Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-10 MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting ofthe Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 10, 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 August 27, 2001 meeting Page 2 CUP 01-21.00: Conditional Use (Commerce Park II, pp 175) Page 2 LSD 01-30.00: Large Scale Development (Commerce Park II, pp 175) Page 4 FPL 01-7.00: Final Plat (WHM Investments, pp 439) Page 7 CUP 01-24.00: Conditional Use (On Deck, pp 138) Page 20 LSD 01-31.00: Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) Page 22 ADM 01-38.00: Administrative Item (Hickman, pp 601) Page 30 • CUP 01-23.00: Conditional Use (Brandon, pp 100) Page 36 Master Parks Plan Page 39 • Approved Approved No Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Church Don Marr Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Ron Petrie Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the August 27, 2001 meeting. Estes: Welcome to the Monday evening, September 10, 2001 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business is to call the roll. Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Estes: A quorum being present the first item of business is approval of the minutes of the August 24, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, comments or amendments to the August 24, 2001 minutes of the meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. CUP 01-21.00: Conditional Use (Commerce Park II, pp 175) was submitted by David Gilbert of Atkins Benham Inc. on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.78 acres. The request is for a 4,185 sq.ft. restaurant (use unit 13) in an R-0 zone Estes: The first item of new business is a conditional use. This is Conditional Use 01-21, a conditional use for Commerce Park II, submitted by David Gilbert of Atkins Benham, Inc. on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.78 acres The request is for a 4,185 sq.ft. restaurant (use unit 13) in an R-0 zone. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. Number one, planning commission approval of the accompanying large scale development. Number two, any signage in addition to that shown on the elevations and large scale development plan shall be submitted for staff review prior to the issuance ofa building permit for this restaurant. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Gilbert: Just briefly Mr. Chairman ifImay. This is at the corner ofJoyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. Dr. Ben Israel and his partners in Dixie Development Corporation are building an office complex. This that you will see tonight when the rest of it comes up is the second phase of this development. This is an area where there is a lot of office space, not only going to be built as a part of these two projects but there is also a significant amount of office space in use in the area right now and from having to be out there on the job site I can tell you there is really not any place to eat out there. If you want to go eat something, you have to get in the car and drive back into town so to speak, and it takes a while with the traffic patterns out there. Our client's hope is to build something here that people can Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 3 walk to from these office complexes, give them a place to go that they don't have to drive and keep them a little closer to the office during lunch time. Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Seeing none 1 will bring it back to the full commission for discussion, motions, comments. MOTION Ward: I believe there is a definite need for a restaurant along this area and we have dealt with Mr. Israel on several other occasions and he seems to do a very good job as far as commercial design standards and accents on his buildings. I will go ahead and move approval of CUP 01-21 for a conditional use for this restaurant on about 4,185 sq.ft. Hoffman: 1'II second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve conditional use request 01-21. Commissioner Ward, does your motion include each of the findings of fact made in the staff report? Ward: Yes, the two recommendations. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman, is your second incorporating to the findings of fact? Hoffman: Yes. Estes: Any other discussion? This is a conditional use request and will require five affirmative votes. Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll Conditional Use CUP 01-21.00 passed unanimously. Estes: The motion passes by unanimous vote. Thank you. • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 4 LSD 01-30.00: Large Scale Development (Commerce Park 11, pp 175) was submitted by Atkins Benham Inc. on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.78 acres. The request is for a 4,185 sq. ft. restaurant and a 41,455 sq. ft. office building. Estes: The next item to come before your Commission is the accompanying large scale development, 01-30. This is submitted by Atkins Benham Inc. on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.78 acres The request is for a 4,185 sq. ft. restaurant and a 41,455 sq. ft. office building. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin do we have signed conditions of approval on this LSD? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Is the applicant present? Gilbert: Yes Sir. Estes: Do you have a presentation you would like to make? Gilbert: Just again briefly, thank you for your time. This again as we stated is part two actually of the development that is already underway on an additional piece of property adjacent to the project that is currently under construction. The developer's intent here is to build a split level two to three story office building which I believe you have elevations of. We tried to keep this thing in scale with the elevations. Making sure everything is broken up, that there is not any big massing and help this building to really blend in with the surroundings. This is immediately adjacent to Butterfield Trail Village. There are already some fairly large buildings on their site on the west side. Again, as the development finishes out to the east, we're really looking to key this all in together so that it makes one coherent unit presentable to everyone. Obviously, some good quality lease space for the proposed tenants. You have the finishes there. The dark areas on these buildings that are the red areas are all proposed to be brick. The E.F.I.S., the synthetic surface there is shown on the elevation in the gray area There is not going to be a huge amount of that. At this time I would be happy to take any questions you may have. Estes: Bunch: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Bunch. One of the things that seems like it may have been overlooked. If this is supposed to be a restaurant and office complex and a restaurant to serve the adjoining business area. Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 5 There does not appear to be a sidewalk that extends from the sidewalk on Joyce Street to this area. Is it proposed that people walk down the pavement? Likewise, on the cross access to the development to the east, there doesn't appear to be any pedestrian access to get from one portion of the development to the next. Is that Just an oversight or is there some reason not to have it? Gilbert: No Sir, I believe that is an oversight and those are some good things. We can add those in. We certainly do want to encourage people to make use of this as much as they can. Estes: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would wish to provide public comment on this requested large scale development? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none I will bring it back to the full commission for discussions, motions or comments. Commissioners. Commissioner Ward. MOTION: Ward: Since I did the first one, I'll go ahead and do the second one. There again, the buildings are Just as nice as anything we have in Fayetteville as far as the type of materials and the articulation of the office buildings that are going to be built there on Joyce Street. I think they will be really fantastic improvement for our city. 1 would like to go ahead and recommend that we do approve LSD 01-30, I think I'm making this with a cosponsor, Commissioner Allen and I are doing this together. We'd like to move for approval of LSD 01-30 for large scale development. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-30. Commissioner Ward, does your motion incorporate the restaurant sidewalk and the pedestrian crosswalks? Ward: Yes, I would like to add on to the idea that it does definitely make sense to put the sidewalk over from the office building over to the restaurant for sure. Allen: • Estes: 1 second. We have a second by Commissioner Allen. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 6 and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve LSD 01-30. Is there any other discussion? Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Estes: Yes Ma'am. Hoffman: I wouldjust like to make a comment that I commend the developer for not putting all of the parking in front of the building. This is very unusual and I agree that this is a very nice project and I'll be voting for it. Estes: Any other comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll the motion to approve LSD 01-30.00 passed 9-0-0. Estes: The motion to approve LSD 01-30 passes by a unanimous vote of 9 to 0. Thank you. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 7 FPL 01-7.00: Final Plat (WHM Investments, pp 439) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Hayden Mcllroy for property located on Rupple Road south of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, R-1, Low Density Residential, R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 90 acres with 7 lots proposed. Estes: The next item of business to come before your Commission is Final Plat 01-7.00. Staff recommends approval by the Full Planning Commission subject to certain conditions of approval Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Feinstein: I again want to thank the Commissioners for working so hard on this project. I'm sure staff has a lot of comments and there has been a lot of discussion and I won't take up any more of your time. We are here to answer any questions you've got. Estes: Would you give us your name please? Feinstein: I'm Andy Feinstein with Engineering Design Associates. Estes: Thank you Andy. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this request to approve Final Plat 01-7.00? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Commissioners. Hoffman: Mr. Chair. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman? Hoffman: I would like to preface my motion for approval of Final Plat 01-7.00 with congratulations • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 8 Estes: on the work done between The Boys and Girls Club and the City Council. I think they've worked very closely together to ensure that this grant follows through. We are asked to approve the final plat at this time. 1 have one minor change that I would like to insert. The Planning Commission is not I think in a position to enter into financial arrangements with regard to the price of the road improvements. I would like to replace conditions of approval numbers 7 and 8. We'll just replace those with the contractual agreement between the city and the Fayetteville Youth Center resolution number 119-01 which was dated 8-21-01 and is in your packet on page, it's Exhibit "A" starting on page 3.11. That is my motion. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve Final Plat 01-7.00 deleting condition of approval number seven, condition ofapproval number 8 and substituting in lieu of condition ofapproval number 7 and condition ofapproval number 8 the contractual agreement which is contained as Exhibit "A" in your packet which will be incorporated into and made a part of the conditions ofapproval by reference as if set out there in word for word. Is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion? Ward: Our legal counsel is not here, you know, there has been a lot of work going into the proposals of how the breakdown of all the amounts that will be paid if there is excess in more units being built or less and whatnot. Will this have to be forwarded on to the City Council anyway? Conklin: That's correct. Final Plats do not require City Council approval. Ward: This really needs to go onto City Council doesn't it, if we do it this way? Conklin: Well, I think the motion is to delete condition numbers 7 and 8 is that correct? Now we don't have any formulas based on the rational nexus principal to look at what the proportionate share would be based on traffic for those future lots and development. Once again, this does not even have to go to City Council. I can tell you that I do not believe that a Final Plat will be filed with the City of Fayetteville with these conditions as part of this motion. What that means is we will not have a Final Plat which will allow the legal transfer of ownership of the land to The Boys and Girls Club and to the City of Fayetteville. I can not make the applicant give me a mylar copy and make him sign that mylar for filing and recording over at the County which would dedicate the road rights-of- • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 9 way and create the lots for legal transfer of ownership. I know you haven't asked me that question, but Ijust want to make sure you understand that even though if you approve this motion, most likely we will not have a Final Plat for this development. Hoffman: It is not my intent to not have the Final Plat filed at all. To me the contract that the City Council has already entered into has opened up the financial and fiscal responsibility as it should be taken on by the City Council. Furthermore, under Section 166.03 in our Unified Development Ordinance, when we're filing a Final Plat or approving a Final Plat in an urban subdivision "before the Planning Commission may grant Final Plat approval for an urban subdivision the subdivider shall have installed or shall have a guarantee in lieu of installation either at his expense or in accordance with the existing policy of the City the following improvements" of which streets are one. The reason that I have just inserted the Council's resolution is that that is the only mechanism by which the Planning Commission as I see it, can approve the Final Plat because to do so with the rational nexus that has come up specifically for this project is not in existence and hasn't been in existence for other projects. I think that by handing back the financial obligations to the City Council we're just doing everybody a favor in keeping the Planning Commission out of it. We don't have, we've been basing contributions on the amount of lineal footage that actually touches the applicant's property and we're not doing that in this case. Conklin: With regard to how the proportionate share the developer for Rupple Road, how much he should have to pay, we have done rational nexus calculations in the past and Ron Petrie did provide a memo as part of your packet. The situation is unique. At the March 26th Planning Commission meeting when we approved the Preliminary Plat you made a finding that this is a unique situation. I included that in your staff report. It states that a finding by the Planning Commission that an undue hardship unique to this property does exist. "That this project is in the best interest of the City due to the limited grant money, it would be an undue financial hardship to acquire these buildings due to the uniqueness ofthis project being funded by grant money that it would make financial constraints." Yes, this is not your typical subdivision. We have a situation where a committee was formed that looked at where to site a Boys and Girls Club in Fayetteville, Arkansas. That committee chose a piece of property that happens to be within this property that we're looking for a Final Plat that contains 90 acres. This Boys and Girls Club is situated at the southern end ofthis property. In order to provide access to the Boys and Girls Club, the City has agreed to build a road. The City Council as approved that agreement. We have a situation here where I required The Boys and Girls Club and the owner of the property to bring forward a Preliminary Plat and at that time we tried to base those conditions of approval based on what was discussed in the past. Since then, this Summer we have talked with the applicant and the actual land owner and what we're trying to achieve here is a means to assess their • • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 10 proportionate share of the cost of this street, which is a minor arterial street. It is going to connect from Highway 62 to Howard Nickell Road. This future development that is owned currently by WHM Investments will generate. That is the difference in the conditions of approval. The City has agreed to build a two lane road, a four lane road carries a lot more traffic and is designed to carry traffic for an entire area of town. This would be the west side of town. It carries 14,800 vehicles a day. That's what we're trying to do, we're trying to look at charging this developer a portion of the capacity ofthe roadway that he will be using and that's why those conditions were drafted in that manner and as part of this report. That was important to the property owner. In the future, how much of the minor arterial road, the 14,800 vehicles per day, that's using that road. How much of that is he responsible for? So that is why we drafted in that manner. Once again, you can approve the Final Plat minus those conditions. I can almost guarantee you that we will not have a Final Plat filed and the transfer ofownership of land will not occur and The Boys and Girls Club, probably, I'm not sure what will happen then. Hoffman: Well, even though we're not requiring any, I mean this is something that is totally left to the Council to allocate money for. That is certainly what they're there for. We haven't required the developer more than he had agreed to or less than he had agreed to. We had just put it back. The contracts have always preceded the Planning Commission's hearing of any of this. I'm just trying to find a way to just say let's just smooth the way for the Youth Center and not break our own ordinances at the same time. Conklin: Staffworked very had this Summer to make sure we're not breaking our ordinances. Yes, there is a change from what happened in March and what we see today. I can't force anybody to sale land. That's where we're at, so you can approve the Final Plat, but I can't make Hayden McIlroy, the owner of the property, sign that Final Plat dedicating the rights -of -ways to the City of Fayetteville and creating those lots. We've had long, long hours of discussion of how to meet our ordinances and bring the Final Plat to the City. I share that with you because at this point I think with that motion, after tonight, we will not have a Final Plat that will be recorded that will allow the transfer of land. Staff was the body that required Mr. McIlroy and The Boys and Girls Club and the City of Fayetteville to go through this process. Marr: I think we've had a lot of discussion, I read a lot of the Subdivision minutes. History of this, as late as some things that arrived today at about 4:00, at least at my office. I do think that this is a very unique situation. I think that it is not something that has never been done. I think the City certainly participated in the cost of roads out by the mall which we heard at agenda session. I would not support a change in a motion that killed the opportunity for the Final Plat being done. I wouldn't support that although l understand the spirit of it and • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 11 actually I'm not sure 1 understand why it would kill it. The thing I think is important is that we have a opportunity to have a state of the art Boys and Girls Club facility and we have parameters we need to work between. 