Assurance required that a minimum of 50%, the absolute minimum of 50%, of the trees over 8 inches in diameter on this C-2 lot should be saved. This past November, the prospective owners took the Bill of Assurance to court and got the Bill of Assurance rescinded. Why did the judge agree to get rid of the requirement to save 50% of these trees? Because, the City now has a tree protection ordinance to protect the trees and doesn't need the Bill of Assurance. When I looked at the plat map, called existing conditions and tree preservation plan, I could not tell which trees were supposed to stay and which were supposed to be cut, I asked two members of the planning staff and the Landscape Administrator. I never found out how to read the plan which doesn't show any difference between a tree to be cut and a tree to stay and which doesn't list trees to be cut. All three people told me, I think though I find it hard to believe, that all the trees are to be cut. The trouble is, that without a tree protection ordinance we saved 50% of these trees but because we now have a tree protection ordinance, we lose all of them. I want to point out that the City must of had something in mind as a possible use for this land when it required the Bill of Assurance in the first place. I don't think the City would have willingly rezoned something C-2 and then left it without any possible C-2 use. Surely we still have that much imagination. The Landscape Administrator maintains, as in her memo of March 23, 2001, that we just heard, that it isn't up to her to decide what is to be developed on a site. She believes she can intervene only, and I'm quoting, "if the proposed use can be developed in such a way as to save trees". Therefore, following that reasoning, if someone proposes a use that would wipe out the trees, it's okay, she's powerless. I don't believe that's what our present tree ordinance says. I believe that's the direction in which our new tree ordinance is going and I think the arrangement that's being made here, which is total mitigation, total replacement, I think that may suggest something about the new ordinance but it doesn't comply with the one that we've got now. The • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 10 one we've got now says "reasonably developed". It doesn't say "developed with a proposed plan". I hope that you'll decide to go with the present tree ordinance and not with the one that hasn't been formulated yet. Thank you. Odom. Thank you Ms. Moorman. Any other member of the audience wish to address us on the large scale development? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant and Planning Commission and close the floor to public discussion for questions and comments of the applicant. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: One issue before us, for our consideration is the Commercial Design Standards. At both Subdivision and agenda, we had a discussion, the signthat extends above the roof periput and we've been promised that that will not happen but yet we see it again this evening. Can you speak to that? Feinstein: Yes. That's unfortunate that that hasn't been fixed and we'll take care of that. I. wonder too, I haven't actually seen that document, I wonder if perhaps there is a problem with our elevation. The building is going to sit considerably higher than the sign location. The sign will be dust off the right-of-way in the landscaped area. Estes: Do you need to take a look at the elevation sketches? Can we fix that? Feinstein: No problem. Odom. Item number five states "the freestanding sign shall not exceed fifteen feet in height and shall comply with the sign ordinance." Staff, it's my understanding that the sign ordinance does not allow the sign to be above the roof line? Conklin: That is correct and we did make that statement at Subdivision Committee. We will not permit a sign that stands above the roof line. Estes: Item number five, the freestanding sign, Mr. Conklin, is that the monument sign or pole sign? Conklin: That is the pole sign If you look at your south elevation, there is a wall sign and that wall sign is what we are concerned about. • Estes: We have it as a condition of approval that the sign on the building will not be allowed to • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 11 extend over the height of the roof and that's item number six and is the applicant in agre ment with that condition? Feinstein: Yes. Bunch: A couple of housekeeping items. On the drawings you are showing temporary grading construction easements on both the east and west side, have those been secured? Feinstein: No, those in the process. We've gotten verbals on both of those. The owners of Burger King are amenable. I need to talk with them, as well, about the curb connections and make sure they are comfortable with that at this time since we will be doing some improvements on their tract right there, tying the curb in is really at their pleasure I guess. The easements will be in hand before we start construction. Bunch: On of my main concems was I didn't see a signed agreement in our packet and this is spilling over onto other people's property. I wanted to dot the i's and cross the is on that. I will applaud the cross connections on the south side where you are accessing both the east and west properties. One question on the area immediately to the north of the freezer, in between the parking spaces, is that a landscaped area or paved area? Basically, it's the width of the building extending from the edge of the building north to the end of the zone C-2? Feinstein: Right. That's just going to be a landscaped area. At this point we have no plans for that area. The owner's did not want to put any permanent trees in that area at this time. Bunch: For future expansion or something like that but would be landscaped in the interim? Feinstein: Yes. At least in grass. Hoffman: Before I got confused on our item numbers, I started to talk about the tree mitigation and my views on it and we discussed at Subdivision and agenda session that fact that this is an urban in -fill lot in an already developed area Under this same ordinance we have the same concerns with the St. Paul's Church and the library that's going to be coming before us, it's almost impossible to build on any small lot with large trees on it without impacting those trees in some way. While it's unfortunate, I do believe that it's better to try to promote attractive development particularly in this side of town. I do want to commend the applicant for purchasing the additional property behind as a buffer to the neighborhood behind the site. We also specifically discussed the variance required that would need to be incorporated in the motion for the grading in excess of • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 12 100 feet with no terrace. The nature of the lot would also make it un -buildable if we had to put a terrace in the middle of the building and in the parking lot. For those, Tim could you clarify that for me real quick? Conklin: Yes. Condition number four addresses the variance request from Section 169.02(C)(2) of the grading ordinance which states, "The maximum length of any cut or fill slope without a terrace shall be one hundred feet as measured along the ground." That was put in place with the last grading ordinance revision to avoid grading hillsides completely down. In the situation with trying to build a parking lot and building to keep it one level, there is a variance request with regard to that ordinance. Engineering is in favor of that variance request and does support that request. MOTION: Hoffman: Thank you. That was my understanding. This is not a similar situation to the apartments that completely scraped the hillside off. For that reason, I would be in support of this large scale development. With those items being said, I'll go ahead and move for approval of LSD 00-36.00 with the provision that the grading approval be granted, subject to all staff comments. Marr: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion and second to approve LSD 00-36.00 incorporating a variance as outlined in item number four and all the other staff comments. Do we have any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-36.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 13 PP 01-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Mcllroy, pp 439) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf Hayden Mcllroy for property located south of Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A -1/R -1.5/C -1/R -2/R-1, Agricultural/Moderate Density Residential/Neighborhood Commercial/Medium Density Residential/Low Density Residential and contains approximately 90 acres. Odom: Item number four on tonight's agenda is preliminary plat 01-2.00 submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf Hayden McIlroy for property located south of Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A-1/R- 1.5/C- I/R-2/R-1, Agricultural/Moderate Density Residential/Neighborhood Commercial/Medium Density Residential/Low Density Residential and contains approximately 90 acres. Staff, do you want to make just a quick synopsis like you did at agenda session as to what this is about? Conklin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one correction, the property is located on the east and west sides of Rupple Road. That was just one correction that we need to make in that description, that was pointed out to me this afternoon. Since agenda session, I have met with the City Attorney and would just like to read into the record what is required on a preliminary plat and what we are reviewing and approving tonight and the difference between what we are approving tonight and what typically a developer would be required to do. Kit Williams, our City Attorney, thought it would be important to get that into the record. I have handed out a memo dated March 26, 2001, and it's subject is required improvements for preliminary plat 01-2.00 for McIlroy. "Enclosed are relevant code sections in which developers are required to comply with when developing a subdivision. The former administration made agreements with the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club to provide for the construction of Rupple Road Staff is recommending that the City honor these agreements, subject to budget approval by the City Council. However, there has been no provision made for lots in the subdivision to have access to utilities including water, sewer, fire hydrants , and street lights. A variance is being requested by the developer of this subdivision not to install or guarantee water, sewer, fire hydrants, and street lights in accordance with §I56.03. Staff is recommending that the variance be granted due to large size of the remaining tracts. Tracts 1,2, 3 & 7 will be required to appear before the Planning Commission again either as subdivisions or as large scale developments. At such time these new developments will be required to provide for utilities, street lights, and fire protection." Included in this memo I do have relevant sections which talk about requests for variances and those requirements, monuments, lot stakes, streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage, culverts and bridges, water supply, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer system and street lights. I bring this up because we are • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 14 reviewing a preliminary plat this evening in order to create the tracts of land where the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club will be located. I required a preliminary plat to be filed in my office and brought forward to the Planning Commission in order to create these tracts of land. In doing research, I discovered that three lot splits had already occurred from the parent tract of land and my authority under our regulations only allows us to create a total of four lots. We do have a total of seven lots being created this evening. Therefore, I requested a preliminary plat to be filed. What we are asking of WHM Investments, the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and including the City of Fayetteville, which owns three acres of this preliminary plat, is to bring a preliminary plat forward that will dedicate the right-of-way required by the Master Street Plan on Wedington Drive which is 55 feet from centerline, Rupple Road which is a total of 90 feet of right-of-way and Persimmon Street, which is classified as a collector street, 35 feet along the southem boundary line. Staff has not requested or recommended any improvements to be required as part of this preliminary plat. The City on December 19, 2000, did approve, in the 2001 budget, $124,000 to extend water and sewer to the proposed Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club site. They also have in there $395,000 of HMR tax money to help go towards the construction of this facility. That money has been budgeted and approved by the City Council. The City's Street Committee also met last year and did talk about bringing forward as a CIP project the extension of Rupple Road south of Wedington to Persimmon Street. That project will have to go through the CIP process, which is ongoing at this time and will conclude this summer. That project is estimated at $800,000 to $1,000,000 to extend that road. The City Council will have to vote on that project and approve that CIP request for the street to be built. Also, back in December, the Council did approve the letter of intent to increase the millage to provide additional funding to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club. I wanted to make sure that the Commission understood that the City is involved with this project. In the future, subject to City Council approval, we'll be further involved in this project with regard to building the road and also participating in funding the actual construction of the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club, that is my understanding. We have placed ten conditions of approval and Chairman Odom, if you don't mind I can read through those at this time. I think it's important so the public understands what conditions we are placing on this and with regard to, i f development occurs, I had the City of Fayetteville actually constructing Rupple Road and extending utilities. Odom: I'll read the conditions. These are the ten conditions of approval that staff has recommended. Item number one, Planning Commission determination of any required public improvements. Staff is recommending that no improvements be required as a part of this subdivision. The City has been working with the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and has already budgeted funds in the 2001 budget for the water and sewer • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 15 extension to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club property. City staff has agreed to request that the City place funds in the 2003 budget for the construction of Rupple Road with a trail on one side, which is subject to City Council approval Additional funds have been budgeted in order to assist with the parking lots located on City park property. There are no plans for the City to construct Persimmon at this time. Item number two, Rupple Road and a trail will be constructed by the City of Fayetteville by August, 2003 in conjunction with the Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club subject to approval by the City Council. If further development occurs prior to the construction of Rupple Road by the city, the developer will be required to build or be assessed for the construction relieving the City of this obligation. A note shall be placed on the plat indicating this requirement. An access easement and utility easement shall be provided from Meadowlands Drive located in The Meadowlands, Phases I & II, to the Rupple Road right-of-way. At the time of individual lot development on lots 1,2,3, & 7, two additional lanes will be required to bring Rupple Road up to Minor Arterial standards if Rupple Road has been approved by the City Council. A local street will be required to be built if the City Council has not approved the Rupple Road project from Wedington Drive and adjacent to the lot proposed for development. If Rupple has not been constructed the initial two lanes will be required. Also, street improvements will be required on Persimmon to meet the needs of future traffic as part of future development. The final plat shall show the additional right-of-way dedication for Wedington Drive. Wedington Drive is a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan which requires 55 feet of right-of-way be dedicated from centerline. Dedication shall be made by warranty deed to the City of Fayetteville. Item number six, a note shall be placed on the plat indicating that lots 1,2,3, & 7 may not use Rupple Road right-of-way for access until the street is completed. Fines may be accessed to the property owners by the City if damage to road work occurs prior to completion. Item number seven, water and sewer will not be available to all lots. A note shall be placed on the plat indicating where tract 4 will be getting water and which utilities are available to each lot. Item number eight, all utilities shall be placed underground. Temporary overhead power may be installed to serve the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club construction for a maximum period of 24 months from the date of final plat approval. Item number nine, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Item number ten, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 16 current requirements. Those are the ten conditions of approval that staff has recommended for the approval of this project. Staff, do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: I don't believe you have the most current condition number that we redrafted at agenda session. Odom: Read it how it should be read. Conklin: Sure. Number two, Rupple Road and a trail will be constructed by the City of Fayetteville by August, 2003 in conjunction with the Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club subject to approval by the City Council. If further development occurs prior to the construction of Rupple Road by the City, the developer will be required to build or be assessed for the construction relieving the City of this obligation. A note shall be placed on the plat indicating this requirement. That's how condition number two should read. In the supplemental materials handed out, the page number was inaccurately recorded. I would like to add one other condition, condition number eleven and that is "The developer is required to provide lot stakes and monuments in accordance with section 166.03 under our development regulations with regard to the lot staking and monumentation required to actually create the lots as part of this preliminary plat." • Odom: Do we have a signed condition of approval? Conklin: I don't believe we do. Odom: I ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Anderson: Good evening. My name is Mike Anderson with Engineering Design Associates and I'm here to answer any questions that I can. Odom. Mike, we'll do questions and answers after we do the public comment section. Do you have any presentation that you would like to make or any comments with regard to the eleven conditions of approval? Anderson: The only comment I have is, on the one condition when we talked about access in the Meadowlands, I know we are talking about a utility easement if we are tying the waterline there but I don't know at this time that we are in the position to know where we want to bring access from Meadowlands to Rupple Road. I guess if we can determine that before the final plat than we can show that. