Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 13, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Minutes of the July 23, 2Q01 meeting Approved Page 2 VAC 01-6.00: Vacation (Marriott Courtyard, pp 213) Approved Page VAC 01-7.00: Vacation (Greg Brockman, pp 286) Approved Page PPL 01-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision, Phases I & II, LLC, pp 359) Approved Page RZN 01-14.00: Rezoning (Robinson, pp 398) Approved Page LSD 01-24.00: Large Scale Development (Shiloh West Apartments, pp 440) Approved Page LSD 01-25.00: Large Scale Development (Cliffs Phase 3 P.U.D., pp 526) Approved Page MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Bishop Don Marr Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Kit Williams Sheri Metheney Hugh Earnest Dawn Warrick Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the August 13, 2001 meeting. Estes: Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening, August 13, 2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first order of business is the roll call. Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were 8 Commissioners present with Commissioner Ward absent. Estes: The next item of business before the Commission is approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2001, meeting. Are there any additions, amendments, changes to the minutes of the July 23, 2001, meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. Before we get to the next item of business, item number four on the agenda, the conditional use for City of Fayetteville concession bait shop expansion, has been pulled by the applicant. If anyone is here attending for that agenda item, it has been pulled by the applicant. • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 3 Consent Agenda: VAC 01-6.00: Vacation ( Marriott Courtyard, pp 213) was submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc. on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1 95 acres. The request is to vacate a 15' water and sewer easement and also a portion of a 20' general utility easement on lot 17 of CMN Business Park Phase I. VAC 01-7.00: Vacation (Greg Brockman, pp 286) was submitted by Greg Brockman for property located at 2483-2485 Jeremiah. The property is zoned R-2. Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the utility easement located along the front property line adjacent to Jeremiah Court Estes: The next item of business to come before your Commission is the Consent Agenda. Vacation 01-6.00 for Marriott Courtyard submitted by Andy Feinstein of Engineering Design Assoc. on behalf of Marriott Courtyard for property located on lot 17 CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to vacate a 15' water and sewer easement and also a portion of a 20' general utility easement on lot 17 of CMN Business Park Phase 1. The second item on the consent agenda is also a Vacation request submitted by Greg Brockman for property located at 2483-2485 Jeremiah. The property is zoned R-2. Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0 12 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the utility easement located along the front property line adjacent to Jeremiah Court. Either one of these items that are on the consent agenda may be pulled by any member of the Commission or by anyone in attendance in the audience this evening. Does anyone wish to pull either of these two items from the Consent Agenda? Seeing that no one desires to pull these items, would you call the roll Sheri? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the Consent Agenda is approved by a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 4 PPL 01-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision, Phases I & II, LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Phillip Humbard of Engineering Service Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 29.95 acres with 92 lots proposed. Estes: The first item of new business to come before the Commission is a Preliminary Plat for the Fairfield Subdivision Phases 1 & II, LLC submitted by Phillip Humbard of Engineering Service Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 29.95 acres with 92 lots proposed. The recommendation is approval subject to the conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: We do not have signed conditions of approval. Condition number nine will need to be modified. The applicant contacted our office today and we've discussed condition number nine which states "A detailed hydrological study on the Zone A shall be performed and approved by FEMA and a Map Revision approved prior to submitting the final plat for Phase I." It should read Phase II. Zona A is actually in phase II and that could be delayed until that phase is developed. Other than that, I believe the applicant is in agreement with all conditions that have been proposed for approval. Estes: The conditions of approval are as follows: Planning Commission determination of the adequacy of street connections to existing and future subdivisions. Number two, Planning Commission determination of improvements to Sunshine Road. Sunshine Road is classified as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan with the City Limits located approximately along the center of the road. Staff recommends that Sunshine Road be improved directly adjacent to this development with the east side of Sunshine Road widened to meet local street standards and the west side widened to meet county standards. These improvements shall be constructed before the acceptance of Phase II. Number three, the right-of-way for New Bridge Road and Sunshine Road shall be dedicated to the City prior to the acceptance of Phase I. Number four, the agreement with the downstream property owner, Eugene Nottenkamper, to increase storm water run-off onto his property shall be made part of this approval. Number five, the water service for this subdivision shall be from the Bridgeport Subdivision and the waterline on Sunshine Road located to the south of this proposed subdivision. The second waterline connection shall be made prior to the approval of the final plat for Phase I. Number six, recommendation from the Planning Commission to participate in the upgrade of approximately 1,250 L.F. of proposed 8" waterline along Sunshine Road to a 12" waterline as shown on the Master Water Plan. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 5 This cost is estimated to be approximately $ 6,250.00. The Staff supports City participation, but the Mayor will have to approve the cost share. Number seven, assessment in the amount of $200 per lot for sanitary sewer improvements to the Hamstring Creek Basin shall be paid prior to final plat acceptance of each phase (92 lots n $200 per lot = $18,400.00 for phases I & II). If it is determined that costs greater than $18,400 are needed to improve Lift Station No. 7 due to the additional projected sewer flow from this development, the developer shall be responsible for these additional costs. Number eight, access to the individual lots shall be prohibited from Sunshine Road and shall be noted on the final plat. Number nine, a detailed hydrological study on the Zone A shall be performed and approved by FEMA and a Map Revision approved prior to submitting the final plat for Phase I. Number ten, the culvert under Sunshine Road at the Flood Zone A shall be removed and improved to meet the standards as set forth in the City Drainage Criteria Manual and Flood Damage Prevention Code. Number eleven, no final plat for this subdivision will be accepted by the Planning Division until the final plat for Bridgeport VI has been approved and filed of record. Number twelve, the Final Plat shall have a note that all retaining wall construction be shown on all future building permits, be setback two feet from the right- of-way, and be approved by the City Engineer. Number thirteen, a minimum of 2.43 acres shall be dedicated as Park Land. The proposed dedication is located on property that is currently in process for annexation. If the property is not annexed, parks fees will be due pursuant to ordinances in place at time of final plat acceptance. Number fourteen, all open swales are required to be fully lined with concrete. Number fifteen, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of individual lot development. Number sixteen, the sidewalk widths and green spaces shall be installed in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Number seventeen, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Number seventeen, 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. Number nineteen, Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Humbard: No sir. I'll answer any questions you might have. • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 6 Estes: Allen Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Condition number six, shouldn't it read the City Council will have to approve the cost share, rather than the Mayor? Conklin: Any cost share that's under $20,000 can be approved by the Mayor. Estes: Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? Marr: In condition number six where it talks about the waterline, 1 see the connection on Sunshine Road access, where is it designated or it is on the plan for Bridgeport? Humbard: It's shown as a dashed line going south off the southwest corner of the property. It goes approximately 600 feet south of the southwest comer of our property, along Sunshine Road. Marr: Number five where it says it's from Bridgeport Subdivision and the waterline, is there another waterline coming in from this Bridgeport access? Petrie: Yes. At the connection to New Bridge Road where it connects to Bridgeport VI there is a waterline that's stubbed -out at the subdivision line. It's not shown on the plat but there will be one when it's completed. Estes: Any other questions of the applicant? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Seeing none, I'll open the floor to public comment. Is there any member of the public who would like to address us regarding this proposed preliminary plat? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, 1 will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, motions, or any further questions of the applicant. MOTION: Hoover: I'll make a motion to approve preliminary plat 01-4.00 subject to all staff comments • with the specific finding that the street connections are adequate and item number two, Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 7 that the road improvements be done according to the wording in that item. Marr: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve PPL 01-4.00, is there any further discussion? Any comments? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call PPL 01-4.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 8 RZN 01-14.00: Rezoning (Robinson, pp 398) was submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of Greg & April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 5151 Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural contains approximately 2 26 acres. The request is to rezone to R- 1, Low Density Residential. Estes: The next item to come before your Commission is a rezoning request 01-14.00 submitted by Donna Treat of Coldwell Banker Faucette on behalf of Greg & April Robinson for property located at 1245 N. 5151 Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural contains approximately 2.26 acres The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant present? Treat: My name is Donna Treat with Coldwell Banker Faucette Real Estate and I represent Greg and April Robinson, the owners. Estes: Donna, do you have any presentation that you would like to make to us or would you like to just be available to answer questions from the Commission? Treat: Estes: I have no presentation. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Ms. Treat regarding this rezoning request? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Seeing none, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment regarding this rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for motions, comments or any questions of the applicant. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of rezoning 01-14.00 to recommend to City Council. Shackelford: I'll second. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 9 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZN 01-14.00, is there any discussion or comments? Sheri, would you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZN 01-14.