1 go back to the Parks presentation which, I don't know if it is still in our agenda tonight, but I know that I sat through a presentation 60 days ago or so about that. It had 30+ million dollars of investment for the City. I look at this as it is an opportunity for us to have a grant that gets 9.2 million dollars of investment we might would have had to made as a City ourselves being provided by some other means. I think to do that for the cost of this road is certainly something I'm willing to support because of the benefit that I think it brings both to the youth of our city as well as another service that our city would otherwise have to provide. I also believe that we're not here today to debate the location of this facility which are things that I have heard. We're not here to debate the funding of this project because 1 think that Exhibit "A" that Commissioner Hoffivan refers to has certainly already been done by the City Council. We may not like the structure, we may think that we're doing a different process instead of linear footage verses a nexus something. The reality of it is that we can get something for this road or we can get nothing for this road, but 1 don't think we should do that at the expense of The Boys and Girls Club. 1 guess 1 would be looking for other feedback from other Commissioners on understanding the spirit of it. In fact, until having heard Tim's comments on the likelihood from a Final Plat probably would have supported it. I would not support anything that would put this program in jeopardy. I think our City Council and two different administrations of this City supported this. I think it's something as a non- elected official that we've already been given guidance to. Hoffman: 1 do have an answer about the comparison with this and the uniqueness of the CMN Project. It was not the Planning Commission that appropriated the funding for the roads at CMN. To me they are both unique situations, yes. At the same time, I know that we have a tight city budget and I know that the Planning Commission has established rules and procedures that we have always gone by and in all the Exhibits I think that Mr. Petrie gave us, we have the lineal footage or linear footage combined with the vehicle trips per day. I don't want to in any way have anybody think that I'm trying to pass something that is going to jeopardize this grant. I was just merely trying to provide a different vehicle other than what's available to us, which doesn't seem to me to be too much for the road cost sharing agreement to take place where it properly should and that's at City Council level not here. Estes: Commissioners, if I may speak, I would vote for the motion made by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Shackelford for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that we are an administrators on an administrative board or commission. We are not a legislative body. We may not appropriate money. Condition of approval • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 12 seven and condition of approval eight are funding mechanisms. Condition of approval seven speaks of an impact fee. We have no statutory authority to impose an impact fee. Am 1 correct in that statement Mr. Conklin? Do we have an ordinance that allows imposition of an impact fee. Conklin: We do have a subdivision regulation that allows us to base a proportionate share of the impact and propose a formula to the Planning Commission, that's what we've done. Estes: Let me ask you this. Is that not the rational nexus formula? Conklin: That is the theory of rational nexus. Estes: Can you point me to a chapter and verse for an ordinance that gives us the authority to assess an impact fee? Conklin: I can point you to the term rational nexus which is a legal term as you're aware, that the Courts use to determine whether or not a developer or a City has properly connected their exaction, their condition of requiring a developer to do something and the impact on the facility that they're requiring him to build or participate in. We've assessed in the past, fees on upgrades to sewer lift stations, Commerce Park Phase I, we saw Phase II tonight. They were assessed a fee based on Old Missouri Road. We have done those calculations in the past. The bottom line was we wanted to bring forward something that was based on that rational nexus formula. The bottom line is that it wasn't just a dollar figure out there that was thrown out. It was based on numbers. The numbers we used are adopted city policy numbers. They are the master street plan numbers. A minor arterial carries 14,800 vehicles a day, it is designed to carry people from one side of town to the other side of town. It is not a local street. The City of Fayettevil le is building a local street, so now we have to decide how much traffic that this land will generate in addition to the local street the City is building. That is how staff has looked at this, there's no secret here. That's how we're looking at it, the City is building a local street, the additional two lanes provide capacity for a minor arterial street so that's how we're trying to calculate this. Estes: Let me ask the question this way. Is it not true that we do not have an ordinance that empowers us to impose an impact fee. Conklin: We have an ordinance that requires or allows us to assess conditions of approval, exactions from developers based on a rational nexus formula. • Estes: We do not have an ordinance that empowers us to impose an impact fee is that correct? • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 13 Conklin: Well, when you say impact fee or offsite improvement, an exaction, we have an ordinance that allows us to exact infrastructure improvements from developers based on the rational nexus principal. Estes: I would like an answer to what I see as a very simple question. Mr. McCord who just stepped up to the podium, if my memory is correct, was City Attorney and authored the offsite improvement ordinance. That offsite improvement ordinance under the draftsmanship and guidance of Mr. McCord is driven by the rational nexus formula. In fact, we have an ongoing review process at this moment to consider whether or not we should have an ordinance that authorizes an impact fee. Have I misstated any fact? Conklin: No, I don't think you misstated any fact Do we have an ordinance on our books that states the word impact fee? No. We also have in our subdivision regulations park land dedication fees which is an impact fee, an exaction. Estes: Would you agree with me that in paragraph seven that Commissioner Hoffman in her motion has removed, is the statement an impact fee for the proportionate share of the cost of Rupple Road as a minor arterial and that there exists no statutory authority for the imposition or collection of such a fee? Conklin: Statutory authority. Estes: The ordinance. Conklin: Oh, our local ordinance. I think the Planning Commission is empowered to come up with that. Estes: Mr. Conklin, I disagree most vehemently that this Commission has no legislative authority and can not appropriate money. We are an administrative body and we have no business whatsoever invading the providence ofour City Council, now with that said, let me ask you this. If the motion is made by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Shackelford was approved, could not this funding mechanism go to the City Council? After all, the City Council has entered into Exhibit "A" the contract between the City of Fayetteville and The Boys and Girls Club. Conklin: This is a Final Plat. If the applicant is unhappy with the conditions of approval, there is no appeal process. • McCord: Mr. Chairman, at an appropriate time 1 would appreciate the opportunity to make just a • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 14 few short comments. Estes: Yes Mr. McCord. McCord: I don't know if this is an appropriate time or not. Estes: It's as good of time as any. McCord: Several issues have been raised appropriately I think. Your comments Mr. Chairman about whether this is an impact fee. I did in fact, when I was City Attorney for sixteen years, draft the offsite improvement ordinance. After considerable research from other states found that the common accepted standards are rational nexus or direct proportion. I can not complement the staff enough for what they've done under this unique factual circumstance to apply that standard. In my view, an impact fee, whether it is a rational nexus, direct proportion, exaction, or an impact fee, they're one in the same. Your comment is well taken. My understanding is there is, the City has contracted with a consultant to determine whether impact fees should be imposed which they are in many, many states. As far as sending this on the City Council, my recommendation is having seen this for sixteen years, the Planning Commission approves the Preliminary Plat. What would be forwarded to the City Council is a contract to confirm in writing by the City Council because this body does not as you correctly pointed out Mr. Chairman, this is an administrative body, not a legislative body. You don't have the power to obligate the City Council. Any contract the City enters into has to be approved by the City Council, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract. Because there has been some miscommunication between two administrations, the developer wants to ensure there is no future misunderstanding. What our request is, Deb Sexton and me as counsel to the developer, is approve the Preliminary Plat tonight, because that is your sole function. Send the proposed cost sharing agreement to the City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute that cost sharing agreement. I think that is fairly simple. I mean I think everybody's comments that I have heard tonight, have heard for weeks, have read in the paper say this is a great project, let's don't shoot ourselves in the foot, let's get it approved. I think it is a very simple process. The Planning Commission fulfills its function approving the Preliminary Plat as recommended by staff with the two conditions deleted as suggested by the Commissioner, and send those two conditions to the City Council to authorize a contract for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute so there is no misunderstanding. If this four lane street is not built for six years, there is no misunderstanding. I was hoping that I wouldn't even have to take the podium tonight, I hope I've shared some clarification. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 15 Bunch: Hoffman: Shackelford: Estes: Ward: Estes: Ward: Hoffman: McCord: Hoffman: McCord: One of the problems that I see with the insertion of the contractual agreement and the resolution in lieu of seven and eight is that those are with The Boys Club and they're not with the applicant. That's a d/b/a. The Fayetteville Youth Center and The Boys and Girls Club are the same. I thought the motion we were talking about spelled out these terms and did not contradict them, so, unfortunately, I obviously misspoke on that I'm in support of City staff on their calculations and rational nexus and would like to withdraw my second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and Commissioner Shackelford has withdrawn his second. Is there a second to Commissioner Hoffman's motion? Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Ward. In light of what Mr. McCord has brought up about, I'm still not clear that we can send this to City Council. I would like to see what Tim thinks. How can we send this to City Council? If we can approve the Final Plat, I'm not sure how we can send these, you know this seven and eight to City Council. I can't figure out how we can do that legally. If I understood Mr. McCord correctly, maybe 1 could amend my motion in such a way that it will just work for everybody. That's really what I'm trying to do and if I could amend it in such a way that still deletes items seven and eight but provides a condition that the cost share be mutually agreed upon by the City Council or the City staff and council representatives and all involved parties, would that be something that would be suitable? I think that would be a perfect recommendation. You accept the staff recommendation, you approve the plat, which is your sole function and then the applicant and the applicant's representatives can take a proposed contract to the City Council. So you just accept the staff recommendations, approve the Final Plat and then what your action will be confirmed by a contract approved by the City Council. Really, this Exhibit "A" contract you know, is probably going to be amended anyway as I look at it, it looks like it has left a few things out here and there. Contracts get amended as things go on, that was my intention. I think that's a perfect suggestion. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 16 MOTION: Hoffman: Yeah, I'm going to amend my motion while I'm still cognizant of it. That's just going to be to delete items seven and eight and to refer the contractual agreement partially contained in Exhibit "A" to City Council for finalization for road improvements and to include all involved parties including WHM Investments. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ho man to approve Final Plat 01-7.00 deleting and removing condition of approval number seven, condition of approval number eight, referring all contractual provisions and the funding thereof to the City Council. Is there a second? Marr. Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Marr. Bunch: Mr. Chairman. Estes: Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: Maybe Tim could help on this. If this were treated as a revised Preliminary Plat is that a possibility? It could then be sent to the City Council for a contractual agreement and then brought back to us as a Final Plat, would that be within the realm ofpossibility? When Mr. McCord made his statements earlier, he said Preliminary Plat every time, and then this last time he said Preliminary Plat changed to Final Plat, but it would seem to be a logical process if the Preliminary Plat would be looked at by this group and then City Council would make whatever contractual agreements are required and then having that piece of paper in front of us we would be able to look at a Final Plat. McCord: I may have misspoke. Obviously, a Final Plat is what is before you tonight. I apologize if 1 misspoke. Conklin: Your question is can someone bring to you another Preliminary Plat, or could this be called a Preliminary Plat? Bunch: If this could be called a Revised Preliminary Plat in lieu of Final Plat and then sent to the City Council for contractual arrangements and then brought back to this Commission as a Final Plat once we had the contractual agreement in front of us. • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 17 Hoffman: I'm sorry, but I just don't see why that's necessary. Everything about the plat is on paper, basically approved, the contract has nothing to do with us. We've already looked at the lots several times. We know how the...you know, we've talked about the other utilities and the haul roads and just everything. I am not sure that we would really want to see it again, I know I wouldn't. Shackelford: I would like to ask Tim his opinion logistically of the motion and second on the table now. Have you ever seen this type of process in the Final Plat approval and do you think that as it is presented now it would function the way that we're trying to get it to function? Could we walk away from this with a Final Plat that is ready to be filed to accomplish those goals and have basically, if my understanding is a term or condition of approval, that that contractual agreement be completed. Conklin: Condition seven and eight by the City Council? Shackelford: Sure, I didn't make the motion, so. • Conklin: Let me just say one thing. Kit Williams was not able to be here tonight, he's in training, and he apologizes for that, he wasn't able to attend this. With regard to legal issues I can't help you on that. I think you can put any condition you want on the Final Plat. Staff brought you a Final Plat forward because we're dealing with a subdivision that is on paper. A Preliminary Plat approval that was just the monumentation of the lots and the structure improvements. I'm not sure what benefit you get bringing a Preliminary Plat or a Final Plat back if you change the name because you're going to see the same thing before you that you see tonight. If you put those conditions that City Council has to deal with it, I will forward it on to the City Council and let them make...I guess what you're saying is you decide on conditions numbers seven and eight. Is that pretty much what you're trying to say with that motion? • Hoffman: Yeah. Conklin: Yes? Hoffman: And the reason is that it commits the City to less money than our former method of calculation of rational nexus. It's not the same. Conklin: Whatever the City Council decides on that, that's their business and then they go ahead and do the Final Plat and it doesn't come back to you? • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 18 Hoffman: That's my intent, if you all don't like it, I mean, I know that we want to be exact with all of this. I feel like we've pretty much gone over it thoroughly. Estes: Conklin: Estes: Marr. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve Final Plat 01-7.00 deleting condition of approval seven and eight and referring all contractual and funding provisions to the City Council and we have a second by Commissioner Marr. I will vote for the motion. At the Subdivision Committee on March 15, 2001, I made the motion to forward to the full Commission the Preliminary Plat and then again, I voted for the Preliminary Plat at the full Subdivision Commission meeting that was held on March 16'x. There of course have been substantial changes since that time and that's why we have this before us. Tim, is it a fair statement that Final Plats are normally handled at the Subdivision, but because of the uniqueness you put it on our agenda this evening? That is correct. Any other discussion? Any other comments? I'm going to make sure I'm clear one more time. The reason I seconded it, and if 1 have misunderstood, I certainly want to be corrected that based on Mr. McCord's comments and representing the applicant in this case, that the condition deletions that we made and the addition that we added to this motion that the cost share component would be approved by the City Council would in no way kill this project and that the applicant was comfortable with that process and assuming that that is the case and we're not going on the scenario that Tim talked about earlier where he felt that this project could potentially die then I support this and I just want to get a validation on that. McCord: Yes. Estes: That was a yes from Mr. McCord and a nod from Ms. Sexton and a nod from Mr. Earnest, is that correct? Conklin: With regard to my opinion of what would happen,that's based on talking to the applicant's attorneys. That was not just my opinion. Estes: Any other discussion, any other comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 19 ROLL CALL: Estes: Upon the calling of roll FPL 01-7.00 passes unanimously with staff recommendations except deleting items seven and eight and to refer the contractual agre ment partially contained in Exhibit "A" to City Council for finalization for road improvements and to include all involved parties including WHM Investments. The motion to approve Final Plat 01-7 00 deleting conditions of approval seven and eight passes unanimously. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 20 CUP 01-24.00: Conditional Use (On Deck, pp 138) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Charles & Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Corner Plaza on Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.4 acres. The request is to build 18,200 sq.ft. building for indoor batting cages with retail sales. Estes: The next item of business to come before your Commission is a conditional use. It is Conditional Use 01-24.00 submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Charles & Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Corner Plaza on Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.4 acres. The request is for indoor batting cages a use Unit 4 in the C-1 district. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission approval of the accompanying large scale development for this project. 2. Screening shall be installed to the south and west as noted on the large scale development plans. 3. Any lighting installed shall be wall mounted, shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residential properties. Estes: Is the applicant present? Would you state your name please? If you have a presentation for us, please provide it. Carter: Yes, I'm Glenn Carter with Carter and Associates. Just briefly, what's already been stated. On Deck is a recreational facility. It is proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Calloway. It is a batting cage. It is in a neighborhood that is adjacent to the Athletic Club which is a similar use. We feel like it is compatible and we feel like it will be an asset to the community. I would entertain any questions you might have. Estes: Are there any questions for the applicant? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Seeing none, is there any member of the public who wishes to provide public comment on this conditional use request? • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 21 FULL COMMISSION COMMENTS: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Full Commission for comments, motions, discussion. Ward: I think this is a very fantastic entertainment and recreational type of activity that we can have out there on Zion Road I've talked to quite a few different T -Ball coaches and Little League coaches and so on. They've been going down to Fort Smith and other places like that to get into similar type of facilities so there must be a pretty large demand for this type of facility in Northwest Arkansas. I am looking forward to having it here so with that I will go ahead and make a motion to approve CUP 01-24 for the request for indoor batting cages in a C-1 district with the three recommendations. Estes: Your motion incorporates each of the findings of fact? Ward: Yes, each of the findings. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve Conditional Use request 01-24. Is there a second? Hoffman: Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Ho Ilan, is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 01-24 and a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Any discussion, any comments? Marr: Has there been any communication from the surrounding area to the City? Any concerns on this project at all? Conklin: No. Estes: Any further comments or discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call CUP 01-24.00: Conditional Use passed unanimously. 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Thank you. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 22 LSD 01-31.00: Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Charles & Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Corner Plaza on Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.4 acres. The request is to build an 18,200 sq.ft.. building for indoor batting cages with retail sales. Estes: The next item is the companion item, LSD 01-31.00 submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Charles and Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Corner Plaza on Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.4 acres. The request is to build an 18,200 sq.ft. building. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No, we don't. Estes: The first condition of approval ofPlanning Commission approval of a conditional use for a recreational use facility, a use unit 4 in a C-1 zoning district. Condition number 2 is Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards. Condition number 3 is the landscape administrator shall review and approve the proposed screening shown along the southern property line to determine the appropriate species of education required for adequate screening. Condition number 4, plat review and subdivision comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. Five, staff approval of final detailed plan, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, public and private, sidewalks, parking lot 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 the City's current requirements. Condition of approval number 6, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minnnum ten foot green space along Zion Road. Condition number 7, large scale development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Condition number 8, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Condition number 9, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required Drainage and drains permit, separate easement plat for this project, project disc with all final revisions and completion of all required improvements or placement ofa surety with the City as required by UDO §15801. Is the applicant present? Carter: I'm Glenn Carter representing the applicant. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 23 Estes: Ok, Mr. Carter do you have a presentation for us on this requested large scale development? Carter: Basically the same thing I said before. I have nothing further. We do incidentally, agree with the conditions of approval and we apologize ifthere was some failure in transmitting that to the office but we do agree with those conditions. Estes: Thank you Mr. Carter PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development 01-31.00? FULL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Full Commission for comments, discussion and motions. Ward: I would like the applicant to discuss with us a little bit about the commercial design standards, the colors, materials being used and so on. Parrish: My name is Jack Parrish, I'm with the general contractor that is working with Mr. Calloway there. I would be glad to answer any questions. Ward: Here's my only comment, I made it at subdivision also. The north elevation which is along Zion Road looks great. We're going to be able to see a lot of the west side especially where all the parking is. Also, the east side. I still have some concerns about that. If you put a little bit of different color on it helped some, and the columns look a little better, but I still think that using some other materials like split face block and use a little bit ofbrick. You put up a couple of little canopies over the doors which will help some, but it is still a fairly long unarticulated wall. It is going to be easily viewed from up and down Zion. The Fayetteville Athletic Center, it is supposed to be kind of in relationship with it, although, I know it has nothing to do with it business wise or anything. If you go out and look at it, it's split face block, it's got a lot ofbrick, a lot of articulation. A lot of different colors and so on. This one really doesn't do that especially on the west side where I am really kind of worried about what it looks like. I'm fine with everything else, but I would like to see a little more done. Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 24 Parrish: Of course we would like to do whatever it takes to have this approved. The addition of the accented base which adds some additional depth as well as the articulation across the top. They added a stepped paraphital on that side, we're all done with the intention of decreasing the flat area to give it more depth and more definition. With the idea that what we were doing would create some articulation without making it overstated. You know, sometimes a simple straight line is a different perspective and that's what the owner has attempted to do. If we need to go further with that, that's certainly something that we're willing to do. We had hoped that this, as a compromise, might be acceptable. Ward: In my case I really think there probably needs to be a little bit more done. 1 think that in this particular area of our city is some ofthe highest valued real estate and we expect a little bit more out there on Joyce Street and Zion Road and so on. I'm not sure even with the E.F.I.S. I see that they used different widths and so on, making bands with it and so on to change how it looks. I would like to see those walls on both sides a little bit more done with them. I can't tell you what to do, 1 am just saying that's the way I perceive it. Parrish: There is a depth, the base that we've added there is four inches deeper and then it comes up and it has a capped top and it comes up and there are two, well actually three bands at the top. One is a color band and then there are two steps in depth that come back out to match the depth of the base. The columns were made deeper to match the accent of the additional base there. Ward: I'm totally for the project, I think it's a great project and I think it is much needed for the area but 1 just think that we have got to be very careful out there in that area I would like to have maybe some other comments. Maybe I'm way off base. Hoover: Perhaps what you would like to see is a continuation ofthis roof line wrapped around that corner here on the east side and some fenestration so that it looked like this north elevation at least for the first half of the building perhaps. Ward: Anything like that would break it up a lot. I hate to get into recommending. I don't think that's our job to recommend certain materials or colors or anything else. I do feel like it needs just a little bit more done to it. Like I said, I'm excited about the project. Parrish: I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear Ms. Hoover's comments. Hoover: 1 was suggesting the possibility of continuing that roof line that you've got on the north elevation, both of those roof lines to wrap around the corner there and continue on back and also continue the same fenestration along the side. I'm not concerned about the east • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 25 elevation because there is that other center there that comes up that really gets pretty close to the setback. Definitely the west elevation is going to be seen since the parking lot is there. Is that a possibility to continue that line, those elements? Parrish: There is a space constraint in duplicating that canopy, the roof line around the side. It would extend out over the parking lot. Hoover: Can it go the other way and drop back into the building? I don't know what is inside the building right there. Rather than extending the building out with the roof it could drop back in. I too don't want to get into the design of the building but I'm just trying to help out here. Parrish: That would get into a pretty complicated structural issue. We had avoided using heavy brittle finishes because ofthe subsurface problems that we have identified since subdivision. Ward: The things that you've done are all improvements since subdivision, it's just that it is still a long wall, especially that upper part there on the west side. Marr: 1 completely agree with Commissioner Ward. I think that while it is an improvement from a large, blank, unarticulated wall itis not far enough for me to feel comfortable that it meets the standard. I really don't know that I want to get into design in here right now so unless we have some recommendations from the applicant on how to do that. When we were first looking at it I too thought about the split face block or something on the bottom part and maybe making that a stronger band across before you went into the E.F.I.S. or something of that nature. While I support the need for it, I think the area is growing, I would not vote for this based upon the current design. Hoffman: Sometimes we've used landscaping in lieu of building materials to break up surfaces and I'm not trying to lead you. Parrish: That is something that I had considered suggesting and that is something that we would like to do especially on the east side of the building partly as an attempt to screen the adjacent shopping center that was built prior to the existing commercial design standards. Hoffman: What kind of landscaping were you talking about? Parrish: Some type of vegetative screen. That is something that we have intended to talk with Kim about. This is something that would be more in front of what we're building. • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 26 Hoffman: Have you considered adding any kind of containers on the west side of the building along the sidewalk? You don't have many landscape islands as it is. Parrish: I think that is something that we can do. I was just trying to think if we could locate some taller trees in that area, that might do something nice there. Conklin: I would just like to ask Mr. Parrish a question. Yes, you can't move the building out, but what about a covered walkway using the same roof line over the sidewalk, taking that lower one down the side of the building. I don't know architecturally how that is going to work. That may be a solution where you're not obstructing, you're not losing any space. Like a shopping center covered walkway idea. Just throwing that out as an idea. Hoover: Maybe how we ought to think ofthis as that this west elevation needs to be equal to the north elevation. We can sit here forever and try to design this and that is not going to work. Estes: Our purpose is not to micro manage an applicant's project. One of our purposes is to find that there is conformity with the commercial design standards and of those five elements one is to avoid large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I agree entirely with Commissioner Ward's comments which I think have been well stated by Commissioner Marr and others. We are not here to micro manage your project. I could not vote for this requested LSD as it is presented this evening because I do not believe it complies with the commercial design standards. Parrish: One thing that we can do, there is a finish that is made with the E.F.I.S. product that gives the appearance of brick. Now we could use that lower band with this type of material. It can be done, they have a pattern that looks like brick, one that looks like a native stone, something that looks like the castle stone. It is not something that adds a substantial weight to the foundation. Estes: Are there any motions, discussions? Commissioners. Ward: In order not to hold the project up forever, I would probably make a motion to approve it with the idea that the final commercial design standards come back to the Subdivision Committee if you all would give us a chance to approve it at that level what their designs are. It is the north elevation which is on the road, looks great to me, I don't think it needs to be changed too much. On the west side, l just think it needs more articulation or something done to it. I was the one that brought it up at the subdivision and there have been some changes to it but still I don't believe it is where we need it to be to meet our • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 27 standards especially in this area. I would approve it at this level if we could approve it with the idea that the final commercial design standards have to be approved at subdivision. If we didn't agree at that then it would have to be sent back up here again. Estes: Let me ask Mr. Conklin this. This is a request for a LSD, a large scale development, and one finding that we must make is the commercial design standard. Can we? Conklin: I guess the applicant is at risk if he starts his project, it's going up and being built and we don't let him open the business up because we never came to a conclusion on our commercial design standards. I think he is fairly close to meeting those standards with all of your Commissioners but I hate to delay him too ifhe is ready to start his project grading. Estes: - I guess what my specific question was is it is possible to approve a LSD and then defer back to subdivision on the commercial design standards? Must we not make a specific finding of fact ifthis meets the commercial design standards before we approve it as a large scale development? • Conklin: I would think you would make it subject to approval by the Subdivision Committee for the commercial design standards. We have done that in the past on signs, that's kind of a procedure we've used. I would not want to do that if it was a metal building we were looking at and we didn't make any progress from Technical Plat Review to Planning Commission and we were still arguing and debating how the building looks. In this situation, the applicant has told me personally that he is going to do whatever it takes to meet our design standards. I told him two months ago don't bring a metal building to the Planning Commission and he has attempted not to do that. He is willing to work with us. • Marr: I don't want to hold the project up either but I'm not really comfortable with beginning these processes where one of the key findings that we do on this which is the commercial design standards is something that we approve contingent to being looked at later. I mean that is just my personal opinion on it. Therefore, I wouldn't support the motion on that. I believe it is a very good project, I believe it is very doable. I think it needs more work on meeting the unarticulated large blank wall requirement. It seems to me that if we would have had something to consider or actual design changes that we were having presented to us, it would be one thing but I'm not comfortable just approving it and leaving it as a blank item to be looked at. Hoffman: I tend to go back to other projects that we've done in similar manners. It is the center with the Harps in it on 45 and 265, it had to be brought back to Subdivision and to Planning Commission a bunch oftimes because they couldn't get their design worked out but they Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 28 Marr: were allowed to start construction and to me it is a facade. There is a lot of work to go before the facade is put on. I would think in terms ofthe construction sequencing certainly a trip back to Subdivision Committee whom I trust to be representative ofthe feelings of the entire Commission because we've got a good spectrum on there. I wouldn't really have any problem with it, if they couldn't agree on it then they could send it back to us. This could be during construction. Whatever that, what's the name ofthat development? Glenwood Shopping Center, I guess they went through three different design changes before settling on one and it didn't seem to hold them up. I don't disagree with you, I think it is actually, I mean I will support it if that is what we need to do. I don't want to create a habit where everything that comes through is always going back for the main thing that we're here to look at. Shackelford: If Commissioner Hoffman's wasn't a second then I will go ahead and second Commissioner Ward's motion for approval subject to the designs being looked at by Subdivision. Estes: Commissioner Shackelford, the chair has not recognized a motion, is there a motion? Ward: I'll go ahead and recommend LSD 01-31 Large Scale Development for On Deck, the Large Scale Development, with final approval of the commercial design standards coming back to the Subdivision Committee meeting and if for some reason we can not approve them there, we'll send them back to this Full Planning Commission. I think that we're very close to getting them approved, I just think there are some things that need to be added to that on the west side. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-31.00, is there a second? Shackelford: Mr. Chair, I will second that and apologize, I thought the motion was on the table. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-31.00 and a second by Mr. Shackelford. Mr. Shackelford, did I interrupt you? Shackelford: I just had a couple of comments to make. I understand Commissioner Marr's position on this. I wouldn't be in support of it if we were a long ways apart in what the Commission is looking for and what the applicant is proposing. I think we're pretty close on this project. I think that extending the front of the building from the north side down the west side would be cost prohibitive and would encourage the Subdivision Committee to look at either additional vegetation screening or the covered walkway that Mr. Conklin • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 29 recommended. I think both of those would be satisfactory as far as I'm concerned to break up this unarticulated wall. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Any other discussion? Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: Just a clerical item here on the findings on page 5.1 in the last sentence it says the requirement in an R-0 zone is 20% and that is speaking of tree canopy however, in the project statement it says the property is zoned C-1. Can we get that clarified? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: The applicant apparently willing to provide 20% canopy, is that requirement in C-1 or is it 15%? Conklin: I should know this from the tree ordinance discussions we've been talking about. In a C-1 zoning district the requirement is 20%, the same as R-0. Bunch: So basically we need to say the requirement is C-1 instead of R-0 in that last sentence. Conklin: Yes, P11 make that change. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-31.00 and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any other discussion or comment? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll the motion to approve LSD 01-31.00 was approved 8-1-0. Estes: The motion to approve LSD 01-31.00 passes by a vote of eight to one with Commissioner Estes opposed. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 30 ADM 01-38.00: Administrative Item (Hickman, pp 601) was submitted by Craig Hull ofNickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Daryl Hickman for property located at the southwest corner of 15`h Street and S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.92 acres. The request is to reduce the Commercial Design Standard requirement of 15' landscaping along front property lines. Estes: The next item is an administrative item, it is ADM 01-38.00. It was submitted by Craig Hull ofNickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Daryl Hickman for property located at the southwest corner of 15`h Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1 07 acres. The request is to reduce the commercial design standard requirement of 15' landscaping along front property lines. Staff recommends approval of the reduction along 15`h Street subject to the conditions of approval and denial of the requested reduction along S. School Avenue. Do we have signed conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Is the applicant present? Hull: Yes Sir. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make to us? If so, would you state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation please? Hull: My name is Craig Hull and I represent Daryl Hickman in the efforts to develop a car lot at the comer of 15`h Street and School in south Fayetteville. The applicant has agreed to dedicate right-of-way that is gigantic in proportion to the lot since it is a corner lot and it is on two arterial streets. There is a 25' additional right-of-way dedication on 15`h Street which constitutes a huge amount of available property to the applicant as well as an additional 5' along South School Avenue. The request before you is to squeeze not the right-of-way, we have exceeded to the dedications but rather to reduce the green space requirement inside the sidewalk to go along 15`h Street from 15' additional footage to 5' and on the side on School Street to reduce it from 15' to 8' and we did confirm with the engineer since the last agenda session about the 8' perimeter. I also submitted some calculations for the total square footage and it appears that we're in the process of dedicating over 8,600 square feet of green space will be availability between the curb and the sidewalk around this project. Additionally, another 7,254 feet of green space in the perimeter of the facility. So we're talking about 15,000 sq.ft. of green space in a project that is just barely an acre. In due deference to the staffs recommendation we ask you to • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 31 override their recommendation about the denial on School Street so we can make it work and still do a tasteful job of landscaping. We understand the conditions and have agreed with the Highway Departments details with their right-of-way concerns as well as Ms. Hesse and her tree ordinance requirements that we're fixing to do with landscaping and planning on saving a big tree. If there are questions, I'm here. Estes: Are there any questions? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Seeing none, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested administrative item 01-38.00? FULL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: I bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, motions. Commissioners. Marr. Question for Tim or Dawn. The recommendation for the denial of the South School reduction, could you speak to that other than why in reading through it that it is typically required, is there any other reason other than the president of prior projects? Conklin: With regard to the difference why we're supporting 15`h and not School Street. With regard to 15`h Street, there is a 15' right-of-way dedication already that is going to be required which is going to provide a much larger green area, landscaped area between the street and the car lot. On School Street there was only a 5' dedication. Staff recommended denial on that based on other projects that we've seen on this side of town where we have required the landscaping. Probably the most recent one is the Castle Rental Center on Highway 62 or Sixth Street. We're trying to be consistent with regard to what our developers do on our landscaping and our recommendations and therefore, thought that because this piece of property is vacant right now it is primarily a need based on how many cars they want to place on this lot to sell and they could accommodate that 15' of landscaping on School Street so that is why we made that recommendation. Hoffman: 1 have a question for staff, if the parking lot were redesigned for angled spaces, could the applicant get the same number of spaces that he is requestingjust by angling the parking so he wouldn't have to have as wide of a back up aisle? Conklin: Staff has not done that analysis but we did ask the applicant to look at that if they did use • one way aisles within a display area instead of the standard 24' backup area behind the Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 32 parking spaces. Potentially you might be able to achieve some more landscaping up front, I'm not sure if you can get the fifteen. Hoffman: I'm sorry, I missed the last part of your sentence. Conklin: I said that you potentially could get the additional landscaping up on South School Street, I'm not sure that you would achieve the 15' that is required even with angled parking. Hull: • That's where we came up with 8', we struggled greatly and then went back into several iterations with the engineer to try to come up with a way to fit the desired and required number of inventory spaces on the lot to accomplish...this is a big, expensive endeavor by our client to do this project and if he squeezes it too small then it doesn't make a justification for the investment. We really did squeeze it and we worked closely with Ms. Hesse as well as far as making sure we could accommodate the trees and if we can't make it work under the conditions that we're operating under for the Highway Department and her, we're back to square one anyway. We do need this early, the reason we did this now was to come and try to figure out if this is, normally it would be a variance if it were ordinary setback requirements. Because of large scale and commercial design it is not a variance, it's an administrative item I guess. Essentially, this is what we need to know before we go to all the heavy engineering. Hoffman: Sure, and I applaud you for doing it because it is really easier this way for everybody. I'm sure I'm asking you stuff you've already thought about but could you put the compact cars on that side? Hull: Yes Ma'am, we've squeezed. We're talking about 7' of difference between your 15' requirement and what we're proposing and that 7 is virtually a half of a compact car so we're losing a whole line. If we go the full distance we're losing a whole lot of cars on that lot. Visually it lines up linear with the other properties up and down School Street, we're going to be so far back anyway. The tree that you see in the plans, people park in front of it out toward the street when it was a fruit stand. It's just a gigantic space that we're going to create a new green space outside the property on the street side. It will be a big improvement to south Fayetteville. Hoffman: One more question, have you talked with Ms. Hesse then about ifthis is approved about adding additional low profile landscaping in front of the School Street side? Hull: Yes Ma'am. • • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 33 Hoffman: Like a lot of it? Hull: We're talking to her on all that stuffbefore we come back to large scale so that this works. Conklin: Staff has also talked with Ms. Hesse and made sure that everybody understands that there will be trees out in front of this car dealership that staff will be recommending. Now they may be grouped, but we do not expect any waiver request for no trees in front of this development. Hoffman: I'm talking about even more dense on the lower bushes. Conklin: That was another staff concern that if you did grant both waivers or even one then there would be the argument that you can't plant anything in front of the cars. So, we've put everybody on notice that staff will be enforcing those commercial design standards. Marr. Hull: Marr: Hull: Just a question for the applicant, I want to make sure I understood your last comment in answer to Commissioner Hoffman. Of the 15' requirement and knowing that you're wanting that 8 or 7? We're trying to waive 7 on School Street. Did you look at any? Is that the absolute maximum number, I mean did eight work or nine work or ten work verses something more than seven but less than fifteen? Essentially, eight is what works, we could possibly have angled it some other way where one end was nine and a half and the other one was five but that is messing up the linear. I mean, we really wiggled with it a lot and Jorgenson has got a file this thick already on this project. Marr: Question for Tim. Is there any I guess knowledge or do we anticipate any expansion of South School Street that would create a problem for any type ofright-of-way dedication? Conklin: Not at this time. I think development has been fairly stable in that area and traffic numbers have significantly been reduced with the opening of 1540 and taking that traffic offof 71 where they used to come up through Greenland so I can't imagine anytime in the near future where the Highway Department is going to come in and improve that intersection. Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 34 MOTION Marr. I think it is important that we facilitate reinvestment in this part oftown and I certainly think it is a good project. I typically want to support staff recommendations but I do believe in this case that based on the answer to the last question, the likelihood for right-of-way need for road expansion, etc. I don't see it being a big issue right now. I would like to move for approval of Administrative Item 01-38.00 subject to the five conditions of approval and allowing the reduction of the 15' landscaped areas to 5' along 15' Street and to the 8' along South School. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve Administrative Item 01-38.00 granting the requested waiver. Is there a second? Hoffman: I'll second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any discussion or any comments? Hoffman: Yes Mr. Chair. It has to come back for large scale development? Hull: Yes. Hoffman: I realize that this a conceptual plan, these spaces don't appear to me to be like you have a 19' dimension on one on the opposite side and one on the south side the spaces on the east side aren't dimensioned and they look the same. Maybe during large scale you could still tweak this a little bit and see if we can get some more green space, knowing that you can go forward with the design if this passes. Marr: Estes: 1 want to make one other thing clear in my motion is that I don't anticipate nor would I support when it comes through for large scale development any variance on not having trees. 1 want to make that very clear for the record right now. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve Administrative Item 01-38.00 granting the requested variance and a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Commissioner Hoover, did you have a comment? Hoover: Yes, I had a question for staff. Where will the sidewalk be on both sides here on 71? Is it going to be right along the curb? Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 35 Conklin: It is going to be right at the edge of the right-of-way. That line that is heavy line, that's about 25' in off of 15th Street and maybe another 15' off School. Hoover: So it won't be next to the edge as typically done with the Highway Department? Conklin: No, if you look at some of our recent developments that have gone in, Blockbuster Video, Castle Rental Center, they go in and pull their sidewalk backup off the curb. Our master street plan standard is 10' off the curb. We encourage developers to put it at the edge of the right-of-way even if it is more than 10' to have pedestrians further back off the minor arterial and principal arterial streets in Fayetteville. Hoover: And that will be a 6' sidewalk? Conklin: Yes, a 6' sidewalk. Estes: Any other discussion, comments, questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll the motion to approve ADM 01-38.00 along with staff recommendations and granting the reduction of the 15' landscaped areas to 5' along 15`h Street and to the 8' along South School passes unanimously. Estes: The motion to approve Administrative item 01-38.00 with the two requested waivers passes unanimously. Thank you. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 36 CUP 01-23.00: Conditional Use (Brandon, pp 100) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc. for property located in the proposed Copper Creek subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 34.34 acres. The request is to build a private swimming pool with dressing rooms for the property owners association. Estes: The next item is a Conditional Use. It is Conditional Use 01-23 submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located in the proposed Copper Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and contains approximately 34.34 acres. The request is to build a private swimming pool with dressing rooms for the Property Owner's Association. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. Mr. Conklin do we have signed conditions of approval? Warrick: We do. Estes: Is the applicant present? Moore: I am Brian Moore with Engineering Services representing Mr. Brandon who is also here tonight and we will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Warrick. I would like to correct an omission in the staff report before you start talking about it. Estes: Certainly, what is that? Warrick: On page 7.6 the first finding on that page, there are some words left out of the end of it. It should state "One sign for the Copper Creek Subdivision is located on this project site. The sign location was originally approved at the time of Preliminary Plat." Estes: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant's representative or the applicant? Marr: At agenda session we talked a little bit about the fencing around the pool, what type it was, how high it was for safety reasons, screening, etc. Could you speak to that? • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 37 Moore: Yes Sir. Right now it is proposed to be a wrought iron fence. As to the privacy, we could put a privacy fence or landscape, we're kind of open on either. Either way, on the north and I think it was west side. Marr: What is the height? Moore: Whatever the code is, four or five feet. Estes: Commissioners, with regard to the comment by Commissioner Marr, I would not want to see a solid privacy fence because ofthe safety issues. Fencing and screening around a pool should allow for open visibility in the event that there is a potential drowning. Any other questions to the applicant or the applicant's representative? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Seeing none, is there any member ofthe public who would like to provide public comment on this requested conditional use? FULL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Full Commission for discussion, comments, motions. Bunch: I would like to address something we spoke of at agenda session. I would like to add a condition of approval since this is in a subdivision and hopefully there will be families and children and adults exercising. Can we add the condition to add some bike racks to the parking area of the pool? I will yield to staff. I know that bike racks are usually kicked in by numbers of parking places in larger commercial establishments, but since this is a conditional use, do you have any recommendation as to how many bike racks we should require at this location? Conklin: We talked about requiring two bicycle racks. Two racks would allow four bicycles to be locked up to those racks. Dust want to clarify too that I would like to have them meet our city standards for bicycle racks, so there is no confusion what a bicycle rack is. I don't want them to just go out there and put something in that is not to city standard. Estes: Commissioners, I would like to see a condition of approval either added or number six amended that there will not be a solid privacy fence and that screening material will now obstruct the full view of the pool area. Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 38 Hoffman: I agree. I brought that up at agenda and I think it is important. Estes: Any other comments or discussions? Any motions? MOTION Bunch: I move that we approve Conditional Use CUP 01-23.00 with the two additional conditions of approval One is the addition of bike racks and the other is the limitation on the fencing to where it has visibility for safety purposes. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve Conditional Use 01-23.00 is there a second? Marr: Estes: Second. We have a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any discussion? Any other comments? Any questions for Mr. Conklin? Renee, would you call the roll pleases) • ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 01-23.00 with the two additional conditions of approval passes unanimously 9-0-0. Estes: The motion to approve Conditional Use CUP 01-23 passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. • • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 39 Master Parks Plan Estes: The next and last item on our agenda is the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This master planning document was approved on April 26, 2001 by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The Parks and Recreation Division seeks approval of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan presented in the executive summary which has been provided to you. Upon receiving approval from this Planning Commission and City Council, the Parks and Recreation Division will utilize the Master Plan as an educational resource. Who is going to present on behalf of the Parks Department? Edmonston: Connie and Eric Schuldt. Estes: Estes: Schuldt: Do you need some time to set up visual aids? Lets take a five minute break and then we'll reconvene. Thank you. For the presentation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, we're missing Commissioner Shackelford, but lets go forward, I'm sure he'll join us in a moment. Hi, I'm Eric Schuldt, Parks Development Coordinator for the Parks and Recreation Division. First thing that I would like to do is to make a couple of introductions. We have four members of our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board here. Wade Caldwell, Bob Shoulders, Gail Eves and Mike Hill. We also have a couple of staff members, Terry Gulley our facilities coordinator and Steve Hatfield, our new Parks Landscape Architect who will be responsible for trails and greenways in the City of Fayetteville, and of course Connie Edmonston, our Parks Superintendent. What we would like to do tonight is provide for you a shortened version of the presentation that you all saw about sixty days ago at the Genesis Engineering Building of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a ten year master plan that was developed by Lose & Associates, a planning firm out of Nashville, Tennessee. The team at Lose & Associates was comprised of their staff and they also hired two consultants who had experience in parks and recreation. One was George Brogdon from Germantown, Tennessee and the other was Marvin Billops from the east coast Baltimore Parks and Recreation who was heavily involved in the NRPA. One of the reasons we chose Lose & Associates because of this experience with the consultants. They had actual experience in Parks and Recreation and complimented with the planning of Lose & Associates, we felt like they were a good firm. They have also completed many master plans throughout the south. They are experienced with similar size communities as Fayetteville. The first thing that 1 would like to do is talk about the rational for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. One of the reasons why we needed a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, an • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 40 updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The first one was done by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission in 1994. Our master plan in 2001 is an updated version of that. Whereas the update was needed because of the steady growth within Fayetteville. From 1990 to 1999 Fayetteville experienced a 36% growth in population from approximately 42,000 to 58,000. We've also seen nationally and locally, changing trends in recreation. We've seen a renewed interest in urban trails, an interest in individualized sports such as frisbee golf, skateboarding. Un upswing in soccer participation. This last week we started a program with over 1,000 soccer youth participants in the City of Fayetteville. The trend of fast pitch softball, which is new for the youth. Little girls used to participate in slow pitch but now all of the scholarships are in fast pitch, so girls are participating in fast pitch. As a department, Fayetteville Parks and Recreation has to deal with these recreation trends. We've also had increased demand. The citizens have asked for more trails and greenways, have asked for soccer fields, have asked for the development of neighborhood parks and improved maintenance. Another example of increased demand are the specialized sports such as frisbee golf. We had last month I believe a group come to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and ask to build a frisbee golf course. Consumer demand has changed for altemate recreation. Two things that pop into my mind as far as alternate recreation are skate parks and aquatic parks. Those are two trends that are happening on a national perspective. We're trying to address one ofthose in the skate park and the surrounding communities of Springdale and Prairie Grove have been addressing the aquatic parks. The key areas of study for the parks and recreation Master Plan were current and future staffing needs. They looked at what kind ofstaff we currently have, how many staffpeople, our experience, our education and what we need in the future to be able to continue to grow and provide services. Some of the recommendations that they made in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was the trails and greenways coordinator, a park planning supervisor who would be responsible for overseeing construction, somebody that would have construction experience on our staff. Additional clerical staff and maintenance staff. Those two things that clerical and maintenance staff, we're short and we struggle to keep up sometimes. They made some recommendations to get us up to speed. They looked at our organization and staff responsibilities, how we were organized, and what responsibilities our staff were doing. Program opportunities, what type of programs were desired by the community that we didn't offer. Most ofthose program opportunities that they looked at were special events. What kind of special events could we offer that the citizens want. Facility needs, what facilities are missing in the City of Fayetteville. An example, one of the things they said we were short on was pavilions that we could use more pavilions for our family reunions, reunions, business outings, those type of things. They went to everyone of our parks, fifty- five parks and looked at each one according to age, condition, accessibility, safety, maintenance and what park amenities were offered. They looked at how much cost Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 41 improvements would be and they looked at a land base as far as an assessment of our land. I provided a map with you all tonight that kind of gives an example of Parks and Recreation land and the service areas that our parks provide. Different size parks provide for different service areas. Some parks provide a quarter mile service area, some provide half mile, some larger. That map represents the service areas that we currently have in our parks system. What allied provider agreements do we have? We have a lot of agreements, which the master planners said we have a lot of agreements with different user groups and that is good, it benefits us and it benefits the user groups. We have arrangements with the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club. We strive on not duplicating programs with the Walton Arts Center. Not that we have an agreement with the Walton Arts Center, but they provide fine arts for the community, we do not. In some communities that is all comprehensive under Parks and Recreation so we are very unique in that way but I think it is a good thing for our community. Under methodology, the different ways that they studied us, they did it through community input, organizational analysis, park land analysis, program analysis, facility analysis, and they looked at our funding and budget and then they made recommendations. The thing about this Park Master Plan that we take a lot of pride in, and I think we really strived to do it well, was community input. It was one of the reasons we hired this firm and it is one of the things that we worked with them on strongly to reach out to the public to find out what their needs and desires were. Lose & Associates did interviews with park staff from Connie to all administrative staff to our park maintenance staff, they did interviews with other city staff members, with Tim and the Mayor, and the administrative staff and the engineers. They did interviews individually with each one of our Parks and Recreation Advisory Boards, they did interviews with every member on the City Council. They also did interviews with community leaders, members of the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and the Walton Arts Center. They also conducted a survey of Fayetteville citizens, roughly 5,900 citizens were sent the survey, approximately 1,300 were returned back. They held an all day steering committee workshop of forty-seven citizens which represented a diverse group of individuals that represented user groups or interested citizens. If anybody wanted to be involved in that all day workshop sent us a letter, we invited them to that all day workshop. That steering committee helped commit that mission statement that was in our cover letter. We also held ten public meetings, we had two public meetings in each of the four park quadrants, that was eight and we had two additional public meetings. They presented to you all about sixty days ago an informational session at the City Council. We go excellent press coverage during the Master Planning process. So ifthere is a strength of this master plan, I believe it is the community input that we got on it. Organizational analysis, again, they reviewed the structure of the city, how it was organized and made some recommendations. Again, they wanted to make sure that the skills, the education, the experience of the staff was matching to needs where they looked at consolidating some • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 42 things and some organizations for efficiency. Community priorities, these are very important. These are what Lose & Associates recommends as a community priorities out ofthe Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This list was generated from interviews, the surveys, the steering committee and the public meetings. It s accumulation ofa bunch of different sources. They recommend the construction of city wide green way network. Preservation of green space and open space, providing more community parks, providing more neighborhood parks and multi sports complex. Increasing the safety in our parks, increasing program diversity and eliminating duplication. What that last one means is eliminating one agency doing the same program that another is doing. The next map 1 would like to show you is of our park land distribution as it currently exists. We have fifty- five parks. Again, it is 2,500 acres of land, 739 acres of water. As you can see, our park quadrants, we have four, and then the north, south dividing line is business 71, the east west is Wedington and then 45 going out. In our four park quadrants, both of our park quadrants on the west side of town, north and south are deficient of park land. NAPA recommends 10.5 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. On the east side of town we're way over on park land. In the Northeast park quadrant we're over 131 acres. In the Southeast park quadrant we're 1,645 acres in the plus Some of that is a reflection of these big regional parks which are Lake Fayetteville, Lake Sequoyah and Lake Wilson. They looked at our park land dedication ordinance. Overall they thought that our park land dedication ordinance was working well. Again, the City of Fayetteville has 55 acres of park land per 1,000 residents or 43 if you exclude the lake acreage. So you're considering 10.5 is the average, we have 55 acres, so we're very blessed in our parkland and we take pride in that. The two things they did ask us to look at the parkland dedication ordinance was to continue to update our averages of land cost and to reevaluate the acreage per unit. The last thing that I would like to talk briefly about, new facility and renovation needs. Provide greenways and trails, replace baseball facilities at Walker Park, one of the reasons that recommendation is on there, this is an older existing facility, 1 believe I played on that same facility when I was a child and it needs complete renovation or move it and start over. Provide required ADA access. This is a recommendation they said is in practically everyone ofthe master plans as the new guidelines in ADA. We need to continue to do that in our parks system. Create some design standards, one of the reasons they recommended a park planner was so that they could have somebody to oversee construction and get the same type of design standards in all of our buildings and structures that we put in our parks. Provide additional aquatic facilities. Develop a community park, a community park would be large acreage of land, preferably on the west side of town to try to anchor the four parts of our community. That would provide opportunities for trails, for athletic facilities, for maybe some green way opportunities, any type of recreational outlet you can imagine. They found that we were deficient in tennis courts, picnic shelters and other support facilities in the parks system, the main two again • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 43 Estes: Edmonston- being tennis courts and picnic shelters. Reduce maintenance by proper design, I think in the last couple of years we've started to do that with Terry on staff, we've tried to mulch some more around our trees so that our lawnmowers don't knick the trees and we can do a more efficient job of keeping the landscape maintained. Expand our administrative offices. The last two are about our offices and they recommended expanding those to meet our staffing needs. I think we just built two offices up in an upper loft so that we could put Steve into an office. We're getting tight down there and to make it more customer friendly. We have a thousand people signing up for soccer and we have 250 people coming in to sign up for softball teams, then we need a place that people feel comfortable coming to and we're kind of hidden away down in the south part of town. One of the other things they talked about is our location as a park office If we don't have the funds to move it then renovate, but if we could move it, they recommend to put it in a more feasible situation. That's basically all I have. Connie is going to come up and talk a little bit briefly about funding. Thank you Eric. The process of securing funds needed for facility improvements and those associated costs for operations and maintenance will truly be a challenge for us Currently we have received capital funds from two sources. That is our HMR, our hotel, motel, restaurant tax and also sales tax. Of course the yearly totals that we get from these vary from year to year depending upon our community's economic success. Currently, they do predict that the sales tax funds will go down in the next few years. Our anticipated HMR sales tax is at 1.1 million annually In addition, we do have a park land dedication fund which is for capital projects and also land acquisition which brings in approximately $136,000 a year That gives us a total figure annually of 1.28 million dollars for capital projects per year The number of capital improvements needed to bring out system in line with national standards and to meet community expectations is estimated at 34.8 million dollars. This Park Master Plan has outlined aplan that balances renovation, new parks and projects and facilities and also greenways. Our citizens have grown accustomed to quality facilities and they demand innovative improvements from our Parks and recreation system. I am going to outline three primary funding options that Lose & Associates has given us. Option one is to continue the funding at the current level with no debt service which is at about 1.28 million dollars per year. Ok, our master plan includes 15.3 million in existing facilities, renovations and expansion which would take us with our current funding about twelve years to complete. In addition we have 5.1 million dollars in green way development, so that is going to be up to sixteen years Then we add another 14.3 million for new facilities and park development which add another eleven years. So it would take • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 44 a total of31 years to complete this Park Master Plan. Ifthe City does choose this choice the priorities for improvements are as follows: 1. Green way development 2. Develop neighborhood parks 3. ADA and playground safety improvements 4. Athletic field safety improvements 5. Additional tennis courts and pavilions Option two is a bond program and this is a common method used for major capital projects in the Parks and Recreation field throughout the United States. The advantage of this bond program is the ability to fund large projects over a short time period while spreading the project's total cost over a period of time. Using our yearly capital funding of 1.28 million dollars, we could obtain a fifteen year bond which would • • allow for 11.56 million in capital projects over the next three years. The total bond amount with a 6% interest which might be a little bit high would be around 19 million dollars. This approach allows citizens to utilize safer more modem and operational friendly park facilities in addition to having an interconnecting green way throughout our city within the next three years. With due facilities