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 17 Conklin: That will need to be determined before the final plat is submitted. We are asking for the access utility easement from Meadowlands in order to provide, possibly, construction access and waterline extension down to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club. We did not want to get into the situation where the City had to actually go out, as part of extending this waterline to the Boys and Girls Club to buy the easement. That's the reason for that condition. Anderson: The only reason I bring it up, there is some discussion whether or not we are tying water to the Meadowlands or we are going to Wedington and tying on the 12 inch line. At this moment in time, we are undetermined. We will figure that out. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience wish to address us on this preliminary plat? Any member of the audience wish to make comment? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments. Allen: I don't know to whom to address my rather naive comments, I see this land as being so problematic, it has wetlands, it has part of it in the floodplain, I wondered why or is this land in some way contingent upon this Donald Reynolds grant? I'm not clear why we would locate a facility in this place where there is not any infrastructure. It seems to me that it ought to be in another location where that already exists or I wondered if other people have had opportunities to donate land in another area? Those are Just some thoughts and concerns that I had. Conklin: The Boys and Girls Club probably are the best people to answer that question. With regard to the City's involvement, the former Public Works Director, Charles Venable, did sit on the Site Selection Committee. Just so you are aware that we did have our Public Works Director involved in that process. Odom. I'm going to direct your question to Mr. Stockland, who's going to best be able to answer that question, I believe. Stockland: I'm Tom Stockland. I am the President of the Fayetteville Youth Center. We went • through a several year study process, it's part of the grant process for Reynolds. You • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 18 Allen: Stockland: Allen: Stockland: Allen: start with a strategic plan. One of the things you do is you have focus groups within that strategic plan where you have literally hundreds of people involved, "What do you want to see in a youth center?", and they set some criteria and from that you go to a Site Selection Committee. We had a Site Selection Committee that had representation of various users and only had a couple of board members, so it wasn't a board driven site selection. They took the criteria that came from the strategic plan and they looked at 25 or 30 sites and they came down that this site best fit the criteria for what we were looking for. My understanding of the wetlands issue is it's minimal. The remediation is not going to be anything enormous and we don't view that as a problem. As far as where the City will be in 20 or 25 years, I think that's going to look like an awfully good site then. There was a study done. The reason the study was done that way was so the community actually made the decision. They set the criteria and they made the decision as opposed to us getting on a board and the 15 of us deciding where we wanted to put it. That's the whole purpose of the study is to get it done from the community instead of Just a few individuals. Does that answer the question or would you like me to be more specific on a certain point? I just see that land is so problematic and I wondered whether or not the grant is tied already to that land? Yes. Our application, which is considered at the time they got it Reynolds told us it was the best they had and that's what they are sending out to new applicants including our site selection, it is tied to that site or we have to go back through the process for that $9,500,000. So, it's there or nowhere. This grant cannot be amended without going back through a whole process and asking for approvals which we are not going to be able to do and have it built by August, 2003. We had a public meeting where many of the City Council people who asked that question came, in room 326 in January and had our paid professionals explain how this site was selected and that seemed to go well. Most of the Council people that I talked to afterwards were pleased with what they understood. Could you explain to me maybe why then a site where the infrastructure already existed was eliminated or why that particular site was selected? Stockland: I could go on specific sites and I probably need a little help from Jeff Konig depending • on it, but basically what we did is we went by the criteria that the community told us • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 19 they wanted. One thing they wanted was a neighborhood center, they didn't want an urban boys and girls club. So we tried to do it in a place where there would be a neighborhood setting, where there would be residential area. One of the drawbacks of our current center is the city has changed so much, we don't have any walk-in traffic. Virtually every kid there is either dropped off or bussed in. We don't want that long term to be what we have at the new center. So that took care of a number of sites trying to put it more in a residential area as opposed to an urban area. That was a pretty clear direction that our constituents in the City of Fayetteville wanted was something more in a residential setting. Allen: The current setting seems residential to me, it seems to me like more children could walk to the site now. Stockland: It's changed from single family when it was built to university housing. I'm sure you've probably read where there is some issues with the future of Bates there are just not that many kids in the area anymore. We do not have walk-in traffic. It is very small. That's just the way Fayetteville has changed. At the time it was built, it was a residential area and we did have walk-in traffic. Hoffman: I want to echo a bit of what you are saying but I want to couch it in these terms, 1. think we are in the business of Planning and what's been brought to us is nowhere close to what we would normally consider in terms of a subdivision or development. I cannot see this board granting, were it a private for profit venture, a set of variances of this kind for a subdivision but since the grant is tied to the land, 1 feel almost as though you might as well skip the Planning Commission and go straight to City Council to get the road funding. I don't think that there is a member on the Commission that doesn't want to see the Boys and Girls Club built. However, we are taught and trained as Planning Commissioners to make the highest and best use of the land, make sure the infrastructure is there, to make sure the funding is there and that it will serve all portions of the City equally as it can. This site, in my mind, doesn't meet any of those criteria yet I'm unwilling to jeopardize the funding of the center and recognizing it's importance. So I'll vote for the preliminary plat and for the large scale development when we get to that point. I guess I just needed to go on record as saying that I feel that we've put the cart before the horse We've had one five minute presentation from the architect regarding the proposed look of the building. We don't know much about the function of the building. We don't know what it's going to look like. We know it's going to have to come back to the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission as the design progresses and I just feel that that's unfortunate that the Planning Commission is not a little bit further along in the process as you all seem to be. I personally support • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 20 the Boys and Girls Club certainly. Stockland: I can't speak to the details of what our architects or engineers have done and whether it's complete or not. As to the planning that we have done as an organization not our professional, I can speak to that and I think I can defend that. We can be here until midnight talking about what went into the strategic plan and site development plan but I don't think anybody wants that. I can't respond to what the architects have completed, what they should've completed before they came to you. Hoffman: It's not an attack on the architects either, it's just a statement that this has, I think, been brought to the Planning Commission in a way that no other private development would have. It wouldn't have gotten to us at this level. Stockland: It's probably the short time frame of the grant that it has to be completed by August 11, 2003. Hoffman: Yes. So, again if the grant is tied to it, I certainly don't want to stand in the way of that but 1 just feel that there are a great many questions left unanswered. I know that we do have a tight City budget. I know that there are a lot of"if's" involved in this project. I hope it's a good one. I hope we are not making a mistake. Again, I'II vote for it I've said my piece, so I'll give everybody else a chance now. Stockland: All you can do is if you pay a professional $150,000 to do these studies and everyone that knows about these studies tells you that they did a good job, you have to put some faith in them. It's the best one Reynolds has ever got at the time they got it. Hoffman: Thank you. Estes: Mr. Conklin, this is a preliminary plat that you have brought to us, is that why this matter is on our agenda? Conklin: Yes. When the consultants met with me, we had to do some research with regard to the parent tract of the property to determine how many tracts have been split from this piece of property. After doing research over at the Washington County Assessor's office and in our own office, I determined that the number of lots that had been split from the parent tract exceeded what I could approve administratively. We did look at the possibly of approving this administratively. The preliminary plat is required because I'm trying to clean up what has happened in the past. That includes the City of Fayetteville accepting parkland three acres from Meadowlands Subdivision as their • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 21 land dedication requirement. So you have three property owners involved, the City of Fayetteville, WHM Investments and Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club which their property has already been deeded to them also, at this time. The only thing I needed to do was bring it through this process. Even on a lot split, if we came through the process correctly in the beginning I would have been required under ordinance to acquire dedication of right-of-way, the 55 feet from centerline for Wedington, 90 feet for Rupple Road, 35 feet on Persimmon. What's unusual about this is that the City of Fayetteville is putting utilities in to serve this site and staff is not recommending that this developer be required to provide water and sewer, streetlights and fire protection to all the lots within the subdivision. We do have a condition of approval when those lots that are not owned by the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and the City of Fayetteville come through that will be a requirement of those developments including two additional lanes on Rupple Road to make that a four lane street. At this time, we are not asking for any improvements by WHM Investments but in the future if they still own the property and they bring it through the process, we will be looking for improvements. Estes: The purpose of the preliminary plat is to bring into compliance the past lot splits that had not been through the planning process, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct because what we are ending up with with the dedication of right-of-way on Rupple Road is a total of seven lots. Under our ordinance we can have three lot splits creating a total of four parcels. Therefore, that's why it's coming to you as a preliminary plat. Estes: The developer is also requesting a variance to not be required to install or guarantee water, sewer or fire hydrant, streetlights in accordance with section 156.03, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct and that's something the City Attorney and I looked at since your agenda session. We want to make sure the Commission, public and the applicants are aware that this is a variance from the requirements, this is not something we typically do and that you do have to grant that variance not to require that infrastructure as part of this preliminary plat. Estes: As I have reviewed section 156.03 which governs the variance, there is a sentence of the paragraph on undo hardship no variance shall be granted for any property which does not have access to an improved street because some of these lots, in particular tracts 1, 2, 3 and 7 do not have access to an improved street, how can we grant this variance? • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 22 Conklin: The City of Fayetteville will be building that street which will provide access to an improved street. Our condition of approval is to state that any development that occurs prior to that street being built that they will build that street. That is the way I've read that section of the ordinance to make sure that if we do create these lots that they will have an improved street if they are developed. They are either going to have to wait for the City to do it, at which time we'll get two additional lanes or they will be building two lanes prior to their development. Estes: Part of my thought process is that because that improved street does not exist, then this is in line with Commissioner Hoffman's comments, we are being asked to approve this preliminary plat, we are being asked to grant a variance but yet the ordinance says that we may not grant the variance for any property which does not have access to an improved street. Tonight as we vote on this, there is no access to an improved street, how can we grant the variance? Conklin: Well, I tried to explain it already. Odom: Let me give my clarification of it. I think it's because we are conditioning the approval of this on an improved street being present, whether it's by the developer or by the City. Conklin: That is correct. You will have to have an improved street, yes. Once again, it's unusual. Williams: I would like when you decide whether or not you want to approve this, I would like you to do actual findings on this undo hardship variance so that the record is clear that you are finding that there is an undo hardship, the situation is unique and you might further include Commissioner Estes' concem about the fact that there is no existing street at this time. Odom: Thank you Mr. Williams. Other questions, comments? Bunch: A question of staff on condition number four, at the time of individual lot development on lots 1, 2, 3 and 7, additional lanes will be put in and so forth, is that as each is developed or is it after all have been developed? Conklin: As each is developed. My recommendation is to you in the future on any of these lots that come in, that they do need to build the street from Wedington to their lot and adjacent to their lot, that will be our recommendation. So, if there is the last lot on • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 23 Persimmon and no development has taken place and City Council decides they don't want to spend the money to build Rupple Road, they are going to have to build the street from Wedington all the way down to their lot and adjacent to their lot, that's what I'll recommend. Bunch: Also, on Persimmon, we have a situation there where we run into in other places, it appears that the city limits line runs down Persimmon. We would only be empowered to get half unless that land becomes annexed or something. It would be situation similar to Joe Fred Starr Road where half the road is County and half is City road. They are built to different standards. Conklin: That is always an issue with regard to when the street is half in the City and