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0 and will be forwarded on to the City Council for their determination. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 10 LSD 01-24.00: Large Scale Development (Shiloh West Apartments, pp 440) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property located on Shiloh Drive, south of Chamberland Square Apartments. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 18.25 acres with 240 units and a club house with amenities proposed. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is a large scale development for Shiloh West Apartments submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property located on Shiloh Drive, south of Chamberland Square Apartments. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 18.25 acres with 240 units and a club house with amenities proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: We do have signed conditions of approval. Estes: For the purpose of those of you in the audience who do not have available to you signed conditions of approval, let me review those conditions of approval for you. Number one, Planning Commission determination of a requested waiver from section 5.4.3 of the City Drainage Criteria Manual which states, "Permanent lakes with fluctuating volume control may be used as detention areas provided that the limits of maximum ponding elevations are no closer than 100 feet horizontally from any building". Staff supports this request with the safety precautions as enumerated on the attached memo from the Engineering Division. Number two, Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements to Persimmon Street. Persimmon is a collector on the Master Street Plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a 36 foot wide street adjacent to this property connecting Betty Jo Drive and Shiloh Drive, construct a 6' sidewalk on the north side, and dedicate 65' of right-of-way. Staff is in support of the proposal. Number three, the intersection of Betty Jo Drive and Persimmon shall be constructed as a 90 degree "T Intersection". Street Design will be reviewed by The Engineering Division prior to construction. Number four, plat shall be labeled Large Scale Development and Tree Preservation Plan. Number five, a floodplain development permit will be required prior to any grading in the floodplain. Approval from the Corps of Engineers will be required prior to any grading in the floodway. Number six, Park Land Dedication in the amount of 0.46 acres for future trail areas as shown on the Large Scale Development Plat and payment in the amount of $76,875 for remaining Parks Fees. The deed and payment will be required prior to building permit approval. Number seven, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 11 comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) Number eight, 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. Number nine, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk along Shiloh and Persimmon. Number ten, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Number eleven, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Number twelve, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project with tree preservation areas shown; 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. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Hennelly: I don't have a presentation. We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant at this time? I have one question, with regard to the permanent lake, will there be any safety shelves, fencing or what safety features will be provided to prevent children from falling in? Hennelly: We proposed in our letter that should be in your packet the inclusion of safety shelves in the pond, as well as stationing of the life preserver tethered rings, as well as some conditions the Engineering Division has suggested with the recommendation that some fencing be put around as well, and none of the buildings will be any closer than 20 feet. We don't have any problem with that, we can adjust the ponds to meet those requirements. Allen: I do not know what safety shelves are, would you explain that please? Hennelly: Most of the detention ponds or lakes are graded from the bank down to the bottom of • the pond normally. What we'll do is come down a certain distance 12 or 24 inches and • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 12 put a level area around the perimeter of the lake that will be below the surface of the water. Anybody that inadvertently falls in will have an area that they can stand up in and walk out rather than being in water over their head. Marr: What qualifies as decorative fencing? Is chain link or split rail decorative fencing? Conklin: No. Marr: It's the first time I've seen this, I'm just trying to understand. Conklin: Definitely chain link is not decorative fencing. What I have approved in the past has been wrought iron fencing, metal tubing type fencing that's painted, wood fencing. I would not allow chain link Marr. I'm really glad to hear that. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide public comment regarding this requested large scale development approval? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for comments motions, any other questions of the applicant. Bunch: One comment on the fencing, we need to make sure it's some type of fencing that has a line of sight through it rather than a wood board fence that has no visibility, in case there is an accident, it is visible and hopefully corrective actions can be taken in time. I would want to place a condition that whatever type of fencing is used is some that there is a line of sight through the fencing. Estes: Any other comments, motions? MOTION: Marr. I'll move for approval of large scale development 01-24.00 subject to the twelve conditions as placed by staff with the finding that we've determined the waiver of 5.4.3, relative to the City Drainage Criteria, meets the necessary pond elevations and the • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 13 other finding that the off-street improvements for Persimmon Street as a collector on the Master Street Plan, as a part of this project, meet that item as well. Estes: Does your motion include the line of sight fencing as suggested? Marr: Line of sight and decorative, non chain link, yes. Bunch: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01-24.00 with the stated conditions of approval and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any discussion? Hoffman. I wonder if staff could get that fencing shown on the plat prior to the issuance of a building permit just so you are comfortable with the location and it's not now shown on our plat? Petrie: We'll be looking at that before we issue the grading plan. Hoffman. I don't think I need to incorporate that into the motion. If that's a standard policy than I'm fine with that. Estes: Any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01- 24.00 and a second by Commissioner Bunch, Sheri would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL. Upon roll call LSD 01-24.