half in the County. Under state law and through our planning area regulations, we do have the ability to acquire the right-of-way. Whether or not in the future the City Council decides to spend money outside the city limits, within our growth area, that has also been the other issue like on Starr Road, we have many needs within the City and the attitude in the past has been to focus on improving CIP projects within the City, not outside. We would have the ability to acquire the right-of-way and when that development does come through, if they want to be on the sewer, they would have to annex in or get City Council approval. Typically, we seek annexation when development occurs. Bunch: Another question of the applicant. Comment was made earlier about most of our material that we have to go from seems to indicate that the waterline would come through the Meadowlands Subdivision but in your presentation you indicated the possibility that it would come from Rupple Road. Anderson: I think in the early discussion with then Mayor Hanna there was some discussion about waterline being extended along Rupple road and Mr. Mcllroy, that was his understanding that was the way it was going to happen. Subsequently, when we met with City Staff, one of the things that we looked at was the possibility of tying onto an existing eight inch line in Meadowlands. At this point in time, we are undetermined which way we are going to go. There is obviously some city funds that are available, Tim talked about, for extending water and sewer to the site and it's either going to come from Meadowlands tying to that line or running down along Rupple Road and tying to the twelve inch line on Wedington. A lot of that has to do with what Mr. Mcllroy wants to do with the property. We'll determine that as quickly as we can. • Bunch: This might be a question that you and the staff have to address simultaneously, if in the • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 24 event that the budgeted portion, from what I understand, the budget is for the line to go from Meadowlands, it has to come all the way from Highway 16 down Rupple Road, who would be putting that in? Would the City be putting that in? Would there be assessments at such time that these other lots are developed on some sort of prorated basis? If the City puts the infrastructure in then we are back to the statement here where as these lots develop, infrastructure is placed and then if some of it is already there and it will be assessed, how will that occur? Beavers: We could come up with an assessment policy. We've only done that one time in the past few years that I'm familiar with and that was out on Salem Road where the City extended the waterline and there was ordinance in place that whoever develops that property would pay the City back the small portion. If the waterline were to come from Wedington, it would be a cost share between Mr. Mcllroy and the City, it would not be entirely at the City's cost. Bunch: How would that be described? • Beavers: It hasn't been worked out yet. The option of coming from Wedington or coming from the Meadowlands has not been determined. • Bunch: Would there need to be a condition of approval that would state that should the line have to come from Highway 16 that it would be on a cost share basis with the various property holders? Stockland: I think the City Council in December allocated up to $124,000 for a waterline and sewer extension. If it exceeds that, it is not going to be the City's responsibility. Beavers: I'm not sure that's how Engineering interprets that. As a matter of fact, it's not. I think it needs to be determined whether it comes from Wedington or it comes from Meadowlands. Our recommendation to City Council would be that the City participate in the least expensive option which appears to be the Meadowlands. Stockland: Yes, but in December didn't they approve up to $124,000 for a waterline, wasn't that the wording? Beavers. I don't know that that's the wording. I don't have the budget here in front of me. There is $124,000 in the budget and, as I stated in previous meetings, that's just a number that was left over from another project. That number does not reflect cost estimates. Cost estimates were much less than that. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 25 Stockland: Beavers. Bunch: Anderson: Bunch: Anderson: Bunch: At least it was our understanding to the extent of exceeding $124,000, it would come to somebody else. Through our initial work, we had thought that the waterline at an eight inch for Rupple Road and the sewer could be done for $124,000. I don't know if Jim will agree with that. My understanding was that Mr. Mcllroy was going to upgrade it to a twelve inch line and pay the difference. Let me just say one thing that might help you understand. Neither myself nor Ron Petrie were privileged to a lot of the meetings that went on between Charles Venable, Mayor Hanna and the Boys and Girls Club. Engineering was always under the assumption the water was coming from the Meadowlands. There may have been previous commitments to come from Rupple and that's fine. We are happy for it to come wherever it needs to come from. We weren't involved in those discussions. There is an existing sewer line on the south side of this property along Persimmon, is that where the intention of tying into that for the Youth Center? Yes. That would negate any worries about the City having to run a sewer line to that location because that already exists. I might add that when we come back to the final plat, which hopefully that's in a few weeks, by that time I'm sure we will have resolved where the waterline is and we will have the proper easements in place on that plat so that you are comfortable with that. Our requirements on final plat, Tim you might want to elaborate on this, are even more stringent than on the preliminary plat for variances. I think one of the things that is discussed on final plat is guarantees to place infrastructure. If we are looking at something coming through in two weeks, three weeks or less than a month that hasn't been determined yet, there has nothing been built or determined, in order to expedite this process we need to have some fairly rapid work done on determining who pays for these various things. Our Job here is to make a determination and make some findings to try to obey the law. This is a wonderful project and I think it would definitely be an asset to the community. With a 9 million grant, I can see where the City would definitely want to put some front money up or matching money to help supply some infrastructure and that sort of thing to help facilitate this but, at the same time, we have to obey the law. • Anderson: I think one thing that is hard for us to understand is that it is a unique situation. It's a • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 26 partnership between the City of Fayetteville, an individual property owner, the Boys and Girls Club and the City Parks Department. What we are trying to do from our side is to facilitate that and we ask for your help in allowing us to facilitate it. Bunch: One thing is, even though it's a partnership, we are not seeing any agreements, partnership agreements. We are hanging out on a limb because we are asked to make some approvals and try to work within the law and we are being told that there are all these agreements but we don't see any of these agreements in front of us. It puts each of us in an ethical dilemma. Conklin: With regard to the guarantee question that you had and with regard to the improvements, staff is not recommending this developer including the City of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club to be required, as part of this preliminary plat, to install the streets, waterlines and sewer lines. I know it's very difficult. I spent a lot of time to separate this in my own mind, separating what the City's agreeing to do and subject to City Council approval and what this preliminary plat represents. You are right, if this was a standard subdivision, they would not be allowed to come back with a final plat until the waterlines, sewer lines and streets were in. The only thing you can guarantee is the final layer of pavement during climate weather, sidewalks and landscaping. That's typically what we do get. This is not what we are bringing forward to you. What I'm trying to do is to make sure the right-of-way is being dedicated and that if the City does not agree to do these things that the developer will be required to do them in the future. To answer your question, their intention is to bring a final plat within the next few weeks since we are only looking at right-of-way dedication and these conditions talking about if the City doesn't agree to the street improvements. Bunch: On a question of final plat, normally final plats do not come to this full Commission, they usually go to Subdivision unless there are some encumbrances and variances, would our action here, were we to grant variances, would those stay with the preliminary plat and cause it to... What position are we putting the Commissioners who sit on the Subdivision Committee to see a final plat on this where only three of them will be asked to decide whether or not they want to break the law, if they would like to have some support from the rest of the Commission In that respect, I would add a condition of approval that the final plat would come before the full Planning Commission and not be determined at Subdivision level, if it's agreeable to my fellow Commissioners. Odom: 1 know that any time anything is half way controversial or even attempts to be • controversial, Tim Conklin always recommends that Subdivision forward it to the full • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 27 Commission. I don't think that they do have the power or they would just arbitrarily grant variances and disobey the law. Tim, do you want to respond to that? Conklin: Typically if there is a variance, all the time if there is a variance we bring this forward to the full Planning Commission. I guess it concerns me. I don't want any Commissioner here, this evening, to feel like they are breaking the law. I'm bringing forward a plat to correct some past actions and deeds that were recorded over at the County that did not come through the process. It does require preliminary plat. You need to vote your conscience. Once again, I'm trying to correct the situation and have the Boys and Girls Club, which has selected this site through their planning process and the agreements that were made and the Street Committee that met that talked about their intent to put this in the CIP to get the road down there, just bringing this forward. Those are all very good questions each Commissioner has asked this evening. Bunch: One thing that would ease my mind considerably is if Jim Beavers can explain a little more what he was starting on the various obligations on cost sharing as infrastructure goes in and what we would need to have. If we need anything additional in our conditions to cover those cost sharing ideas and issues. Beavers: As I was saying, in recent history I think we've only done that one time and that was on Salem Road and there was an ordinance to assess. However, if they were to come down Rupple Road, the developer Mr. Mcllroy would be cost sharing to some extent. There is just some issues that haven't been worked out yet that come from either direction Coming from Rupple Road is fine. One challenge to EDA is to determine the profile of the waterline, it's got to be 36 inches below the curb. We are designing the street and not until the end of this year, we can't get them any elevations to set the waterline. There are some pros and cons that come from Rupple that have to be considered. If the City has committed to extend water and sewer, other than the over - sizing or the cost sharing to come from Wedington, I wouldn't recommend that we place further burdens upon the developers. The City has committed to get water to the Youth Center site. One thing that we kind of skipped over and I guess I need to hear from the engineer, we are talking about the utilities and water, very important is the haul road and we also make the condition to adhere to that, that includes an access easement from the Meadowlands. That issue, which we'll talk about when we get to large scale, is also be determined whether the haul road will be in Rupple right-of-way or whether it will come from Meadowlands. Hoffman: I would like to address City Attorney Williams' request that we make findings on undo • hardship. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 28 Odom: I'll tell you what, I'm Just going to do a couple of things that might get us on the path of taking care of some of that. Tom, I would like you to come forward. This is foreign to some of us up here, we are kind of having some problems because we don't normally Just grant preliminary plats like this that allow so many waivers or where we leave so many things open-ended. There is a provision that if we are going to do this we have to make a determination on certain things. We have to make a determination as to whether or not there is a public interest that's served here and whether or not there is undo hardship that would prevent that public interest from being served. We all know what the Boys and Girls Club is but, just for the record, if you could briefly describe for me what it is and what public interest that it serves. Stockland: The Boys and Girls Club is the primary provider of youth recreation indoors in the City of Fayetteville. I can go through self-esteem and all the things that those type of • activities allow In addition, we provide tutoring, we provide a number of programs for youth. We have a focus on disadvantaged youth. We have a site at Jefferson where we bring the kids to the California Drive location maybe once or twice a week but there we tutor and we do a lot of things. Another thing that's pretty unique to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club is, if you want to participate you can, we give scholarships. There is nobody that is not allowed to participate in any activity in which they want, at that club, for financial reasons. We Just have a big menu of programs. Everything from educational to leadership skills, character building and then the youth sports everybody knows about. That would be kind of very briefly what the Boys and Girls Club does. I may be able to help you a little bit on the on hardship too. I have some background that a lot of people don't. That is, when we understood we received the grant we had several meetings with the old administration and we did that throughout the process. Part of what Mr. Mcllroy and Mr. Robertson did at the time, Butch was a part owner, they priced that land to us below market. They agreed to make it an additional six acres a bank of park land and did a lot of things based on representations. None of us understood that we were going to have to go through a preliminary plat. It was Tim's thoroughness that kind of caught us there. We all thought we would just have to deal with our site. Then WHM Investments is sitting there, they've made deals at below market value with the idea there is going to be a road and waterlines and now, since then, we find out we have to go through this platting process to correct errors we all made before. It is kind of a tough situation for WHM because they made the deal, they deeded us the land, we paid them $100,000 for ten acres and that land appraises for considerably more than that. Without the benefits that had been promised, I don't know that they would have done that. • Odom: Is the Boys and Girls Club that you are talking about, that's going to be built out there, • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 29 Stockland: Allen: Stockland: Odom: Stockland: Odom: Stockland: associated with the well established Boys and Girls Club that's been serving the community of Fayetteville for many years? Yes it is. It will be our new primary location. I certainly am in favor of a Girls and Boys Club too. I actually utilized it as a kid, the existing one. I'm still having trouble understanding why or how this grant got tied to this land. The grant process requires that you do a strategic plan where you analyze all your operations. That process brought us to the conclusion we needed a new facility. Space at our facility is at such a premium, we are able to offer programs we feel like we need to offer, we are not able to expand and the City is growing a lot. Part of that was, you need a new facility. Then the focus groups asked "What do you want in a facility?" There may not be 100 criteria but there are many criteria of what these people wanted in differing degrees of support. So, then we went out and with the City being represented, with major constituencies being represented, we put together a Site Selection Committee and looked at I don't know how many pieces of land and there were only three that really met our needs. One is north of where we are and it's west also and it turned out to not have as good access and 1 think that was probably the deciding point there. The other one cost way too much money. That's how it happened. When we applied for the grant, you apply with a strategic develop plan, a site selection plan and a fund raising plan. That all went to Reynolds and that was a package that was approved that got us the nine and a quarter million dollar grant. Would it be a hardship on the Boys and Girls Club to build Rupple Road with all the improvements that are required? I don't think we could do it. We are in a fund-raising effort now where we are having to raise matching funds that are not covered by Reynolds. If it's an additional million dollars, it would be tough, particularly with the time frame we have to complete it by August 11, 2003. You have a time frame that you have to complete it by. The building has to be completed by August 11, 2003. We can't turn dirt until we raise enough money to do a number of things the Reynolds aren't doing including a maintenance fund. We are in the process of doing that but we need to have that money raised this summer. To throw another million dollars on top of that would really be • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 30 Odom: Stockland: Hoffman: MOTION: Shackelford: Conklin: Beavers: tough. Would it be of such an undo hardship that would jeopardize the entire project? Yes. That speaks to my findings of the undo hardship. I can make no findings regarding undo hardship for any installation of utilities other than the fact that the grant is tied to this location. Therefore, since Planning Commission has no authority to disperse funds, it then becomes the per view of the City Council to go ahead and commit to those funds. My only finding, and I want to make it quite clear for the record, is that the hardship lies in the location of this site which is not served by utilities nor public access at this time. The reason for the hardship then is the grant tied to that site, as I understand it. Therefore, in order to facilitate and not jeopardize the new location or the desired location from the point of view of the Boys and Girls Club, that would be the only finding I can make in order to proceed with an affirmative motion. As I see it, this is basically an administrative item that clears up lot splits that have already occurred. I feel that it also allows a much needed and welcome development to come to the City of Fayetteville that would be funded by grant money. I feel it addressed the issue of undue hardship and financial constraints of the project. I think that we made the findings that we needed to there. I would like to go ahead and make a motion for approval of preliminary plat 01-2.00 based on all staff comments and conditions of approval. As Mr. Beavers has indicated, we probably need to add a 12th condition of approval that a haul road shall be constructed to facilitate the building of the youth center and location of proposed trail. I'll take any assistance from other Commissioners on how that should be worded and put on the plat. I'm just concerned about making that a condition because the final plat is going to be here in a couple of weeks and the haul road is not going to be in. When is the haul road going to be in? That's yet to be determined. That's going to be talked about in more detail when we get to the large scale which is the next item. Shackelford: My concern was that the haul road will affect more than just the location that the large • scale development addresses. It looks like that will have to be addressed on the plat. • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 31 Obviously this isn't my area of expertise. Are we saying that needs to be on the final plat and not the preliminary plat? Beavers. We've got a condition here that I appreciate Planning coming up with and that's lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 may not use the Rupple Road right-of-way. The haul road issue is going to have to be worked out with the Youth Center and anybody else that develops out there. There is a point being, if we start construction next year on Rupple Road, we can't afford to have other people in our contractor's way, damaging their work. Shackelford: I apologize, I misunderstood you. I thought we needed that as a condition of approval. I'll make the motion we approve it with the eleven conditions of approval as stated by staff. Ward: Odom: I'll second. We have a motion by Commission Shackelford, second by Commissioner Ward for approval of preliminary plat 01-2.00. Do we have any further discussion? • Williams: Does this motion include the finding by the Planning Commission that an undo hardship unique to this property does exist and in order to secure the public interest that you are going to at least grant temporarily or permanently these variances. Is that what you are doing? • Shackelford: Yes sir. It is my intent to state the findings that this project is in the best public interest to the City, that due to the limited grant money it would be an undo financial hardship to acquire these buildings due to the uniqueness of this project being funded by grant money, that it would make financial constraints. It is a finding in that fact. Odom. Mr. Williams, does that take care of what you needed? Williams: 1 think it does. Odom: Do we have any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, PP 01-2.00 is approved by a vote of 7-1-1 with Commissioner Allen voting "no" and Commissioner Bunch voting "present". • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 32 CU 01-2.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of John Benberg of Fayetteville Youth Center Inc. DBA Boys & Girls Club of Fayetteville, Inc. for property located south of Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 14.93 acres. The request is for a commercial recreation, large site (use unit 4) in a A -1/R-2 zone. LSD 01-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Fayetteville Youth Center Inc. DBA The Boys & Girls Club of Fayetteville Inc. for property located south Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 15 acres. The request is for a recreation facility. Odom: The next item we have on the agenda is related, it is a conditional use. It is item number five on tonight's agenda, conditional use 01-2.00 submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of John Benberg of Fayetteville Youth Center Inc. DBA Boys & Girls Club of Fayetteville, Inc for property located south of Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road The property is zoned A-1., Agricultural and contains approximately 14.93 acres. The request is for a commercial recreation, large site (use unit 4) in a A -1/R-2 zone. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission approval of the proposed large scale development (LSD 01-4). Lighting for this facility shall comply with §172.01(C)(4) and light poles shall not exceed 30' in height. If lighting for ball fields is proposed in the future, a request shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Staff are there any further conditions of approval? Warrick: There are no further conditions. I do have one correction in the description of the project and that is that the site for the Youth Center project is located solely within the A-1 zoning district and that R-2 is incorrect. Bunch: Can I make a recommendation at this time? That we look at the LSD simultaneously with the discussion on the conditional use since the findings on the conditional use all reference the large scale. Odom: Staff, we may need two votes but it is okay that we give consideration with regard to the LSD at this time? Conklin: Sure if that will help you better understand. • Bunch: I recommend that the votes be separate but we go ahead and consider since all the • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 33 findings say refer to the large scale development. Odom. As we consider this project we are also going to be considering LSD 01-4.00 the large scale development submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Fayetteville Youth Center Inc. DBA The Boys & Girls Club of Fayetteville Inc. for property located south Hwy 16 and east of Rupple Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 15 acres. The request is for a recreation facility. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to twenty conditions listed below. Staff, do you want me to read the twenty conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes, I think it would be beneficial to the public. Odom: Item number one, Planning Commission determination of off-site improvements required as part of this development. Staff is recommending that the applicant not be responsible for any off-site improvements. Please note that the City has expressed an intent to construct Rupple Road south of Wedington to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club as a two-lane street. However, the final determination and approval, including the funding for the street, requires future approval by the City Council. Staff is also recommending that no improvements be made to Persimmon at this time. Item number two, construction traffic to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club may not access the proposed Rupple Road extension during construction of the proposed street. Access for construction of the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club will be provided by means of a separate haul road which will be designed by the private development engineer and coordinated with the City. Item number three, approval shall be subject to approval of a conditional use allowing for a recreational facility in an A-1 zoning district. All conditions of approval contained as part of the conditional use approval will be required to be met as part of this large scale development. Item number four, approval shall be subject to Council approval of the lease agreement allowing for the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club to utilize City park land for parking and other facilities. Item number five, the site plan shall indicate the landscaping required along the future extension of Persimmon Road in compliance with Commercial Design Standards. One tree per every 30 feet and a continuous planting of shrubs is required along Persimmon. Item number six, no freestanding signs shall be permitted. A monument sign will be allowed in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. Item number seven, a floodplain development permit, conditional letter of map revision, and Section 404 permit from the US Army Corp of Engineers are required for this project prior to any site work. A letter of map revision is required to be submitted prior to a Final Certificate of Occupancy. Item number eight, the proposed relocated channel shall be designed to be as "soft and natural" as the layout will allow. The channel lining shall consist of plants. If armoring • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 34 of the bends is required, such armoring will use a product which can be hidden with turf or landscaping. Rip -rap will not be used as a channel lining. Item number nine, the Parking Regulations do not adequately address parking for this type of development. Therefore the applicant is proposing to evaluate the number of parking spaces based upon similar uses in other cities. Item number ten, bicycle parking racks shall be provided in accordance with §172.03 Bicycle Parking Rack Requirements. Item number eleven, the applicant is requesting a waiver for the driveway entrance width. The applicant is requesting a 30 foot wide driveway. The maximum allowed is 24 feet. Item number twelve, the water extension will be designed by the development engineer and funded by the City subject to approval by the City Council. Item number thirteen, the applicant is requesting a waiver of section IX.2.2.4 of the Drainage Criteria Manual in order to have a channel bend of less than the 10 times the bottom width as required. Item number fourteen, Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. The applicant is requesting to use brick, EFIS, and metal siding. The final color choices have not been finalized. The applicant will submit the final colors to the Subdivision Committee for approval. Item number fifteen, as of March 21, 2001 a proper Preliminary Grading Plan application had not been received Such application was requested prior to the March 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Item number sixteen, approval of the preliminary plat PP 01-2.00: Mcllroy and subsequent final plat to create the tracts of land for the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and City Parks Division. Item number seventeen, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives). Item number eighteen, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Item number nineteen, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Item number twenty, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project; c. Project Disk with all final revisions; d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff, do we have any further conditions of approval? • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 35 Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Thank you for reading those twenty conditions your last night on the Commission. Beavers: Item number 15, I requested that be on here. That's an item for discussion and not a condition of approval. I would request that you remove that as a condition of approval and something that we can discuss later during the meeting. That references a preliminary grading application. That's something I think we should still talk with the applicant but it was wrong for me to request that be a condition of approval. Odom: I will remove item number fifteen as a condition of approval but it will remain for discussion. Beavers: Thank you sir. Odom: Would you like to make any presentation at this time Mike? Anderson: I don't know if you had a chance to take a look at this. In your packets you probably have a plan that has a little more detail and here is an idea of floor plan. I think you can all see the model, if you had a chance to look at that. We talked about a bunch of the issues. Part of the land is owned by the Boys and Girls Club and the rest is to be owned by the Parks Department. It is a cooperative effort between those groups. One of the things Commissioner Allen talked about earlier or asked a question about wetlands, we have had a wetlands determination on the site. When I talk about the site, it's tracts 4, 5 and 6 of the preliminary plat that we just looked at. We had approximately 1/10th of an acre of wetlands that was delineated and accepted by the Corps of Engineers on tracts 5 and 6. We are in the process of doing some kind of mitigation for that, we are not exactly for sure what that is. It is probably going to be related to channelization that we are doing when we talked about the CLOMR. One of the things that we are doing on the site, currently there is a FEMA regulated floodway that runs through the site and what we are talking about doing is relocating that channel along to our southern boundary. Part of that relocation we would be doing some mitigation for the wetland. Basically, I'm here to answer some questions. Have we talked about the conditional use or the waiver that we are asking for? Odom: We'll do the questions after the public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Odom. Let me ask, at this time, if there is any member of the audience that would like to • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 36 address the large scale development, please come forward at this time. Moorman: My name is Barbara Moorman, 3450 Finger Road. I heard someone say a little while ago that we are in the business of planning but I believe that this entire project has happened without the kind of overall planning that's required by the 2020 Plan and by the City Code, the UDO, which requires that your plans promote a compact city, you promote connectivity, not just for cars but for pedestrians and bicycles, that you consider significant environmental resources and that you plan your developments where there is already existing infrastructure. I think there have been so many irregularities in this particular process that you ought to see some red flags. The question about the site and why it was chosen, back in 1997, there was a proposal presented for Meadowlands III. At that time the hope on the part of the developers was that the middle school would go right where the youth center is planned now. When the City didn't want to extend Rupple Road for the middle school at that location and the middle school was moved north on Rupple Road, the youth center moved in to fill the vacuum. At the time that this was going on, one of the owners at that time who is no longer one of the owners, Butch Robertson, said and this is from your minutes February 1999, "What we are trying to do is something really positive for the western side of Fayetteville It really needs a shot in the arm." So that was the view back in 1999. In 1997 when the hope was to have the middle school there, the middle school was going to be the shot in the arm. I do not necessarily think this is true myself but I know the perception exists on the part of some people and you really need to dispel it, if it's false, that the site was chosen for promotion of development on the west side of Fayetteville, which of course can't help but take off with the attractions of the middle school and youth center. The irregularities that I'm talking about that have to do with the site, the site was officially selected by a committee that was chosen by the youth center, as far as I know it was not chosen by the City. Certainly it was not chosen by the City Council. I don't think that you chose it either. The City did contribute $80,000 to the conducting of that study. That was begun in the summer of 1998. The use of this 9 million dollar grant from the Reynolds Foundation to impose this particular site on the City I think is questionable. I've never seen an explanation of why the Reynolds Foundation is insisting on this particular site. I haven't even seen evidence that they are insisting on this particular site but this is the common perception. I don't think the City needs to violate the principals on the 2020 Plan just to get the money and obey the dictates of a foundation headquartered in Las Vegas. Other irregularities that I see in this process, the wetlands for instance, they were not even investigated until the 30`h of November, that's after the deed was granted to the youth center which happened in the previous month. This project was all accepted before there was any wetland determination made on this site that's already a floodplain. As