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 14 LSD 01-25.00: Large Scale Development (Cliffs Phase 3 P.U.D., pp 526) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs No. 3 LTD Partnership for property located at 1935 E. Cliff Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.27 acres with a planned unit development for 288 dwelling units proposed. Estes: • The next item on your agenda is item number seven, also a large scale development request, 01-25.00 submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs No. 3 LTD Partnership for property located at 1935 E. Cliff Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32 27 acres with a planned unit development for 288 dwelling units proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No, we do not. Estes: Those conditions of approval are: Number one, Planning Commission determination of requested density bonus for a Planned Unit Development. Under §166.06 (5)(b)of the UDO at the option of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may grant up to 9 units per acre with the provision of 50% open space. The applicant is requesting a density of 8.92 units per acre. The proposed development is preserving 52.8% open space. This section of the UDO 166.06 Planned Unit Development contains the provision for bonus density. It provides that "in addition to the dwelling unit density otherwise permitted, a density bonus for additional open space may be allowed at the option of the Planning Commission, up to the following maxima, in the R-1 District or setback area in all districts." It is provided that the percent of open space is 50% or greater than the permitted dwelling units per acre may be 9.0%. Should you choose to approve this request for a large scale development, you must specifically make a finding of fact approving the bonus density with the increased open space. That is going from four units per acre to the maximum of nine units per acre based upon the open space. Condition number two, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Number three, 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. Number four, payment of parks fees in the amount of $108,000 (288 units @ $375). Number five, Large Scale Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 15 Kelso: Development approval to be valid for one calendar year Number six, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Number seven, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project to include tree preservation areas; c. Project Disk with all final revisions; and 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. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make to us regarding this requested approval for LSD 01-25.00? Yes, my name is Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Again this is a proposed development which would be an extension of what has been built out there at this time. Cliffs Phase 3 was not part of the original concept plan and that's the reason we are coming before you today. It's an additional 32 acres to the south of what's been built out there now. We do intend to keep the character and integrity of what's been constructed out there at this time, with this new development. With that we were able to exceed the bonus density of 50% and also exceed the tree preservation by doing this. With that said, the owners are here also if you have any questions and I'll also answer any questions you may have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant's representative? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development 01-25.00? If so, would you please come forward and give us your name and address and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Segal: My name is Jay Segal, I live at 2171 East Peridot Place in the Cliffs. It's very nice apartments, that's not the issue. I walk up and down the Cliffs in the morning and I noticed that this property is very heavily forested. There are a lot of beautiful old trees in there. I'm just curious as to what the tree preservation condition, which the developer's representative has indicated they will meet the density requirements, actually means. The existing property appears to be clear-cut when the units were put Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 16 Estes: in. I'm just interested in finding out what does tree preservation mean under the condition that the Commission has laid down. Let me try to be responsive to that by saying there is currently 38% of the existing site in tree canopy and the applicant is preserving 28% of the site in canopy. Let me go to staff, do you have a comment regarding Mr. Segal's question? Conklin: With regard to the existing trees out there and the tree canopy, under our Planned Unit Development Ordinance, any land use other than single family or duplex are required to be setback 250 feet from the property line. The west and south property lines adjoin other development or other land that's not developed, there will be a 250 foot buffer along Happy Hollow Road, that's recently been built, 250 feet back to the east there will be a buffer with tree preservation in that area. There is a drive that does come off • of Happy Hollow that will provide access to their parking lot but the remainder of those trees from that 250 foot buffer will be preserved. Also, within the south 250 feet, they do show a