far as the streets • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 37 Odom: go, I've never seen any approval by the City Council of the street plan, however, reference has been made to agreements with the previous administration that you all are trying to honor and indeed there were agreements but I think they were rather irregular agreements. There was a letter from the former Mayor, a letter of understanding, promising to support infrastructure payments by the City, and this is a quote, "I will recommend to City Council that the City fund the remaining cost of the street [that is Rupple Road] and that the action you are taking with the Youth Center cover any upcoming development costs you have in the Meadowlands Subdivision that pertains to Rupple Road " Yet, you all don't have in front of you that kind of vaporous Meadowlands III which was proposed and then withdrawn before it even got to you, that was back in 1997 that happened. The land bank is another issue. This banking of six acres toward future development in the southwest quadrant, you don't have a subdivision on the table so you don't know whether that six acres satisfies a requirement for the subdivision or not. Then there is a reference November 28, 2000, in an agenda memo for a Parks Board meeting that states that the City has agreed to fund street improvements by constructing Rupple Road at an estimated cost of one million dollars. This same document mentions other infrastructures that I don't think the City had committed at the time and I've never seen commitment approved by the City Council. I gather what you just did was say it doesn't matter. I think that's reflective of the chaos of the whole procedure. I think the main issues are the site, how it was chosen, why it should have been chosen and why there was such a rush to choose it and I think the lack of regular approval You've just seen the lot split situation and you just regularized it but it started out in 1996 with that first grant of parkland to the City and there was never a legal lot split then. It's been going on since 1996, all these lot splits. I know you just regularized it but I think that's just part of the sort of upside down backwards way things have been done here. I think that all of these things have been more or less incremental, one thing is done irregularly and you say "Oh well that's done so we have to do the next thing." It all adds up to a great big decision that's going to affect, just think of the traffic on Highway 62 and that's minor in my view but it's a pretty major disruption. I think this needs more study. I think there is no urgency. I think you need to find out what's proposed for the rest of Meadowlands. I urge you to stand back to think, to review, to study, to get all those past agreements in front of you. Somebody said you didn't have them, you certainly should have and put your house in order before you act on this. Thank you. Any other member of the audience wish to address us? I also ask that if any member of the audience has a cell phone or pager with them that they turn them off. It's disruptive for them to go off during the meeting, I've heard them go off twice now. You may listen outside the room and you can hear us from the glass if you wish them to • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 38 remain on. Garcia: David Garcia, 120 N. Block lust off the capital square here. I'm also a member of the City of Fayetteville's ad hoc neighborhood outreach committee which you may or may not be familiar with. That's a new committee that has been charged by the Mayor with looking at the communication between government and the City residents, looking at problems with miscommunication and how citizen access to local government can be approved. I can by no means speak to you as an official member of that committee or speak on behalf of that committee. There is no way in which I am authorized to do that. I did want to mention it because I did want you to know that for the past several weeks, I've been one of the group of citizens that's been looking at questions of communication between local government and local citizens. There is some -communication from local citizens that you should perhaps be aware of in considering this proposed youth center. I heard one of the Commissioners say that this project was fairly problematic and I would say that I would have to agree. For example, I know of one local media outlet that is investigating the relationship between members of the Hanna administration, the Mcllroy family and the youth center and park center board to see if there are any financial relationships or financial benefit to be gained by any of those parties out of these unusual unorthodox arrangements. I have no idea the reporters from that media outlet will find anything or not but I would say that makes this project very problematic. I can tell you from attending various community meetings and a number of other City committee meetings that wetlands issues are becoming very serious in the City of Fayetteville, that people are starting to pay very close attention to them and you should know that they will not be treated as lightly by the rest of the City government or by the City's residents as they have in the past. So, wetlands is a very serious topic. Finally, again in several community meetings and discussing this project with some folks that do a lot of work with low income residents in the city, I've heard an increasing mutter, an increasing background upset about the location of this youth center, about why it's not being located in south Fayetteville where it is very much more obviously needed at this point in time, low income kids A lot of low income kids that would have much more difficulty getting out to the proposed center than they would some place like the park on the south side of town. So, there is a growing concern about this project in the City. As one of those who's looking at communication between government and citizens, I'm communicating that to you that this is a problematic project. Thank you. Odom: Any other member of the audience wish to address us at this time? • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 39 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I11 close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. Jim, do you want to go ahead and begin the discussion with the item that you had previously slated as condition number 15? Beavers: Yes sir. Thank you. The grading plan application is a fonn that was put together by Engineering some years ago and we revised it after the CMN and Kohl's large scale went through. We have a problem and I think it's a technicality that Engineering can Just work with the applicant on in that the owner of that property, until you get the final plat, and rarely for a preliminary application might be that you have to have Mr. Mcllroy sign it as a property owner and the City to sign it as a property owner, a lot of the grading is on the City property. This is a form that Engineering came up with some years ago, it's not in the ordinance, it does not allow any construction to happen and I would just say that when you get ready to submit your final grading plan that we get together and make sure that all the property owners are represented properly on the final grading application. It should just be an item for discussion and not a condition of approval. Odom: Anderson: Odom: Beavers: Mike, do you have any comment or questions on that? No. We have had a bunch of discussion about. We have neighbors to the east, Ozark Electric and to the south is Paul Marinoni and obviously where the creek comes onto us and where it exits us, it will affect them somewhat. I think, at the very least, if they don't sign the application that we have some kind of understanding that everybody knows what it is that we are doing and is comfortable with that. We'll work with the staff with whatever they need. Any Planning Commissioners have any questions of the staff and the applicant with regard to that issue? Commissioner Shackelford was poking fun at me on item number eight, a condition of a approval, the proposed relocated channel shall be designated as soft and natural, do you want to tell me what exactly you mean by that? It sounds like a shampoo or something. You have a natural drainage way out there right now that's very shallow and does include some wetlands either in it or close by and we don't want to see a ditch there. We want to see the new channel which will be much larger in size and relocated to the property line, to look as natural as we can get it. In particular, administration has • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 40 expressed the desire to limit or not allow rip rap where we can get away from it. That's why there were comments. There are many other products in there that can be used besides rip rap and have the channel look more natural. Anderson: If I might address that. We are also in the process, not only getting approval from the City but we need to get approval from the Corps of Engineers and respect a 404 permit to do the work. That is one of their comments also, they would like it as natural as it can. What we are going to do is accommodate that and meet with the Corps next week, we've got some ideas to go over to make it look more natural, work with the Corps of Engineers. Everybody has a concern about that. When we first looked at that channel, our first response was what quantity of water do we have coming and what size ditch does that require? We basically did just a channel down through there. After getting everybody's comments, I think that we are in agreement, we would like it look more natural. In respect of that, one of the things we are looking at doing, we talked about the wetlands mitigation, the Corps of Engineers would like us to create some wetlands within the channel to do some mitigation and actually do some plantings within the channel and within the channel banks to make it more natural. There is another requirement that the Corps of Engineers has that we are working with, is that they require a buffer adjacent to the channel that is left natural or allowed to back into a natural condition. That s another aspect we are going to work with to soften that and make it more natural. I think we'll be able to accomplish it. Odom: We want more than natural, we want soft and natural. Did you have any other items on the conditions of approval that you wanted to cover? Anderson: No. I think everything here we had discussed pretty much. We've had several meetings with the staff, they have bent over backwards to meet with us and help iron out all the difficulties with the site and with the whole process. I appreciate their major effort. Marr: I have a question of condition 9 that there is not enough adequate parking. One of the things I don't like is leaving it fully open-ended which is what this appears to be to me. I also heard in the earlier part of the presentation that you wanted to develop a site where there is more walk-in traffic. I guess I want to understand a little bit better, what is the requirement on what you think we are going to ask for, as I'm looking at the drawing there is a number of spaces there, versus what the allowance is? The other thing is I do support this project, I do not support the method in which we've gone about some of this. I believe that there should be a time when you have such a close alliance between the Boys and Girls Club and the City that obviously there are things • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 41 Anderson: Conklin: Anderson: that they are going to work more closely together on than maybe a for profit business. I don't want to do that at the expense of a for profit business. I also think that the City should use it as an example to follow the processes. I still feel the same way even though I voted for the last one, I will vote for this one. There is Just a lot of open-ended stuff in here still. We are talking about a large scale item and normally I'm the parking police on the Planning Commission, normally I'm wanting more parking for places, even that is open-ended. If you could speak to that a little bit. It doesn't say inadequate, it Just says that at this point in time, I don't think we were able to definitively determine exactly what the parking would be required for this. In meeting with the staff, they asked us to look at some adjacent facilities. Also, prior to that, the youth center did their own survey and came up with a need at their current facility at somewhere from 300 to 320 spaces. We looked at the closest facility to this, probably the Jones Center in Springdale. Tim might read that letter. I'll let you read it. This is a letter dated March 5, 2001, to Sara Edwards, "As asked by staff, we have evaluated the parking of the Jones Center in Springdale to better understand our site requirements and what we propose to provide. The Jones Center is a facility of similar uses except we propose one more football field. The total square footage of the main complex and family services center storage building and maintenance building is 287,830 square feet. The total parking provide for all facilities is 712 spaces or one per every 404 square feet. There are 515 spaces provided in the main parking area at the main complex. This is one space per every 452 square feet of the main building. If you were to apply these ratios to the Boys and Girls Club proposed 85,556 square feet, we would need somewhere between 189 and 212 spaces. We proposed to provide 326 spaces, 1 per 265 square feet. We feel that the additional spaces are required to accommodate the overlap in traffic caused by having multiple sport events on multiple fields and courts. Also, the Boys and Girls Club has done parking surveys during the games at their current facilities and have determined a need for over 300 parking spaces." We Just kind of looked at that and started looking at the individual uses in the building. I guess there are ratios for those. I was hard for us to determine how many spaces we needed. From the beginning the Boys and Girls Club talked about 300 to 320 spaces and we ended up with 320 spaces. I don't know if that answers your question but we think that we are adequately parked. We don't think we are too underparked or overparked. • Marr: I've never met anybody who's overparked, including my own business. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 42 Conklin: Our parking ratios are very difficult to apply in this situation. We had to approve additional parking at the Gary Hampton softball fields. The ratio that we used there in the beginning did not work, we had people parking off SalLm Road onto the grass and all over the place. These facilities and what the Parks and Recreation Division is telling staff, when you have events you have multiple people driving cars. You may have grandmothers and grandfathers watching their kids play sports, multiple people attending these events. Therefore, your traditional one car per family is not the norm anymore. It's important that they do have adequate parking on this site. There is nowhere else to park. You are not going to be able to park on Rupple Road once it's complete. Staff is in support of the numbers that they are showing on this large scale development. Once again, we are always concerned about providing too much parking at these type of athletic facilities that are proposed. Just my experience up at the Jones Center, I believe they are going to need this much parking. Marr: Can we add that as a number, not to exceed some maximum? Conklin: Sure. Odom: Amend condition number nine to read "A maximum of 326." Marr: Yes. I just wanted to throw that out. Odom: Do you have an objection to that? Anderson: No. If we had to we could come back and talk to you again about it so I don't have a problem with that I don't think. Bunch: About the item ten, bicycle racks. Bicycle racks, I believe, are based on the ratio of number of parking places. If I read the drawing correctly, there is only one place that a bicycle rack is shown, does that reflect the accurate ratio? Anderson: No, it doesn't. When I read this, it was the first time that I had a clue that there was some kind of regulation. We'll meet whatever that is. Conklin: Staff is working on getting that regulation to all the engineers and developers out there so they can properly plan for that. I apologize for this developer not having that in front of him during the planning process. It's one of those regulations that after it's passed it does become affective after 30 days. We do need bicycle racks, especially at the Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club. They say they don't have a problem complying with • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 43 Anderson: Estes: Beavers: Conklin: MOTION: Estes: Ward: Odom. the ratio we'll have. I'm sure we'll need and use them. Mr. Beavers, item number 12, the water extension will be designed by the development engineer and funded by the City, is the City going to pay for the water extension in addition to Rupple Road? Yes sir. There may be some cost share on the water line depending on if it comes from Wedington or if it comes from Meadowlands. That money, $124,000, is included in the 2001 budget approved December 19, 2000. I feel somewhat troubled and perplexed at times as we look at these three items and the reason is, there is just not the information available that I would like to have personally and we've heard my fellow Commissioners articulate that from time to time. We've looked at the preliminary plat and we have approved that and that is nothing more, in my mind, an attempt to reduce to plat form previous lot splits to conform with what has been done in the past. We now have before us two matters, one is of course a large • scale development which we've been discussing and the second is the conditional use for a recreation facility. When City Council considers this matter they are going to be spending money. I would be in hopes that they would have more information available to them than we have had available to us. I share the concerns of public comment and again I share some of the concerns of my fellow Commissioners. With all of that said, let me do this, I move that we approve Conditional Use 01-2.00, that is the request for a commercial recreation large site in an A-1, R-2 zoning. I'll second. We have a motion to approve Conditional Use 01-2.00 for a recreational facility in an A-1 zone. Do we have any further discussion on the Conditional Use? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 01-2.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 44 MOTION: Estes: I move that we approve LSD 01-4.00 subject to the conditions of approval, with condition of approval number nine to be amended to read "equal to or less than 326 parking spaces", that condition of approval number 15 be deleted and that in the motion the request for a waiver of section IX.2.2.4 of the grading/drainage criteria manual in order to have a channel bend of less than ten times the bottom width as required. In addition, the finding of a determination that the proposed large scale development meets with and complies with the Commercial Design Standards including signage and the addition of a condition of approval number 21, that grant documents be provided to the City Council prior to funding of the off-site improvements. The reason for that additional condition of approval is I want the City Council to have more information than we hadbefore they spend taxpayer money. Shackelford: I'II second. Odom: We have a motion and a second to approve LSD 01-4.00, do we have any further discussion? Hoffman: A friendly amendment or something on number fourteen. That Commercial Design Standards haven't been approved because we don't have anything. They have to come back to the Subdivision Committee. Odom: In the requirement of number 14 is that the applicant does have to submit the final colors to the Subdivision for approval. Hoffman: Final colors and materials. Estes: The mover accepts that amendment. Shackelford. So does the second. Bunch: Does Commissioner Estes in his motion, in requesting condition number 21 of the grant documents, does that include the site selection process and the minutes from the site selection committee and that sort of thing to help develop some understanding of how this site was chosen and how it came to be? What specific documents would you like to have to allow City Council to have better information to work with than we had? • Estes: All grant documents, that would include the feasibility study, that would include the site • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 45 selection process and the minutes of any public comment and hearings. Hoover: I've got one question. I do support this project. I did notice that we have the detention pond at the front of the building along the street edge, I know we have no ordinance against that but I guess I would like to urge the applicant to maybe explore other possibilities unless perhaps you've got some grand scheme that this is going to be a beautiful detention pond, I don't know. Anderson: I think it has to do more with site layout, it naturally all flows to that point and for us to detain that, that's where it goes. Hoover: Are there alternative methods like creating this into a wetland or something that's rather pleasing to look at? Anderson: We would entertain that idea. I guess the problem, once you make it into a wetlands, now it becomes regulated and it might cease to function as a detention pond. For it to function it would need to be maintained as such and mowed and kept to the grading. Hoover: I guess I would urge, maybe the City if there is some alternative methods because some of them that I've seen basically seem like a square box dug into the ground with some concrete channels. Conklin: I conferred with our City Engineer. We have, in the past, allowed applicants or developers to plant trees within detention ponds. Also, with regard to the slopes of this detention pond, they will not require a railing like we had on Commerce Park at Old Missouri and Joyce Boulevard. Soft and natural. We'll work on that with our City Engineer. Hoover: Trees are an option? Beavers: Yes ma'am. You see the square rectangular because it's the most economical to the developer but we will work with them for any configurations and natural pond. Again, that would take more space and cost more. Hoover: I just encourage the applicant to take that into consideration. I think, at some point, this might perhaps be a busy intersection that we travel and it would be nice to have this corner looking as good as we can. Thank you. • Allen: Since the motion was rather lengthy with a number of friendly amendments, I wondered • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 46 if it could be read back? Can that be done? Odom: Do you want to try it again Bob? Allen: I wondered, I thought maybe from the recorder, maybe. I just wanted to have it all clear in my mind exactly, before we voted. Warrick: The motion was to approve the large scale development subject to conditions of approval stated with the following changes or additions: Condition number 9 to state that "The number of parking spaces shall equal or be less than 326." Condition number 14, the last sentence to be modified to read "The applicant will submit the final colors and materials to the Subdivision Committee for approval." Deletion of condition number 15 as stated. Addition of condition number 21 which states "All grant documents shall be forwarded to the City Council prior to consideration of expenditure of funds, including feasibility study, site selection information and all minutes from public hearings." • Allen: Estes: • Very well done. In addition, granting the waiver of section (X.2.2.4 of the drainage criteria manual in order to have a channel bend of less than ten times the bottom width as required Stockland: Condition 21, the grant documents, the City has our feasibility study and site selection study. As far as minutes that were talked about, this wasn't a youth center deal, it was done by professionals and what we got was that final package. As far as site selection, minutes and those types of things are not in the youth center's possession, if they exist at all. I was a little concerned about what additional the City wants. I know there is a grant application that's a two or three page document. I don't know if the City has it. If you want it you can have it, you are welcome to everything in our file. I really think everything substantial in our file has been delivered to the City, at least the two studies, I know the City has those. I am concerned if you are looking for us to deliver something more than what we have delivered to the City, or is it just a matter of don't deliver it to City staff, individually deliver it to each Council person. Estes: My concem was that I wanted the City Council to have more information than we have available. Whatever was delivered to the Donald W. Reynolds foundation to secure this grant, I would like to have that made available to the City Council prior to their consideration of funding of the off-site improvements. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 47 Stockland: Estes: Anderson: Estes: Shackelford: Allen: Stockland: Allen: I'm representing to you they already have the feasibility study and site selection. About the only other thing that might be in that is the grant application which we can deliver whenever. If I deliver the grant application and if in fact they've already got the other documents, have we met that condition? Yes. Item number 11, I don't think we've even discussed or talked about. It should probably be included in the motion. As an addition to my motion, granting the waiver for the driveway entrance width from 24 feet to 30 feet. The reason that I would grant that waiver is that this is going to be a facility, it's in the western part of the City, children are going to have to be bussed there from schools. The wider driveway will allow the school buses to get in and get out and provide a wider turning radius and that would be the reason 1 would request that we grant that waiver. That's fine with my second as well. Back to condition 21, that means that you have no record o f minutes for the selection of this site and process that was used? We have the report of the consultant. We did not drive the site selection. The consultant we hired drove it. She had, about the only input we had was to give them a list of our stakeholders and she included people from the City and schools and users and she developed a report and gave it to us. The Fayetteville Youth Center did not do the study. We were not the driving force and that was by design. I don't know if those minutes exist. I know there was six site visits where Susan Anderson, the building committee went and looked at various other centers around the country and there probably is some record of that. As far as if there is a record of every focus group, we certainly don't have it. When we engaged new solutions, they were to give us a report. That's what we got and that's what we gave to the Reynolds Foundation. Who hired the consultants? Stockland: The Fayetteville Youth Center. Marr: I would suggest that the consultant at least be contacted to see if there are additional • minutes and if there are that those are submitted. If there are not, then there are none. • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 48 Stockland: Odom: Conklin: Stockland: Conklin: Bunch: Beavers: That's my question whether we are supposed to affirmatively go out and try to dig up additional documents. I think it would be good if you could, if there are any try to obtain those. Is this the strategic plan? Yes. That's not the site selection. That's the cover sheet of the strategic plan, I don't think you have it all there. I included the first 15 pages that talked about the planning process that you went through. The Commissioners did have that this evening. The City does have in it's possession a binder of documents related to the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club. What I submitted to you this evening were parts of that I thought you needed to read prior to this meeting including the November 1, 2000, letter from John Benberg to the City Council, included the August 11, 2000, letter from John Benberg, a memo from Bob Davis to the street committee members talking about Rupple Road and having the City place that on the CIP, 1 also included a letter from Staff Engineer, Ron Petrie to Charlie and Jim talking about how much Rupple Road would cost to build dated September 25, 2000, a June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Butch Roberson from Fred Hanna talking about the right-of-way required for Rupple Road and improvement with regard to utilities and road construction and also the first 15 pages of the strategic plan. That was in your packet of information. I'll ensure that the City Council, when they hear this funding request, meet your conditions and I'll work with Tom Stockland and the Boys and Girls Club with any additional documents to forward to them. In the Fayetteville Capital Improvement Program under "Unfunded Projects", there is a reference to the Rupple Road area improvements. It reads "This project involves various street improvements to the area of Rupple Road. The final scope of this project is to be determined by City Council." It has a number on it of S3,500,000, can somebody kind of enlighten us a little bit as to what that includes? I realize it's different than the one that's already funded for the improvements on Rupple Road north of Highway 16. I'm just not sure. I would have to go back and find the document. That could be talking about Rupple all the way down to 62. Bunch: Is that included property acquisition and such in the county are to push it all the way • through to 62? We've had quite a few different numbers presented to us on the cost of • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 49 this. Beavers: That CIP process is a very rough number on the project and I can't say that it does or does not include right-of-way. Bunch: It was probably one of those numbers that every time the project comes back up it gets reevaluated for current costs. Until it becomes a funded project, it's probably just a ball park estimate. Thank you. Odom: Any further questions or discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 01-4.00 was approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 50 CU 01-3.00: Conditional Use (Cricket Communications Inc., pp 528) was submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Cricket Communications Inc., for property owned by Preston & Eunice Ferguson located behind 2908 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.11 acres. The request is for a 150' monopole to support wireless communications facilities (use unit 3) in a C-2 district. Odom: Item number seven on tonight's agenda is a Conditional Use by Cricket Communications submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Cricket Communications Inc., for property owned by Preston & Eunice Ferguson located behind 2908 E Huntsville Road The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.11 acres. The request is for a 150' monopole to support wireless communications facilities (use unit 3) in a C-2 district. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions Number one, applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. Number two, equipment used in connection with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per §163.29 (A)(1). Number three, lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower provided that the lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Number four, the tower shall be a monopole, no taller than 150' (including all antennas, arrays or other appurtenances). Number five, the monopole shall be painted a suede blue color. Number six, the utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by an 8'6" tall wooden security fence. The tower shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. The facility shall place signs indicating "No Trespassing", "High Voltage" or other pertinent information on the outside of the fence. Number seven, landscaping shall be added to the site (and shown on plans) which provides a "buffer of dense tree growth and understory vegetation in all directions to create an effective year- round visual buffer" as required by §163.29 (A)(11). Number eight, any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located underground. Number nine, only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall be permitted as provided by § 163.29(A)(3). Number ten, the applicant shall provide a certification letter that states the tower meets or exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and federal requirements regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of the tower as provided by § I63.29(B)(9)(c). Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one correction. Last Thursday at agenda session, I made a statement with regard to Wyman Stonebridge Neighborhood Association, about contacting them. I did talk with • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 51 a member of that association at the neighborhood workshop that was held by the City last month and did inform that gentlemen of this upcoming tower application. I also did receive his email address. The Planning Division, in an effort to better communicate with the neighborhood associations in Fayetteville, we have started to mail or email our Planning Commission agendas to them. After the article in Friday's paper, I did receive some phone calls with regard to they did not receive that notification or agenda. I did discover that my office failed to get that email address in the computer system. Just so everybody is clear, this is a courtesy that we are doing, it's not an ordinance requirement. I'm willing to do as much notification as possible so that citizens of this community know what's going on within their neighborhoods. Since then I have been in contact with several people and the Wyman Stonebridge Neighborhood Association, and did receive an email today which I would like to read "Mr. Conklin. Concerning tonight's agenda item of the proposed cell tower on Huntsville Street, the Wyman Stonebridge Association would like to request postponing acceptance of placing a cell tower because we feel like we were not properly notified of this item on the agenda. Not to lay any blame on one person, I feel like we just had a case of bad communications with the City. I'm sure not all of our neighborhood knows of this request of a cell tower because I had a couple of people question me about it after the newspaper article on Friday. As it was, 1 was leaving on a camping trip with my son and did not have the opportunity to get with others so the neighborhood can discuss the pros and cons of this tower. I know also that several people were gone for spring break. With this in mind, I'm asking for this postponement so I can notify the neighborhood that they each may personally speak their minds or at least convey to me what their wishes are. Thank you. Gary Sorensen, 425 S. Stonebridge Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas." Once again, in an effort to better notify the neighborhood associations, we started to email. The notification required for a cell tower, this is the first cell tower we've had come under the new ordinance that was adopted in August of 1999, they were required to notify all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the tower. Those adjoining property owners within 500 feet of the tower get certified mail and those outside of the adjoining property owners get regular mail. This applicant did notify everybody