detention pond and additional tree areas within that buffer, then some additional tree canopy within the development. The easiest way to see it is to come up here and take a look at the plat to see where the trees will be saved. The developer did start off from the beginning working with our Landscape Administrator to make sure the tree ordinance was being met. They worked hard together to come up with a plan that did preserve trees on the site that did meet the ordinance requirements. They did take a very proactive approach from the beginning to ensure that the trees are preserved on this site. Segal: That sounds like they are going to do the right thing. Thank you very much. Estes: Tim, looking at the applicants request, this property is zoned R-1 and the requirement is 20% preservation, is that correct? Conklin: It's zoned R-1 and with regard to the density that they are proposing, around 9 units per acre, it is 50% open space that they have to provide within this development. They are providing 52% open space on this property. Estes: Is there a tree preservation requirement of 20% for R-1? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: The applicant is preserving 28% of the site in canopy, so the applicant is exceeding the requirement by 8%, is that correct? Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 17 Conklin: Estes: Segal: Estes: That is correct. The original canopy was 38% and he is preserving 28%, and the required canopy to be preserved is 20%. Does that answer your question Mr. Segal? Yes sir, that sounds fine. Is there any other member of the public who would like to provide comment on this requested LSD 01-25.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: MOTION: Hoffman: Shackelford: Estes: Conklin: Seeing ;none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions, any further questions of the applicant. To preface my motion for approval, I would like to say that I have strongly supported the idea of PUD's and this one does exactly what they are intended to. I'll offer you my plat when we are done with this meeting, there are two rather Targe rows of trees that have been preserved that, if we were developing under normal R-1 conditions, I think we might see a more clear cut type of situation. I would like to commend the developer with their work with staff in preserving these tree canopy areas because there looks to be extensive acreage retained as tree canopy. Therefore, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve LSD 01-25.00 with the finding that the increased density of 8.92 units per acre in exchange for the 52.8% of open space along with other staff comments, be approved. I'lI second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 01-25.00, is there any discussion? I do want to point out that on page 7.3 there are additional findings under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Staff has prepared those findings, as we do for rezonings and conditional uses. I just want to point that out to you that those findings do have to be made as part of this approval I'm assuming that they are being made as part of that recommendation. • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 18 Hoffman: That's the intent of my motion. Do you want me to read those out? Estes: No, I think that's perfectly acceptable for the movement to incorporate by reference the specific finding approving the bonus density with increased open space and the specific findings made on pages 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5, staff's report to Commission. Does your motion incorporate those findings? Hoffman: It does. Shackelford: It does with the second. Allen: In reading the brochure that we were provided, which I really appreciated, it's neat to see, there is a reference to phase four, 1 wondered if there is a final phase to this project to come? Kelso: There is still additional land that was approved in the original concept that's north of what's been built right now which will be an additional phase that we'll do in the future. • Allen: Will that be the final phase9 • Kelso: That should be the final phase unless it's decided later to phase it out even further. There are quite a few more units in the original concept that we will construct some time. Allen- Where does the land extend? Kelso: To the north. Bishop: I would dust have a question if we have heard from any of the other neighbors, adjacent property owners, in regard to this? Conklin: I have not received any correspondence from any adjoining property owners. Estes: Any other questions or comments? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 01-25.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 19 ADM 01-37 2020 General Plan Addendums. Staff proposes two addendums to the General Plan adopted on December 7, 2000: (1) revise chapter 2 and chapter 3 of the General Plan to incorporate 2000 Census data and (2) draft an Annexation Element for the General Plan to provide annexation policies. Estes: The remaining item on our agenda is listed under other business. This is administrative item 01-37.00, the 2020 General Plan Addendums. Staff proposes two addendums to the General Plan adopted on December 7, 2000: (I) revise chapter 2 and chapter 3 of the General Plan to incorporate 2000 Census data; and (2) draft an Annexation Element for the General Plan to provide annexation policies. Tim, does this item require any action on our part at this time? Conklin: It does not require any action, I Just wanted to bring forward thisinformation to you so you have an understanding what Planning Division staff is currently working on. We did receive the 2000 Census numbers. In an attempt to incorporate those numbers into our comprehensive plan, we have discovered that we'll have to re -write some of the first three chapters in order to have it flow together to make sense. In doing so, staff intentionally tried dust to add the numbers within the tables but what's happening, when you read the text, it wasn't making any sense We are going to update that and bring that back to you. Also, a month ago City Council asked staff to take a look at an annexation policy for the City of Fayetteville. Staff is currently working on looking at what other