within that 500 foot radius by certified mail. Staff, of course, put the red public hearing sign up on Huntsville Road. We also started to scroll our agendas on channel 3 so people have the ability to see what's upcoming on the Planning Commission meetings. I also have started putting our agendas on our web page. Odom: It's published in the paper as well, isn't it? Conklin: Thank you Conrad. Yes, we spend lots of money publishing legal ads 15 days prior to • the meeting and we also do a display ad Sunday, prior to this meeting which would • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 52 have been in yesterday's paper. I'm all for notification. I do apologize to the Wyman Stonebridge Neighborhood Association because I misspoke Thursday assuming that they did receive that notification. I just wanted to clear that up. Thank you. Odom. Any other conditions of approval or staff comments? Conklin: No other staff comments. Odom: Are there members of the audience that are going to talk on this issue? If there are, raise their hands. There is a couple of people here so before 1 entertain any motion to table, if there is going to be one, I would like to hear from those who have taken the time to sit on those pews for a couple of hours. I would like the applicant to make any presentation at this time. Hull: My name is Craig Hull. I'm representing the Cricket Communications Corporation who's attempting a build -out of a systemin northwest Arkansas similar to many other urban corridors throughout the country. Cricket offers the $29.95 all you can eat service. They want to be where you live, work and play. '] hey will be the PCS carrier that tries to go after the different demographic than the standard heavy power users that fly all over the country and go after students, housewives, factory workers. They are replacing the home phone is their concept. It's unlimited use of the wireless device all over the service area You can see in the maps that I've displayed before you the overall service area for northwest Arkansas in their first build -out. The white map on the left shows an orange area which is approximately the area that would be covered by the proposed monopole out on east 16`h. In our site selection process we were very careful to read the ordinance, since I was involved in the previous development of the ordinance a couple of years ago. Some of the members that have been on the Commission for a while might remember some of our adventures back then. The intent of the applicant from Cricket Communications and the Callahan Tower Joint Venture, a local tower aggregator who's trying to build this structure in assistant to Cricket as their primary tenant, has instructed me to observe all the possible rules that you've got in place and if this is not the right time to address the conditions, I won't do that until after the public hearing part is over with. I would encourage you to understand that we have tried to avoid any semblance of a variance request or any other thing except to just follow the ordinance as it's laid out and we've had a great time trying to do a balloon test in the middle of March. Odom: You can address the conditions, if you wish to, during your initial presentation. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 53 Hull: The staff recommendation on number five on color, I mentioned something to that affect in the agenda session. It is the applicants belief that the gray steel galvanized look of a standard issue monopole is actually a very neutral color. Attempts previously on the monopoles on Mount Sequoyah and on Township Drive have proven that the sky changes color often and that the most neutral seems to be the standard issue monopole, plus the extra aggravation of maintenance responsibilities that will further draw attention as well as incur possible harm to the people having to scrape it and paint it again, in future years. If you notice today, the sky changes colors quite often throughout the day and a neutral gray pole looks to me like a reasonable selection with all due deference to the staff's recommendation. The next item, the client has agreed to provide matching wooden fence screening for the ice bridge and any future ice bridges that may come from future users. However, we have a little trouble with a 8 foot 6 inch uniform privacy fence. I don't know if you have been to the lumber store lately but they got it in 6 and 8 foot. If we could do a double tiered or if we can work out screening the ice 'bridge. That's essentially that place where the wires come out of the pole and across to the equipment panel. It's two maybe four feet of length and we can screen that easily with a second tier of privacy fence matched to the other privacy fence. To make the whole compound an 8 foot 6 inch, we are going to have to buy a saw mill, I think. I would ask your understanding if we could have a little leeway there. We'll screen it to the maximum extent possible and still use standard issue lumber. As far as item number seven, we have submitted a landscape plan that provides greenery along the south side of the compound where it faces the road as well as on the southeast and southwest comers, the remainder of the perimeter of the facility is banked into a dense vegetation that's already grown in that area and we don't see any particular purpose in trying to plant all the way around the compound. We would have to cut down trees to plant trees. We prefer to try to just do it in the spirit of the ordinance. There are no other issues sir. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you. What we'll do now is take comments from the public. Please come forward at this time. Isaacs: I'm Elsa Isaacs. I live on Stonebridge. Thank you for your nice call Mr. Conklin. My concern is less the monopole than it is the fact that the very neighborhood association which is most closely affected by it has accidentally, inadvertently, without any subterfuge been left out of the loop. I'm going to ask you as our Chair has, whether you will please table this until our neighborhood has had an opportunity to get together and see what the consensus, which very well may be alright. I'm going to bring up • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 54 Odom: quickly an issue you may think is peripheral but it's not. I'm going to read a letter I wrote to the Times instead of trying to think on my feet at this time of night. In the southeast part of Fayetteville along 16 East, we are suffering from crud creep, the honky tonk which has had more names than Elizabeth Taylor and I better not name it by name anyway because of the laws of slander. The honky tonk requires neighborhood efforts every year or so to keep their activities legal and quiet. They want it to expand into the field, that very field, to the west of them for parking but that matter is on hold and may be moot. Two Bits Auto Repair on the other corner of Stonebridge, this is just in our neighborhood, has expanded. along 16 East until now it is a full block of automobiles in various stages of undress. I promised you this is not a peripheral issue. The owner of the land lives elsewhere so he doesn't have to look at it. Now the Planning Commission wants to plop the 150 foot cell tower behind the honky tonk. All of this, the honky tonk, the tower and the garage is within about a 300 or 400 foot radius. One of these situations is understandable, two are worrisome, three is a trend. Beauty is not the exclusive right of the well to do. We are not the junk drawer of Fayetteville's kitchen. Since we have not been able to ascertain the consensus of the neighborhood association, we beseech you in the name of Gary Sorensen, who is our Chair, to table this. I hope it doesn't inconvenience you, it sounds like a lovely idea but I don't represent a consensus of the neighborhood association. Thank you. Any other member of the audience wish to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ward: Hull Can anybody else get on this monopole? Yes sir. We are required under the ordinance to prepare the facility for up to three carriers at a minimum. Of course the business of my client, Callahan Towers Joint Ventures is to construct the facility for income purposes as well as to accommodate this first client. Their goal will be to be able to maximize that facility under the guise of the ordinance to do that Job. There are no other facilities, this big arrow points to where all the other towers are on the east side of Fayetteville in this area which is up on Mount Sequoia. This is the first attempt by anybody to get out and reach into this corridor on 16 where you've got the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course, subdivision all around and there is a lot of population out this way and signal is not that good. What they are attempting to do is to fill the holes where they can. The other locations on the map in your packet has general format also. There is no other options. In this particular spot • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 55 Ward: Conklin: Odom: Conklin: MOTION: Hoffman: the engineers indicate that this is where we had to be in order to meet the objectives of their license agreement and their clients demands for service. Believe me, we tried to do something else before we went to this solution. Are we under some kind of federal mandate to push these things through and get this done? There is a 1996 telecommunications act and we cannot disapprove all cell tower requests in Fayetteville, you do have to allow them a reasonable use inside the City to get their facilities operating. We crafted the ordinance with the provision that they do have to show that there is no alternative sites that they can co -locate on and we do need a new tower at this location. We currently have three monopoles in Fayetteville, one on Mount Sequoyah, one on Township, one on Sang Avenue. The rest of the towers have been co -located on existing antennae and buildings. This is the first request that we've had where it's not on top of a hill, it's actually down in a valley. It's a little unusual and somewhat difficult because they are not trying to go up on Township or Mount Sequoia. Let me take that back with regard to Township, they are trying to go on Township with a co -location application where there are existing facilities. This is a site where we don't have any existing facilities. We don't see applications for co -location? No. Since August 1999, I've approved those co -location applications. They've occurred in our downtown area, they've occurred on all the existing towers in Fayetteville. It's been very successful to allow co -location in Fayetteville to reduce the number of towers. I do want to compliment the consultant working with staff with our first tower request under this ordinance. It's been a learning experience for staff and the applicant to get it this far. I would like to make a motion to table the request temporarily to give the consultant and the neighborhood association a chance to meet together. I commend staff with their many attempts to notify everybody, it seems that spring break is probably the main reason everybody does leave town. I would suggest that it would be a two week wait and after as much work as the applicant has put together in this and I think you have done some good work, that it would be just taking that last step to go ahead and talk to the neighbors and make sure that they are fully aware of what you are planning. The other suggestion that I would have in conjunction with the tabling is that you need to be • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 56 able to explain why it's to be here and maybe not further east in a less populated area. I know that you've gone through extensive site selection, if you could explain that in your discussions with the neighbors for your technical reasons for needing to locate at that point. My motion is to table this request. Estes: I second the motion. Odom. We have a motion and second to table, is there discussion on the motion? Hoover: I have one comment I would like to make. As just a suggestion to the applicant, in order to get your 8' 6" height on your fencing, perhaps you could use 8 foot boards and take a 1 by 6 and run it horizontal at the bottom. I know we've done this many times where even two boards to get up to the correct height. Hull: I'm sure we can work it out. I just didn't want to try to buy 8.6 all the way around the perimeter of this. Hoover: You see there are other ways of doing it. I just wanted to point that out. Odom: 8 foot 6 is right. There is stuff coming out that's 8 foot 6 inches tall and they are trying to screen that, is that right? Conklin: That is correct. When they install these facilities, a lot of these facilities nowadays are not in a prefab type building, they have a lot of equipment that just sits on the ground with wires that go from the equipment to the actual tower and they create these ice bridges up on top so when we have ice and snow it doesn't get on the wires and weigh them down and pull them off. They are typically elevated up above the fence. During the co -locations that I've approved, I've had to always go back and work with the cell tower providers to get their fences up higher. Thank you Commissioner Hoover, yes there is more than one way to build a fence and we need to make sure we screen the ice bridges. Odom: Let's keep on the discussion on the motion, which is to table. Do we have any further discussion with regard to the motion to table? Ward: I'll probably vote for it this time but I don't think it's a good precedence to start. Everyone has been notified by certified letter, it's been in newspapers, it's on the television channel, there is signs out there, everything you can think of. I don't think we have to go out and start... Tim goes way beyond the call of trying to notify everyone • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 57 that may even have some kind of consideration. I don't think this is a real good precedence to start tabling things just because somebody comes up with a neighborhood association contacting us. All the people that were involved in this were contacted. That's my only comment. Hoffman: I'm mainly doing it because of spring break. Odom: Any other discussion on the underlying motion? Go ahead Craig. Hull: In response to the motion to table, I would just respectfully let you know that not only did the City notify everybody but I was personally required to place an advertisement in the newspaper for the balloon test which held a week before spring break and we had notification sent with certified mail to wider than the 500 foot expanse when there was any chance that we might hit a comer somewhere. We gave them pictures of the tower, notification of the balloon test and the public hearing and everything. We've got receipts to prove it. My clients are in a, as usual, big hurry to try to get this stuff built. There are already construction stuff in Fort Smith and they are starting construction on some of the sites for co -location. We have to order steel. Without your decision, our guys can't make big financial commitments to order these parts that come from a ways away. I would implore you to please understand, we've tried to comply with everything in your law and we just ask you to do what your ordinance says and give us a chance to build a good facility. Odom: With regard to it being tabled and notification for the next meeting, what's legally required of the applicant when it's tabled and it comes back to the next meeting? Are they going to be required to spend the money to notify again? Conklin: I don't believe so. They've notified the proper property owners of this meeting tonight. Typically, when we table something we do not go back and require all that notification to be done again. Odom: Do we have any further discussion with regard to the table motion? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to table CU 01-3.00 was approved on a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Odom and Shackelford voting "no". • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 58 RZA 01-1.00: Annexation (TMC & Associates, pp 359) was submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of TMC & Associates for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is in the City Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres. The request is to annex into the city. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is item number eight, RZA 01-1.00, Annexation submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of TMC & Associates for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is in the City Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres. The request is to annex into the city. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as a part of this report. Staff, do you have anything further? • Warrick: I do have a memo that is dated today from Don Bunn, the Assistant Public Works Director, with regard to sewer capacity. This is an additional piece of information. Odom. "I have not calculated the remaining treatment plant capacity since January of 2000. The remaining plant capacity at that time was calculated to be 2.5 years. It is my best estimate at this time that there is about 1.5 years remaining assuming we use the same criteria as we did last year. I should have the new numbers within a couple of weeks or so. Thank you". That's from Don Bunn, the Assistant Public Works Director. Would you like to make a presentation at this time? Krug: Yes, very briefly. In fact, I'll make a presentation on this item and item nine at once. I know you have to vote on them separately but the two are connected. We are here to present for the Commissioners review the annexation and then the rezoning of a 40 acre tract of land that is bounded on three sides by property in Washington County and on the east side by the unfinished phases of Bridgeport Subdivision. The request for the zoning of the property will be to R-1 for a residential development. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you. Any member of the audience wish to address us on this annexation and rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and I'll bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 59 Hoffman: I have a question for staff, has the Fire Department reviewed, I don't see any communication regarding the availability of fire service to this area? Warrick: We did send them a request for a level of service report. I received back from them that they had no comment with regard to this annexation. Hoffman: Where approximately is the nearest fire station? If we annex it, we have to serve it, right? Conklin: I believe Garland Avenue and Eagle would be the nearest fire station. This is something that staff has initiated this year We have been sending out to all the City divisions and departments a request for them to comment on all proposed annexations into the City of Fayetteville. I know there is always a lot of concern about capacity and the ability for these services and facilities to serve additional land area and development within the City so you will start seeing these interdepartmental memos coming back and being brought forward to the Commission for your information. I do want to make sure that the Commission and City Council are educated when they do make these decisions because it does impact all the different city services and divisions here in the City of Fayetteville. Hoffman: My concern is because, we have kind of a dilemma, we have a request for area that's directly adjacent to the City limits, it would preferable for it to get put in under City standards. Can we service them adequately when the time comes? Conklin: I guess the only other, the fire department is not here respond to this, we do allow fire contracts within two miles from the City limits. The City of Fayetteville does allow people to pay for service in these areas. I don't believe there is any moratorium on having people sign up for those contracts on fire service outside our city limits. Apparently there must be some capacity there to serve that development within that two mile area outside our City limits. Hoffman: If and when this were subdivided, we would have the appropriate fire hydrants put in and all the apparatus, we wouldn't have the trucks there within probably 30 minutes. Conklin: Looking at this annexation, that is one of the reasons staff is recommending approval because we will be able to get fire protection, have the development comply with our grading and stormwater ordinances, tree ordinances, street standards, also the lots are going to be on sewer which means you are going to have more houses on less land, more people on less acreage, hopefully have a compact urban form rather than having a • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 60 MOTION: Estes: County Planning area subdivision on septic systems that require larger lots, fewer people consuming more land. There is always two sides on these annexations but staff did recommend based on those findings. I would move that we approve RZA 01-1.00. The reason is that annexation of this tract would provide for an orderly development which would comply with all of our City ordinances specifically those regarding tree preservation, access, grading, drainage, stormwater, parkland, sidewalks, land use and others. Marr: Second. Odom: I have a motion and second to approve RZA 01-1.00, any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: • Upon roll call RZA 01-1.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 61 RZ 01-6.00: Rezoning (TMC & Associates, pp 359) was submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of TMC & Associates for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 40 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Odom: The next item is the rezoning RZ 01-6.00 submitted by Michele A. Harrington on behalf of TMC & Associates for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 40 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. The staff's recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based upon the findings as a part of this report. Did you have additional presentation on this? Krug: I have no additional presentation. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience wish to address on the rezoning issue? • COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or actions. MOTION: Estes: Marr: Odom: Hoffman: I move that we approve and forward RZ 01-6.00. The reason being that rezoning this property to R-1, Low -Density Residential is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with all of the surrounding land uses in this area. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve RZ 01-6.00. Any further discussion? I have one additional comment. When a preliminary plat comes through, I would like to reinstitute the practice of stating that the water and sewer tap availability is limited. That's not for the rezoning, I don't think, but when a plat comes through I would like that note to be added to the plats. Just an FYI. • Conklin: Thank you commissioner Hoffman. The applicant should be aware of that and I'm glad • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 62 you brought that up. Yes, our sewage treatment plant is reaching or is near capacity in the near future and the City cannot guarantee that if a development comes in two and a half years from now on this piece of property that there will be sewer taps available. We try to advise all the applicants that come to the Planning Division with regard to the current sewage treatment plant capacity issue. Thank you. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 01-6.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 63 AD 01-5.00: Administrative Item (Multi -family Zoning Districts) was submitted by the Planning Division to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to include additional multi -family zoning districts. Odom: Item number ten on tonight's agenda is an administrative item AD 01-5.00 submitted by the Planning Division to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to include additional multi -family zoning districts. The recommendation is for Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the creation of three new zoning districts, RMF -6, RMF -12 and RMF -18 as defined in this report. Staff, would you like to go over those three recommendations? Warrick: Staff developed these three additional zoning districts based on the General Plan 2020 update process which was initiated this past fall and was adopted by City Council in December of 2000. During this discussion on amendments and updates there was a lot- of otof discussion with regard to the large range of permitted density within the R-2 zoning district which ranges between 4 and 24 units per acre as permitted. As a result of discussion about that range of variable allowable density, staff developed three new zoning districts RMF -6, RMF -12 and RMF -I8. The RMF stands for Residential Multi -Family, the number represents the maximum density permitted per acre, units per acre. Each of these zoning districts is based on the R-2 zoning district, the land area requirements and the uses permitted by right as well as by Conditional Use are also represented in each of these three districts. We developed these as a way to better regulate the amount of density that can be seen and these three zoning districts, if approved by City Council, would be an available option for rezoning requests in the future. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you Dawn. Does any member of the audience wishto comment on this administrative item? Yes sir, if you would please come to the podium and identify yourself? Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard, 1717 Sang Avenue. I'm here both as a citizen and property owner and also have permission from our neighborhood association to speak on this matter. May I ask a question of staff? When we talked before it was the R2-6, R2-12, R2-18, R2-24, is what you are recommending, does that replace that idea? Conklin: It's dust a different name. The zoning ordinance and the zoning map, we are required to have individual districts created with legal descriptions and I can't just combine R-2 and have subdistricts underneath that. Most ordinances that I've researched, they are • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 64 independent from each other. We still have the R-2 with 24, then we created these three additional categories to allow for the different densities that we are proposing. Maynard: There is not just R-2 anymore, there is R2-24 and then these three other categories, is that right? Conklin: No. We made R-2, we did not change the title of that zoning district. Maynard: It's basically the same thing, right? Conklin: It is exactly the same thing. We are adding three new zoning districts to create three new densities. Maynard: First of all, again I would like to thank Tim Conklin and Dawn Warrick and staff, I think this is a really good idea in just it's simplicity. I come from a neighborhood that is a mixed zoning and has a huge infill situation as some of you may remember. Certainly zoning is a protection that we need. The problem before was with just an R-2 zoning we were never quite sure what we were getting. I think one good thing that this does is it keeps everybody honest. In other words, somebody can't say "I want to put in just a few duplexes", get the zoning and somehow change their mind or sell it to somebody else who decides to change their mind. I don't know if that's happened or not but certainly this will prevent that from happening, I assume. It almost takes the place of a Bill of Assurance. When I say "almost" I still think you might want a Bill of Assurance for another reason. I think the other thing it does, it makes it a little more difficult to jump from an R-1 zoning to a very high density which is almost R-3. It doesn't prevent anybody from doing that and I think they should be given that opportunity to do that but certainly psychologically it works in that. I think this is a wonderful idea. Certainly in neighborhoods like mine where we really need that zoning for our own security so we know what we are moving into. I think some neighborhoods who think they are secure because it's all filled in with R-1 zoning also can be protected by this because they never know what the future will bring. The one thing I do want to say is that all of these things will mean nothing unless I think there is more respect and more deference given to the present zoning. It certainly was in our case. I think this Board and staff take great care when something changes from residential to commercial or agricultural to industrial or something like that. I'm not so sure in the past that the same kind of care and the same kind of deference has been given when something moved from R-1 to R- 2. Even in this case, moving from R-1 to the first category, which will probably be duplexes, certainly makes a major change into the character of the neighborhood. I don't know quite how to say it without telling you all to do your jobs but without going • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 65 back, certainly in our situation I felt when we came up here a year and a half ago that the burden was upon us who had the zoning to prove why it should be kept that way. It was not upon the petitioner to make their case very strongly on why it needs to change. That really threw me for a loop because I was not prepared to argue it that way. Nothing else in our society works that way. I don't have to prove my innocence for example. I think the same principle needs to be applied here. The question is asked "Well, how does the present zoning not fit the findings of fact?" In other words, the question is "Why should we change this at all?", instead of "Why not?". That's what I would like to encourage and see happening. Certainly zoning, I am the property owner certainly but I do think some property owners get a little bit confused, they think their ownership of the property extends to the zoning and that's not true at all. It's the City's and more specifically it is the citizens. If we are asked to give up part of our rezoning, we should at least be told why and how at least it's not going to harm us, even if the zoning meets the findings of fact, how that's going to change the character of the neighborhood, how that's going to affect the neighbors. I do think this is very good resolution and I would encourage you all to pass it. Thanks. Odom: Thank you Richard. Any other member of the audience? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of administrative item 01-5.00. Having been a member of the 2020 revision plan, I want to thank Tim and Dawn for their work on it. It's consistent with what we heard in public comment and I think it's a very well written document. Allen: Odom: I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Allen to approve AD 01-5.00. Do we have any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call AD 01-5.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 66 Officer Elections: Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is item number eleven which is the election of officers. You have before you Planning Commission 2001, Officer Election Ballot. I ask that you check those, poll them and pass them down. Marr. Allen_ Hoffman: Odom: Metheney: Odom: Conklin: I just wanted to make an announcement. In my last year here on the Planning Commission, one of the things I've been asking for is representation from the City Attorney at our meetings and I wanted to thank Mr. Williams for being here. 1 think it's helpful and certainly I'll feel better about some of the decisions that we make. I just wanted to publicly say that. I'll second that. I have one last thing to address you with before you go. I just wanted to thank you for being our Chairman and for serving us so well over these years It's been a pleasure. I would like to say likewise. It's been a real pleasure serving, not only with you all, but with every Planning Commission that I've served with and also, most important, with the staff. It is amazing how much the staff works and what a great job that they do. I'm always comforted to know that the job has been done well and while we may not always agree with you, we always appreciate the hard effort that you all put into it. What's the result of the election? Unanimously, the Chairman will be Bob Estes, Vice -Chair, Lorel Hoffman and Secretary, Lee Ward. Okay. Congratulations and God help the Commission. Any further business? Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you on behalf of the City Planning Division and the City of Fayetteville for your years of service since 1995. You were Chairman of the Planning Commission two terms and you have seen and been through a lot, staff has been through a lot. Starting out with all the different regulations that we have brought forward, from Commercial Design Standards, underground utilities and landscaping in parking lots. I do believe this Commission has made a difference in Fayetteville and you have made a difference for Fayetteville for years to come. I really do appreciate all your hard work. Just so the public is aware, we have nine Commissioners and everyone volunteers their time and they spend many hours going through our staff reports and talking with the applicants in making sure that all the information that's • • • Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 67 necessary to vote on the project is received. You've done a tremendous job in running the meetings and making sure that the Commission understands exactly what they are dealing with and when they vote on a project we do know that it's been thoroughly looked at. I would like to invite those who are interested, on April 5th at our agenda session at 3:30 p.m. in room 111, we will have a party/ceremony to honor your years of service here and also welcome our new Commissioner on the Commission. The Mayor will be there. I encourage those who are interested to attend that, it starts at 3:30 p.m. I look forward to sending you off on a good farewell. Thank you. Odom. Thank you all. Meeting adjourned. • • • PC Mtg. 3-26-01 Consent Agenda; 3-12-01 Minutes and LSD 01-5.00 (Allied Storage, LTD, pp 601) CU 00-37.00 J.D. China, pp 520 Parking Variance CU 00-37.00 J.D. China, pp 520 w/allowance of 8 parking spaces on R-2 portion MOTION Hoffman Estes SECOND Shackelford Hoffman D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Y Y Y 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 Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 9-0-0 9-0-0 • • • PC Mtg. 3-26-01 LSD 00-36.00 J.D. China, pp 520 w/variance from §169.02(C)(2) of grading ordinance PP 01-2.00 Mcllroy, pp 439 CU 01-2.00 Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439 MOTION Hoffman Shackelford Estes SECOND Marr Ward Ward D. Bunch Y Present Y B. Estes Y Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y Y N. Allen Y N Y D. Marr Y Y Y C. Odom Y Y Y Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Y Y Y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 7-1-1 9-0-0 PC Mtg. 3-26-01 LSD 01-4 00 Fayetteville Youth Center, pp 439 Table CU 01-3.00 Cricket Communications, pp 528 RZA 01-1.00 TMC & Associates, pp 359 MOTION Estes Hoffman Estes SECOND Shackelford Estes Marr D. Bunch Y Y Y B. Estes Y Y y L. Hoffman Y Y Y S. Hoover Y Y y N. Allen Y Y Y D. Marr Y Y Y C. Odom Y N Y Shackelford Y N Y L. Ward Y Y y ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 7-2-0 9-0-0 • PC Mtg. 3-26-01 RZ 01-6.00 TMC & Associates, pp 359 AD 01-5.00 Multi -Family Zoning Districts MOTION Estes Marr SECOND Marr Allen D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Y Y C. Odom Y Y Shackelford Y Y L. Ward Y Y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 9-0-0 9-0-0