communities have developed with regard to annexation policies. Typically cities have incorporated that element within their general plan and that's what we intend to do. We will be bringing that forward at the same time. We are updating our general plan with an annexation policy and the 2000 Census numbers. I had money budgeted this year to make final copies of what was adopted by City Council on December 19, 2000. I've withheld that and have provided each of you a black and white copy of what was adopted. I did not want to spend a lot of money doing color copies and providing a finished, final document when there is an opportunity to have a comprehensive plan that we'll be using over the next four years that can be updated with the 2000 Census numbers and the annexation policy. That's what I'm working on right now. Bunch: Tim, help me if I have the dates wrong on this, tomorrow evening from 5:30 to 7:30 in this room is a public presentation of the newly proposed tree preservation ordinance? Conklin: That is correct. I have three announcements to make with regard to upcoming meetings. The first one is the meeting tomorrow, August 14, 2001. It's a question and answer session regarding the proposed tree ordinance revisions that were developed by Planning Commission • August 13, 2001 Page 20 • • the subcommittee of the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee. This is an opportunity for the Commissioners, public, realtors, developers, environmentalists and everyone to have a chance to look at what has been developed. I encourage you to read the revised ordinance, it's 15 pages. You as Commissioners, public and those who are developing, need to understand what's in this ordinance and how it will be implemented and applied to new development. As you are aware, you as a Planning Commission do approve the tree preservation and protection plans for all of our large scale developments and subdivisions. Tomorrow night at 5:30 in this room there will be a presentation by Kim Hesse the Landscape Administrator and the subcommittee will be here, sitting up here. It will also be televised. I encourage everyone to pick up a copy. They are available in the City Clerk's office, City Attorney's office, the Planning Division and you can also download it off our website, accessfayetteville.org. There is an opportunity to pick up a copy or download a copy and look at what the committee developed. They worked for 13 months, they met weekly and they have done a tremendous amount of work to clarify the issues within the past ordinance regarding tree preservation and protection. After the question and answer session, Fayetteville Planning Commission will have a special meeting on August 20`h. The only item on that agenda is the proposed tree ordinance revisions. We will be asking you next Monday night to forward that ordinance revision on to the City Council. That's another opportunity for the public to present their questions and ideas regarding the ordinance at the Planning Commission meeting. I strongly encourage anyone with questions to come tomorrow night because we will have in the room the individuals that drafted the ordinance, so if there is anything that needs to be clarified within the ordinance or if there is a question that needs to be answered, the subcommittee will be here tomorrow night. Then on September 11`h in the Fayetteville Town Center, the City of Fayetteville along with other co-sponsors, to be announced at a later date, will be bringing Brent Coles who is the Mayor of Boise, Idaho and the immediate past President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, to talk about smart growth and smart growth in Northwest Arkansas and Fayetteville. He will be discussing the issue of uncontrolled growth occurring in cities throughout the United States, will be discussing his perspective on the issue of smart growth and what it means to the future. Mayor Coles is a professional planner, he served on the Boise City Council prior to his election. Over the past several years he has become the key spokesperson for the principal's of good planning at the local and regional levels. The City is excited to take this opportunity to hear what planning and smart growth means to a successful politician who has aggressively promoted smart growth in his city and region. The presentation will be open to the public, it's free of charge and on behalf of the City of Fayetteville and our co-sponsors, Planning Commission August 13, 2001 Page 21 we are encouraging anyone concerned with smart growth and the future of our City and region to attend. It will be an excellent opportunity to hear how a Mayor has implemented smart growth ideas in his home town. He's very well qualified. He presented at the national conference of the American Planning Association, he was a keynote speaker at the most recent Congress for the New Urbanism organization also. It's an excellent opportunity, we are inviting Planning Commissioners and others in northwest Arkansas to attend this free event at the Town Center. Estes: Any other announcements? Any other business? We'll stand adjourned until our next regularly called meeting. Thank you. 8-13-01 PC Mtg. Roll Call Minutes of the 7-23-01 PC meeting Consent Agenda: VAC 01-6.00 (Marriott Courtyard, pp 213) and VAC 01-7.00 (Greg Brockman, pp 286) MOTION SECOND D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Y Y L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y Y D. Marr Y Y A. Bishop Y Y Shackelford Y — ,u scoosent L. Ward Absent Absent ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 8-0-0 • • • • 8-13-01 PC Mtg. PPL 01-4.00 Fairfield Subdivision, Phases I & II, LLC, pp 359 RZN 01-14.00 Robinson, pp 398 LSD 01-24.00 Shiloh West Apartments, pp 440 MOTION Hoffman Marr Marr SECOND Marr Shackelford Bunch 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 A. Bishop Y Y Y Shackelford Y Y Y L. Ward Absent Absent Absent ACTION Approved Approved Approved VOTE 8-0-0 8-0-0 8-0-0 • • • 8-13-01 PC Mtg. LSD 01-25.00 Cliffs Phase 3 P.0 D., pp 526 MOTION Hoffman SECOND Shackelford D. Bunch Y B. Estes Y L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y N. Allen Y D. Marr Y A. Bishop Y Shackelford Y L. Ward Absent ACTION Approved VOTE 8-0-0