sooner there is a potential for increased revenues generated, a reduction in the maintenance with new facilities and renovated facilities and a savings of 3-5% annually in inflation costs for up to six years. The drawback to a bond program is the high cost of interest for at best a five to six year gain. A 19 million dollar bond allows for 11.5 million dollars in improvements over three years with the repayment period of fifteen years. Comparatively, spending 1.28 million per year as in option one would accomplish the same goal in nine years as opposed to fifteen years. Ifthe city should choose this option, the priorities would be green way development, phase 1 of the new community park ADA and playground safety improvements, tennis courts and pavilions and develop neighborhood parks. The third option is special funding through a combination ofdedicated sales tax and millage income. Currently the city has a one cent tax levied to the library which expires March of2002. It generates about 12 million dollars a year. The City hopes to retain 3/4 of the cent to fund the new waste water treatment plant. Lose & Associates recommend to keep that quarter cent from the one cent originally we had for funding of parks or to retire park bond. In addition, they would like to dedicate tax millage to parks and recreation. The city generates $530,000 per mill so as you all know, two mills has been dedicated to the construction ofthe new Senior Citizens Center which retires in December of this year. If we extend the mill for two more years, we would get 1.06 million dollars. Then we add our current funding of 1.28 for a total of 5.3 million. This, with the supplement in sales tax dollars would allow us to complete our recommended improvements in ten years or less without using a bond. Lose & Associates does recommend that this is the most cost effective option for meeting the immediate needs ofthe community as it requires no increase in taxes, it is just to shift the tax programs that are currently in place. Now there are some other funding sources that we can look at. One is increasing our fees and charges. Another is increasing the impact fees on new construction possibly through our park land dedication ordinance. • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 45 Through impact or development fees to cover park facility development through impact fees on nonresidential development or through exactions in which developers would be required to build improvements thus benefitting the public rather than being charged fees. Zoning changes that promote preservation of open spaces could be looked at such as density bonus for open space preservation and conservation district zoning. We always look at public and private partnerships and also grants. We have a lot of challenges that we have for the next three years and some of those key ones are funding are citizen's priorities, developing a green way system, replacing the baseball facilities at Walker Park, meeting staffand operation funding needs, consolidation of staff to improve efficiency, meeting maintenance needs through smart design, improve agreements with allied recreational pride providers and nonprofit groups and staffing. As we all know there are many long term benefits of having a successful Parks and Recreation system in our community including the social, economic, personal and environmental. The quality oflife of our community can definitely be enhanced by providing a healthy park immigration system. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and park staff recommend your approval of the concepts that we have presented to you in the Park Master Plan. The Master Plan will be a guide to the development of new parks facilities and recreation programs. Do I have any questions? Estes: Thank you Connie. Commissioners, are there any questions for Eric and Connie at this time? Hoover: I would like to ask Connie ifwe approve the plan I guess what are the next steps to decide which funding option to go with? What happens next? Edmonston: That will need to go back to our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and then they will recommend and go back to the City Council for their approval. We need to decide what course we need to take. Did I answer that? Hoover: I guess there are just a lot of ifs in here. It is really hard to approve something ifwe don't know exactly what we're approving. I understand the concept of approving the whole plan but I am just wondering how the decision will be made as to how much money will be spent or how it is spent I guess is the question, I'm still confused. Edmonston: Of course there will need to be a decision made as to which option we feel would be best for our community and that would have to be taken to the City Council to know do they want to use option one, stay as we are, or go to option two or three. As we all know plans are only a plan, a guiding tool, nothing is in concrete with this plan. Hoover: So it is the City Council who would ultimately make the decision then? • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 46 Edmonston: Yes, well, if it goes to vote if we go for a bond or a millage or anything Anything that would have to go to vote would ultimately go back to the public. Estes: Thank you Connie. Conklin: One other thing about this Master Plan that I think is important and the question was asked at our agenda session, how do you use this as a Commission? Looking at the power point presentation this evening and in your executive summary, one of the first things that shows up in the top ten projects for park and recreation is development of a green way and trails system. You as a Commission look at development every two weeks and you are the final authority on whether or not a developer dedicates land or money and we have always worked closely with parks and our sidewalk and trails coordinator to make sure that as we look at development that we ensure that we can develop a system of green ways and trails in Fayetteville and l think that is one ofthe number one priorities that this master plan has come up with. I think it is important that as a Commission you are making a recommendation with regard to this plan to adopt it and forward it on. One of those guiding policies and goals is that the City of Fayetteville develop a green way and trails plan and I think we're on our way to doing that. Thank you. Bunch: Since we normally don't look at financial data and funding and that sort ofthing. I think it might clarify our mission here if we delete any references to financial planning and bonding and that sort ofthing and look at this primarily as a concept and compare it maybe to a 20/20 plan or a Master Street Plan of trails and green ways. Those are the things with which we deal. Only address those portions of this documents. Of course this is just an executive summary of a large document that is quite lengthy but we only address those portions of it which are within our jurisdiction and we can recommend to the City Council what portions of it that we feel are in our grasp. Things like historical data and census like are included in the 20/20 plan. Size location, interconnection of parks dedications, those type of things and then we would use it as a working document as well as the Parks Department using it as a working document again, like the 20/20 plan and the Master Street Plan. That being said, 1 will move that we approve. Estes: Commissioner Bunch, lets do it this way. Commissioners if we have any further questions of Enc or Connie and then lets have an opportunity for public comment and then let me bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments and motions. So, do we have any other questions that perhaps Connie or Eric could answer for us? Marr: Connie, at the joint City Council Planning Commissioner meeting I asked some questions • around how priorities were established and what they were compared and contrasted • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 47 against in terms of other City services. Just so that we can get some of this maybe kind of documented in the record, I know that you and Eric went through the process ofa survey but one of the concems I had as I sat through that meeting was that we were asking people to compare park services to park services as opposed to park services to a sewage plant, a library, etc. Could you speak a little bit as to why it was done that way. How that may have or may not have impacted the study or the recommendations of the City. That is my first question. The other thing that 1 feel like the plan doesn't really address is the ongoing operational expense. Once you get this 34 million dollar investment and what are the strategies behind doing that when we struggle today with how to fund what we have already within the City. I say all that also on top ofa much tighter economic condition that we're in today. The fact that I don't want to make assumptions that just because we have a tax in place that all citizens would believe that that tax should go indefinitely and we just pick a new project every time that it deadlines. The third thing, and this is an educational thing for me, because I want to make sure. That is the green way network that was a priority I think on most of the slides. If you could spend also a little bit of time talking about what that is. I mean, one of the things I've heard a lot as a Commissioner is why do we have to have a park on every piece of land that is dedicated? Why can't some ofthem just be trees and then why do we want all of these mowed spaces where we have high operational costs to go mow them on a weekly or biweekly basis. I am familiar with pieces ofland in the City today that we get calls and complaints on as Commissioners that aren't mowed often enough for maybe some of the people. I know that I have asked you a ton of questions, but maybe somebody back there, or I'll try to remember them all. But I guess the key thing is what are the green ways and how does that work? The compare and contrast against other city services and why we did the survey the way that we did it and what impact that might have had, ongoing operational costs, it's my understanding that the HMR tax for instance only does for capital, it doesn't do operational. How would we plan on funding these operations long term. Lastly, just the ongoing maintenance of these things. I happen to be a user of our parks. I am really glad that I live in a town that is five times he national average that we have, but I also realize that there are certain things that we haven't been able to maintain even at existing levels. I think the tennis courts, I think the baseball fields, I think some of the existing park things that you talked about at Walker. I struggle with this whole thing until I understand better some of the questions I have asked. Edmonston: Ok, I wiii try to answer those and I'll let Eric pick up what I don't answer for you. As far as the survey goes, when we were looking at the survey we were particularly interested in of course, the park and recreational needs of the City. At that point, we wanted to know what was their high priority in that. Of course, that is what our job is for. We did not compare it to other services. I do know that the Mayor is in the process of doing another survey asking people to prioritize what their needs are. That is why we surveyed • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 48 Marc: that way. Most parks and Recreation surveys that you do look at only focus on Parks and recreation programs and facilities, what people like, what they don't like, what they like most, what is their priority? We kind of look at the user groups, what do you actually do? What age are you? Are you male or female? How many children do you have? You know, how do you use the park? That is how our survey was addressed. And the order in which the items are presented, is that the consultant's order in which they believe we need to address? Is that the citizens' order in which they believe we need to address? I understand now, obviously, if we're looking only at parks and want to prioritize that, that makes sense to me. Which order is it? Is it the consultant's order or the public's order? Edmonston: It is the public's order. After we had the all day steering committee meeting, I can't tell you how valuable that was. They actually ranked order their priorities according to programs and facilities. Their likes, their dislikes, that waged very high. We also looked at our surveys and then all the personal interviews that were done, not only with City staff but Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members, other Commissioners and what everybody's goals was. They wrapped that into one package. No, that is one thing we wanted to make certain that we were developing a Park Master Plan for Fayetteville, Arkansas to meet our people's needs. Ongoing maintenance, yes it is a problem. I think that is why I made my first statement that it is going to be a challenge, we've got to be creative the way that we look at new property, whether to take it on or not, can we maintain it, can we not maintain it? What purpose is that piece of property going to be? Is it going to be something that is a drive by park or is it going to be a major park or is it going to be a community type park? I think that is one thing that Lose & Associates did, they outlined on your park distribution map exactly what is located everywhere so that we can disburse different recreation, be diverse in our recreational activities and facilities that are offered throughout the city. Of course everybody wants to have what another park has at their side of town. However, sometimes it is not financially feasible so we offer something on one side of town because that is the hub to do that. If you want to do something else, you go to another side of town to participate there. Maintenance is very important to us and how we keep up with it. We've got to be created and we have always got to keep in mind when we are looking at these capital projects, we've got to put a pen and pencil to what the operational cost of that will be. it is going to be I guess good to save our money, making certain that that passes. We can't build this building, build this park without these maintenance items being approved. That is going to have to be the bottom line when we go to look at it. What was your other question? • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 49 Marr: I think you have hit the majority of them. Let me ask you one other question. This is maybe relative more to if I look at this thing on the basis like 1 would look and I think Commissioner Bunch's comment earlier was we have a Master Street Plan and we don't always have the funding to build all those streets either. I certainly understand, I think that is a good analogy. One ofthe things just on the basic principal ofthis I struggle with is the fact that it doesn't appear to consider any private facilities. None ofthe tennis courts that may be at clubs, swimming pools that may be at developments. I notice that in your advisory meeting notes that your chairman, Mr. Caldwell also brought that up. Why is that? Why don't they consider those things? Would the priorities change if those things were considered? Would there be different direction on what is a priority in the summary plan? Edmonston: 1 think those priorities or the existing private recreation opportunities were considered • when we were asking people what are your needs. They were telling us what their needs were. Some people's needs were met by different recreational facilities in our city. We did, Lose & Associates did interview the Walton Arts Center which provide a lot of arts stuff for our city, they also interviewed the Yvonne Richardson Center along with the Boys and Girls Club and of course Bob Shoulders was interviewed from the Fayetteville Athletic Club. We tried to pretty well tackle and look at all the private opportunities there. Now, we've got to be real careful when we do that sometimes. It does take off some of the responsibility of us a little bit when somebody else is providing some recreation opportunity for those people in that complex. The thing is that not everybody is allowed to use those facilities unless you're a member or you live in that development. We have to be very careful in providing enough facilities and programs that is available to all. Estes: Hoffman: Any other questions for Connie or Eric at this time? Just a couple. They've covered mostly what I was also curious about. Does the 34 million dollar figure take into account the receipt of any grant money? Is there a grant administrator position in the Parks Department? Edmonston: No, there is not a Grant Administrator and no it does it not look at, that's why we looked at other funding sources as grants. We are tackling. We've got two grants out right now that we're trying to get. Of course, the trails has several grants out. We hope to look more at grants but we have not, we've received a few here and there but nothing real major. Hoffman: 1 would like to make a recommendation that grant money be included in this executive • summary as a funding source and that it be expounded upon. It may be mentioned in those • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 50 funding areas that it be further expanded on. The second question I have is regarding our upcoming tree preservation ordinance Has that been addressed in this executive summary at all? I think that there are if I remember correctly, some off site mitigation in terms of green space and the allocation of tree money to the City. I don't know whether that is going to go to Parks or Trees and Right -Of -Way or what. If there are some allocations that could be put in Parks then we include that in our listing of sources of park stuff. Edmonston: That might be noted under our public and private partnerships. Schuldt: I would like to make one comment, I'm not a member of the Tree and Trails Task Force, but I do sit in on their meetings and it was at our last meeting, it was kind of, 1 was given the assumption that if there were lands taken in by that money there is a good chance that Parks and Recreation would be responsible for the maintenance of those facilities. Hoffman: Yeah, so you ought not only receive it but maintain it. Then the last thing isjust 1 guess it is kind of a micro management thing but I use the parks too and have recently had the opportunity to visit the Richardson Center. I know that it is in need, it's a public private partnership I guess or it is a separate funding source? Edmonston: The Richardson Center is not the Yvonne Richardson Center, you're talking about The Richardson Center, correct? The Richardson Center is private by itself. The City does not give funding to The Richardson Center. Hoffman: What about the Yvonne Richardson Center? Edmonston: The Yvonne Richardson Center the City does give funding to it. Hoffman: That is something to me that needs to be put on a high priority list. I know that this is a Master Plan and we're not supposed to be talking about this but I would likejust that on the record. Edmonston: Yes, and it is addressed in a section in our Park Master Plan addressing, there is one little section on the Yvonne Richardson Center. Where they think the Yvonne Richardson Center should go, should be housed under. It is addressed in there. Hoffman: Last question. Edmonston: Yes. • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 51 Hoffman: What's happening to The Boys and Girls Club pool once The Boys and Girls Club moves to their new site. Really, all that, the football fields, the recreational facilities, it is owned by the independent school district. Has that been addressed in this document? Edmonston: According to the deed, all that property reverts back to the school system including the swimming pool. Hoffman: I would suggest that somebody open some dialogue with the school system because it is a centrally located much used facility. The pool I'm thinking of in particular, and the football field, I guess those are school activities. The pool I'm kind of wondering about. Edmonston: 1 think it is The Boys and Girls Club intentions, and Mike Hill might better address it. They are building a new swimming pool. Swimming pools cost a lot of money to operate. In fact, you lose big time bucks from them. Many places are starting to close a lot of pools and it makes us really happy when our population keeps increasing and we see a lot of private pools in apartment complexes. That will help meet the needs of those people. • Hill: In answer to that, Connie is correct, the land underneath those buildings belong to the public school systems. Our long term agreement is that once we, and 1 don't want to use the word abandon, but when we cease recreational operations at those buildings, obviously when we move to the new location, then they revert back to the schools. We've had discussions with the public school system about some issues and they're kind of in the very initial stages and we've also toyed around with the idea in visiting and again, very initial stages, with the Parks and Recreation Department, what is going to happen with the swimming pool. That's a good question. We're concerned. • Hoffman: The answer is we don't know yet? Hill: The answer is we don't know yet. That is exactly correct. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Gulley: One comment for Ms. Hoffman. You were talking about the grants and everything. They put five million dollars into the green way program and that five million has a potential with all the federal funding out there available and the 80/20 matches to become 25 million and that is one reason why it was put in at 5 million at a lesser amount than all the other parts of that 34 million dollars, is we had the potential to go after those grants. That is their idea, that's a big potential out there to get. • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 52 Hoffman: I think that needs to be emphasized more than it is. Gulley: Another thing on that 34 million I would like to point out is really what we're asking for is an increase of 23 because we've got 12.8 that is going to be there regardless of what we do with no changes in anything that we're doing at the current rate. That is coming in at 1.28 million per year. We've got 12.8 million of that already coming so we're not asking essentially for 34 more, we're asking for 23 more. In answer to Mr. Marr's question about maintenance and things. We know we nowhere come close to maintaining, I know on mowing wise you were saying something about why do we not just leave things along in natural states. My crews are probably mowing approximately at the most 200 acres per week. They're doing a fantastic job on that. Just to point out and really give them a pat on the back, I've got six to seven people varying on what we've got that are doing all the mowing on all the parks in the entire city on everything we do and we're mowing everything once a week just about. If you equate that 200 acres verses the 3,200 acres that we've got, 6 to 7% is all that we're really manicuring on a weekly basis. The rest of it is mostly natural. A lot of it is in the lakes. We've got several parks that are left in their natural state that we literally do little or nothing to other than maintaining for safety and things like that. We've had plans to go through and even where we're putting trails, some of those trails are going to be real basic, natural. Similar to the trail at Lake Fayetteville or we're talking about Red Oak Park where we've got three different distinct neighborhoods that one wants soft trail maintained, one wants a natural trail and one wants a hard surface trail that their kids can skateboard on and such as that. We've got a broad range of those things out there right now with much more on the natural side with very little being done than we are what we're actually maintaining. Even though you see Wilson and Gulley and they're all maintained very well. There are even parts of those that we've left all the trees along the street bank and things like that we do a minimal amount to. Estes: Before you sit down can you give Renee your name and tell her what you do for the City? Gulley: Terry Gulley, I'm turf and facility coordinator for Parks and Rec. Estes: Commissioners, any more questions? Shackelford: Just one more question, I guess 1 too will show my ignorance Commissioner Marr in his questions asked the question exactly what the definition ofa green way was. I too am unfamiliar am somewhat unfamiliar with that term. Can we get a definition of what a green way is since that is high on our priority list? • Hatfield: A linear park. Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 53 Shackelford: In lay man's terms what is a linear park? Estes: Steve, will you give us your name and what you do for the City so Renee will have it in the minutes? Hatfield: My name is Steve Hatfield and I'm the Parks Landscape Architect. The most general sense if a linear park is that it is longer than it is wide. Conklin: I'll Just jump in here, sitting on the Tree and Trails Task Force, we've been meeting for six months now. We're to a point where we're further defining what we intend to do when we talk about open space and green ways. We've talked from everything from protection of wildlife habitat, protection of floodways, flood waist, steep slopes, endangered and threatened species, trees, linkages between neighborhoods, schools, parks. What we're trying to do here is to create some areas of fusions protection. Some of the most beautiful views in Fayetteville are undeveloped and contain steep slopes and trees that could provide trail opportunities. We're in the process of coming up with criteria. I throw this out not to say this is the definition of a green way, but this committee that has been working with other organizations. The nature conservationists that we've had come and speak to us. It is a system where we can achieve many goals that the citizens in this community would like us to achieve and provide recreational opportunities for trails, tree protection. Once again, repairing corridors, wildlife habitat, keeping development out of floodways, flood plains. As our Committee has developed this list in which we will rank property and we have $450,000 to spend over the next two years. That is what we envisioned as a green way system for Fayetteville. We've looked at Lose & Associates master green ways plans and their criteria too kind of reflect what we're doing as a committee. It protects the environment, provides recreational opportunities, it creates those linkages and that's where we're at right now. Shackelford: So you said it provides recreational opportunities. Will there be amenities within these green ways? Will there be trails, picnic areas, or will it simply be a natural stretch of land as a buffer? Conklin: Yes to all those questions. As a committee as we looked at this, some places it is logical to have a picnic table and other type of amenities like that where other places maybe it is just a natural walking path through a very unique area in Fayetteville that you really don't want to fully develop. It is going to provide those. Our vision as this committee is to provide those linkages between our existing facilities and schools and neighborhoods Where ifyou're living in a neighborhood and you want to go visit a friend or get to the store maybe you don't have to go on four lane streets or two lane streets maybe there • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 54 Schuldt: Shackelford: Schuldt: Shackelford: Estes: Hoover: Edmonston• Hoover: Schuldt: Conklin: would be connections in there. At the same time we would be preserving some trees, protecting some wildlife habitat, keeping development out offloodways and floodplains, protecting steep slopes. In that hillside that you look up as you're driving down College Avenue, that will remain in a natural state and preserve that sense ofplace and community character of Fayetteville that we all love, so that's what we're looking at. They can also be used for great educational opportunities. We own a piece of property now between Holcomb I believe and the new middle school out there that is in a wetland area that could be used as a green way as an educational opportunity for both of those schools and as a connection for both of those schools. There will be an additional space that you have maintenance costs associated. That is correct. Thank you. Any other questions for Connie or Eric at this time? I have a couple of questions for Connie I guess. Under green ways is this where I would find the money for the trail system? Under green ways? Yes. Ok, and do we have a map of the trails? I mean I have got the map of the parks but I am assuming that our trails are not included in this or they are? The master trails plan has been created or is in the process of being created by the sidewalk and trails committee. Steve Hatfield as the new landscape architect for parks will work with that committee and with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to see that trails and green ways are developed throughout our community. It is a coordination factor between two groups. Mayor Coody this past January during the state of the city address, talked about streamlining and coordinating our Park and Recreation open space and trail green way development. It used to be where it was in two separate divisions. It now has been all moved into Parks and Recreation. Mr. Steven Hatfield was hired, he has been here about a week, so there will be a tremendous amount of more coordination that the City is going to have with our green way and trail system. The idea here is that eventually it will all be • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 55 put together on our master plan so you as a commission can see where the trails are on the trails plan and what the park and recreation needs are as part of an overall comprehensive plan. For the Planning Division, that's our goal as we develop these master plans. To with our computer technology now we can overlay and identify these areas and as a commission you'll be able to use that information. Schuldt: A master trails and green way plan would be a whole other study. The same as a total open space plan would be a whole other study on top of your Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Hoover: Ok, but the money here for green ways, the allocation and the dates, those would be for the trails that are on that master trail plan? This green way is not for the trails on the master trail plan? Shackelford: It's separate. Hoover: That's separate? Edmonston: Yeah, the greenways that are included in a park master plan, that was at the point that trails was not in the parks division. That money is within our park system, like for Lake Fayetteville, Lake Sequoyah, Lake Wilson, some of our smaller parks, we had hoped to develop trails within them. Hoover: This that is listed in here, only the trails that are within your parks, like I'm looking for the Prairie Street trail, I would not find that in here? How are those funded? Conklin: Well, and that is why the Mayor made those suggestions because it was segmented in the City and there was always discussions, well is this a park? It's not a park, it's a trail. Chuck Rutherford with our Sidewalk and Trails Division. Now it has all been moved into the Parks and Recreation Division. I think is wonderful. It needs to be all together because when you're on your bike in Gulley Park and you're going east and you go into the land that Mr. Sweetser donated to the City, it is still a park in my opinion. Now it is going to be call it a park or whatever you're going to call it, a green way to that neighborhood. It may not have swing sets out there and picnic tables, but it provides opportunities for children in that neighborhood to get over to Azalea Terrace as an example. Hoover: Tim, where is that money coming from? • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 56 Conklin: Hoover: Edmonston: Hoover: Edmonston: Hoover. Conklin: Gulley: Hoover: Gulley: The Parks and Recreation Division. Shouldn't that be, do we need an update in the addendum to this to explain? That really was not included in our consultant's agenda really, because it was not within part of us. Because it came in after they were doing their consulting? Yes. 1 have some concerns about that not being included because I don't understand how that is going to be funded. I think that is why it is very important that when the park trail system, the master plan is adopted, it become a part of our master plans for trails too. How that is funded is once again, going to be through applying for grants and the Park and Recreation Advisory board and staff will have to take a look at that. There has been a lot of change in a short period of time with the new administration and the hiring of Mr. Hatfield and I can tell you give Parks and Recreation some time and the administration and it will get all put together into one coordinated effort to do green ways and trails where in the past it was two separate divisions. With Steve on board now they are going to review what trails are the ones we need to do and that money is in parks. It doesn't mean now that all trails are within the park division. If that trail is deemed to be the number one priority then that money could be funneled into that project. It doesn't have to be within the boundaries of a park for that 5 million that could potentially could be 25 million with grants. I mean we could apply money to the Prairie Trail or to any other trail that we developed along the corridors around the City. That money is potentially there for that too, not just for. I guess, when do you think that this will all be coordinated? I think it is starting to be coordinated as of last Tuesday when he got here. It is just a matter of one we have to decide through the Mayors and the administrators and through the City Council how are we going to fund this? Once we come up with a funding mechanism and have some matching money, then we can start really pouring into the green ways and trails part of it and move onward. That money is potentially there for that just as much as it is to build another loop through Lake Fayetteville, you know to go in and do something to the trail there. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 57 Conklin: The City is aware ofthe situation and Mr. Eamest is the Urban Development Director and we are working towards that. Mr. Hatfield has been here a week or so and as we go forward, l have talked with our Urban Development Director about this, he's talked with me about this. About how we have a Sidewalk and Trails Committee, a Parks and Recreation Board, a Tree and Trails Task force and others, and how we need to start bringing this issue together and we're working on it. Hoover: I've got a couple more questions, are you on the same line though Don? Marr: Yeah, I guess my comment is that I'm sitting here thinking and I kept trying to think what is it about that feels like it is missing to me and I think Commissioner Hoover is kind of hitting it. That is when 1 think about a Master Parks and Recreation Plan, and I use • Commissioner Bunch's comment of well it is like a 20/20 plan but it is for parks; or it is like a Master Street Plan instead of roads it is for recreational facilities. It seems to me that it lacks strategy. It lacks comprehensive review in that it looks like it is addressing only new facilities and not, it's kind of like when I look at a 20/20 plan and I see well, we have a strategy of putting commercial development at nodes, and we have a strategy relative to our zoning and things of that nature. When I get down in this and think where does it address what our strategy is with our school systems, where does it address what our strategy is with how we will review billing costs and things of that nature. That is the part of this plan I can't get to. It seems incomplete to me. It is not that what is being presented is not good. In fact to me this is probably the most valuable piece of what is in front of me and yet it seems to me that there needs to be more before we're coming to the Commission or to the City Council to say approve this as a master plan. Those are my comments. Hoover: Thank you because that was my second question was trying to understand where the placement of these new facilities are. I couldn't find any information really on what the strategy was, what it was based on . 1 was really confused on what a mini park means. I guess I didn't understand the difference between a mini park and a neighborhood park service area. What is a mini park? Estes: Eric, is that a question that you could answer? Edmonston: It serves a half mile or less and I believe it is under one acre. Hoover: It says a quarter mile radius. • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 58 Edmonston: We have a standard, it is a new one that they added to us, we haven't had mini parks before but it would be something like I would describe as Hots Park. Hots Park is definitely a mini park. Ruth Park is probably a mini park. You know, the small parks. Hoover: The purpose of a mini park is? Edmonston: Is to serve that immediate neighborhood. Hoover: Is that considered, is there a criterial for making it recreational? Edmonston: There are several criteria in there. Number one there would be no parking lots. Basically there is seldom any restroom facilities or water fountains. People can get those amenities at their homes because they are within walking distance. Hoover: How do you determine if it is a natural environment or if it is going to be a recreational environment like swing sets, that kind of thing? Edmonston: How do we determine that? Usually we go to the park and have a public meeting. Invite all the neighborhoods. Get the neighborhood association. In fact we have one tomorrow night at 5:30 at Bundrick Park. We have obtained that land through our park land dedication ordinance and we have $55,000 in our CIP to develop that park. We've already had a public meeting asking them how they want it to be designed. Their number one need was a playground. Now we have selected three or four playgrounds, we're going back to the public tomorrow night to let them select which one of the playgrounds they like best. We do involve the public in determining that. Then along with our professional backgrounds and determining what type of facilities go in there that are safe, vandal resistant and are durable for us. Hoover: Thank you. How did if I'm reading this correctly, number forty-two, it says it is a proposed neighborhood park service area. How is that determined that there should be a park there when I don't think the City limits expand that far. Edmonston: That is within our city. Schuldt: Bayyari Park is a park already. Hoover: Oh, it is a park, so I'm reading this incorrectly? • Schuldt: Yes, it is undeveloped. • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 59 Conklin: That is part of David Lyle subdivision. Hoover: Ok, maybe I'm not reading this map correctly, it is a dark blue and it says proposed neighborhood park service area. Edmonston: That park is not developed yet. Schuldt: Bayyari Park is not developed. Hoover: What does not developed mean? Schuldt: There are no improvements to it, it is open land. Hoover: Oh, it's open land, ok. Schuldt: Back to your question on mini parks. Three to five acres, target size is three acres for a mini park. The general concept of that is a playground for children and a passive area for adults. A neighborhood park is defined as 5 to 20 acres. A community park is 20 to 50 acres and a regional park is 50 to 250 acres. They have definitions in the total. We did not give you copies ofthe comprehensive. Maybe that is a part of your issue of not being able to read the whole thing. We just gave you an executive summary. I believe we have two copies of this at the library but we did not provide it to everybody. Marr: That's fine. I don't need it right now. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Let me ask if there is any member of the public who would like to comment on the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If you would come forward please and tell us your name and provide us with the benefits of your comments. Caldwell: I'm Wade Caldwell, Chairman ofthe Parks Board. I think what this in the past the parks that we've acquired in Fayetteville have been by hook and crook is the phrase. Sometimes when we see an opportunity a park or parkland we've taken advantage of that opportunity. Sometimes it turns out to be a Gulley Park, sometimes it might be a smaller area like Hots Park. What this is designed to do is to give us a frame work to work from to allow us to focus the priorities that the citizens of Fayetteville told us what they're looking for in parks. When you look at schools, the two I think of are Holt and Holcomb on the west side ofFayetteville. We've got these two new schools stuck out there but we Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 60 don't have the framework in place in a lot of ways for these kids to safely get there referring to there are no sidewalks along Mount Comfort Road. I did identify these future usage areas and then we can start focusing our energies in those areas. Anytime we get an opportunity through developers coming to us to try and acquire possibly green space along creeks that would be in flood zones we try to do that with the hopes of eventually connecting these areas with trails. You look at the Prairie Trail down here in the south part of Fayetteville. It has been atremendous effort to try to acquire land from that and jump through the hoops. We feel like this plan allows us then to focus into those areas where we feel like that development is going to occur. Estes: Thank you Wade. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions, comments, any further questions of the Parks Staff? Hoffman: I just have a comment, what we see before us tonight appears to be the start of a long process. In my training I would look at this as a conceptual plan more than a master plan and I would almost be more comfortable labeling it that as we move it forward. I don't know if that would help us wage some of these concerns. In my mind the Planning Commission only is going to be involved in these parks issues as they come before us either in Large Scale Development, Subdivisions, or other routine matters. We're really not the people, we're not only not the people that handle the money, we're also not the people that prioritize the parks system. That's what we have a Parks Board for. Yes, we have a lot of questions and that is because we're all citizens and we all are concerned about how the parks system works for us and works for the City. I think as a Planning Commission we have to remember that the way that these things are going to come to us are going to be on a piece meal basis no matter what happens. I am kind of trying to put it into perspective in my own mind. Marr: • I guess Lorel if we use it as a guiding principal like we do a 20/20 plan as a master plan for development it gets referred to so many times when we hear well that is consistent with out 20/20 plan. I'm sure we're going to hear it is consistent with our Parks and Recreation Master Plan. When we look at those things I am assuming that there are guiding strategies in that not just we need a field here, we need a bathroom there, a tennis court here. Conceptually I support what we're doing. I guess I'm just asking does nobody else feel like that there, this really addresses new and renovation of facilities but when you get into • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 61 the strategy of a City on who are we going to coordinate with? Are we coordinating with all of these groups that are listed in this thing and then I don't see the City of Fayetteville School system in that list anywhere. Should they be part of it or not? Edmonston: They were a part of it. An interview was based with the Fayetteville School System. There is a section in here about the relationship that the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Division should have with the school system. There is a recommendation from our Parks Board in relation to that. Marr: Yeah, I guess I'm referring on page ES -3 of this when it talks about contained in the Master Plan are recommendations regarding operations of the Yvonne Richardson Center as stated in the plan. It should be placed under the supervision of this and when you go further up it talks about evaluation of programming currently offered by Parks and Recreation, Fayetteville Boys and Girls, Yvonne Richardson Center, Botanical Gardens, Community Adult Center, Fayetteville School System, it goes on and on. I guess maybe I'm being anal retentive but when I think about going through the plan that we have like when it comes to a 20/20 plan or a Master Street Plan there are requirements that tie it to census data, there are things that talk about priority of services and when I look at this plan and say this is a guiding principal for me and we have years on it for, I was going through and saying I agree Asbell needs this, Walker needs this, what were our strategies behind how we set those priorities. IfI got called as a Commissioner and somebody said I want to know why the Parks Board put 07 on Bayyari Park and 04 on Lewis Street Park, how is that consistent with our Master Street Plan, how did we set those things? There is nothing that tells me kind of and maybe it is in that book and then I'll shut up and vote for it. Edmonston: If I could appease you with just a couple of things. Number one, under the different options when they are looking at the money under each of them the priorities were changed within this document. The priorities have always been green way development and this came about by the people. Development of neighborhood parks but to get into the bond program then they go on and put in the new community center. We know with the funding available in option one with our current funding we could not start anew community center. I mean a community park. That does not say that we can't go after a grant or partnerships or donations. You know you've got to feel each project out. i know each capital project does not have a price for operation and maintenance of it. It really is very difficult to just throw a number in without knowing what is actually going in the facility and what year it is going to be. I think as we make our strategy in deciding which option we're going to go or if we are just going to continue on, as far as I'm concerned this year what we looked at in developing our capital improvement plan for the next five years was the option of • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 62 Estes: number one is green way development. Two, development of neighborhood parks, three, ADA and playground safety improvements, Four, athletic field safety improvements and then additional tennis courts and pavilions. I might also add one other thing. Yeah, we are behind, we have a lot of old facilities out there. We have to weed eat the tennis court, that is pretty sad. We finally got capital funding in our budget. We really did not start collecting any of the HMR tax until 1997 so we haven't had many years to really accumulate a lot of capital funds. We are playing catch up. A lot of acreage, a lot of catch up. Let me say a few things if I may. I am a little troubled by what I see. Rather than it being a planning document, I see it more as a wish list than a planning document. I concur with what several of my fellow Commissioners have said. It is a very ambitious program but that is not our issue. We are not a legislative body, we don't spend the money and thank goodness we don't have to consider that this evening. It is a most ambitious plan. It is not a Cadillac plan, it is a Rolls Royce plan and I'm not so sure how it is going to get paid for. I am also not so.sure that as presented to us I see capital expenditures of34.8 million but then as I read through here I see things like an analysis of Parks and Recreation staff organization resulted in recommendations of additional personnel. We've also got the soft cost of the additional maintenance. That is not our issue. I concur with Commissioner Marr in that I don't really see it as a good planning document. I am sorry I don't. Commissioner Hoffman said that she has made the notation Fayetteville Arkansas Parks and Recreation Concept Plan, I have made the notation Fayetteville Arkansas Parks and Recreation Wish List. That's my comments. Commissioner Bunch, did you have something? You looked like you had something to say. Bunch: In the line that Commissioner Marr was following concerning the strategy plan is included in this document any sort ofa priority or strategy list that has developers offer either money or land? Do you have something similar to a Master Plan that would say in this sector we want to accept these types and in this these types. I think that might be a little bit of what Mr. Marr is looking for which that would be one form ofa strategy that as opportunities. I realize that often times the Parks Department does not have control of your own destiny because the school board says the school or someone else says a school may go here or you know land gets donated or whatever. Many times you're in the position of having to react to actions by others. The things that you can control, what are your policy statements there like in the acceptance of land verses donation from developers and that sort of thing. Edmonston: This map does have an area, you see the little striped area? Areas not served by many neighborhood or community parks and those are really areas that are land we need. What they really like to see is each of the circles interconnecting. Of course the great big circles • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 63 are the community parks. These are either neighborhood or mini parks. The red are mini parks. The striped areas are areas that we really need to look at, that we're deficit in. Conklin: May I make a suggestion? A lot of questions have been brought up this evening regarding how this relates to our general plan, 20/20. I understand what you're used to looking at with a set of goals, objectives and implementation strategies. What I would like to propose is we bring back to you, go through the document, pull out the goals, objectives, implementation strategies and put that in a format that is typical of what we see through our comprehensive planning process and bring that back to you and not ask you to act on this evening. I am willing to do that with the Parks and Recreation Division and their consultant to put into a format, you'll have the information where normally with long range planning you'll see that here are the goals ofthe City of Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Division, here are the objectives, what we're trying to achieve. Here are the implementation strategies and within that you have the criteria of connecting the blue circles together, connecting the red circles together, developing a green way system. We've all seen comprehensive plans but have it in that format where you can understand it and have a recommendation that we can send forward to the City Council. Hoffman: My question for you on that is this. Is that something that the consultant has already done because I don't want to incur anymore cost. I know that this has been a really lengthy process already. If it is not something that the consultant has done, is that something that the staff is prepared to take on because that is a big piece of work. Conklin: We do have a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, staff can look in that plan, Connie has mentioned a couple, and Connie you can help me out, I haven't been through the entire plan in great detail, but that is something that staff can develop. Our Urban Development Director is shaking his head yes we will develop that as staff. Marr: I actually think that that is a great idea because one ofthe things I don't want construed out of this is that certainly in my case that I'm not in support ofhaving adequate park facilities. If anything, I think that we do a wonderful job and I don't want my comments to be interpreted in any other way other than that. I applaud the Parks and Recreation group. I know several people who use their services and 1 hear nothing but good things. For me I think it is important to understand the goals and objectives and how these things relate to those goals and objectives and if that could be done, I don't want to slow it way down by any means or to make my comments appear that I'm not in support of doing some of these things. That would certainly make me feel better when I think of it as a guiding principal for future development. • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 64 Hoover: Could that also include the trails system, coordination with the trails system, do you think that is possible? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: Good answer. Conklin: I'm speaking for many different divisions tonight but yes it needs to be done and we can do that internally as staff and with the help of the consultant, we can pull it together. Hoffman: I'm going to add another one. ADA accessibility is referenced here quite a bit. I don't know if you all are aware of it, once you start upgrading something then I believe under Federal law have to spend up to 20% of the budget in ADA related upgrades. Has that been taken into consideration under this plan? Edmonston: I do know that this plan does meet all ADA requirements. Many of our park facilities that are old maybe do not have the correct fall surface undemeath it or do not have a sidewalk going up to it. A lot of these ADA are even going beyond just new improvements, it is to meet the old projects too. Hoffman: That's what I mean, when you touch a project and have an ADA upgrade of any kind, a sidewalk, ifyou're doing work in other areas that you don't think ofas being ADA related, you're wrong. There are a certain domino effect of items that are considered so maybe the ADA coordinator might want to get involved too. Let me echo everybody else. I don't mean to sound at all argumentative with the Parks Department because you guys do a great job and we all enjoy the parks you know, it's us being planners we're doing that tonight instead of moving things along. Estes: Are there any motions? MOTION: Allen: I move that we table the parks plan. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to table consideration of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is there a second? Ward: I'll second. Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 65 Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Ward. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to table consideration of the Parks and recreation Master Plan and a second by Commissioner Ward is there any discussions? Hoffman: Any time frame that we're going to shoot for? Don't you think we should have a goal to keep them moving along? Conklin: By the end of this year. You will have to you an annexation policy for the City of Fayetteville based on smart growth principals, an updated chapter 2 and 3 with 2,000 census figures, a master trails plan that is coordinated with a park and recreation plan and green ways and we're all going to get together and by the end of this year we will have it to you. Estes: And it will be a Christmas wish list. Conklin: It will be done by Christmas. Estes: Any other comments? Hoffman: I want to thank the parks people for an excellent presentation. Thank you very much. Estes: Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table consideration of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is approved 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously by a vote of nine to zero. Is there any other business? Conklin: I would like to make a couple of announcements. Thursday's Subdivision Committee has been canceled due to no development items on the agenda. Tomorrow night starting at 6:00 Mayor Brent Coles from Boise, Idaho will be here to discuss smart growth, what it means to Northwest Arkansas, that is at the Fayetteville Town Center. The parking deck will be open free of charge, you will not have to pay $3.00 to enter that deck so if any of your friends are going to be here or any other people, the deck is open. There is a reception that starts at 6:00, the Mayor of Boise, Idaho will be speaking at 7:00, after he is done with his presentation there will be a question and answer session. I encourage the Commissioners and anybody else watching this Planning Commission meeting tonight to attend this presentation. I think it will be very valuable for the City of Fayetteville and the rest ofNorthwest Arkansas. Approximately 900 individuals have been invited. All of the • • • Planning Commission September 10, 2001 Page 66 cities in Northwest Arkansas and counties and we look forward to seeing everybody there. Thank you. Estes: Any other announcements? Any other business? We're adjourned until our next regularly called meeting. Thank you. Adjourned: 8:41 p.m. • • • CUP 01.24.00: Conditional Use (On Deck, pp 138) LSD 01-31.00: Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) ADM 01-38.00: Administrative Item (Hickman, pp 601) MOTION SECOND D. Bunch B. Estes \ N o ' L. Hoffman \k. J S. Hoover 1 0 N. Allen `\' D. Marr 0 yvwN �� A. Church Y " u Y Shackelford ai 1 Y L. Ward v"y 1 Y ACTION VOTE 01-0-6 - I -() • • • CUP 01-21.00: Conditional Use (Commerce Park II, pp 175) LSD 01.30.00: Large Scale Development (Commerce Park II, pp 175) FPL 01.7.00: Final Plat (WHM Investments, pp 439) MOTION SECOND D. Bunch U 1 1 B. Estes ; i W I L. Hoffman 0 3 rokit5r" Y S. Hoover \' `l U N. Allen v -_^p U" 1 D. Marr 0 a 0 A. Church J Shackelford ; T. Ward t) 1 for ACTION gP95 f loc 1`'11--�D-,0 VOTE Q 1'13-0 9 -0-b • • • CUP 01-23.00:fTaYk-S4,ICu't Conditional Use (Brandon, pp 100) MOTION SECOND D. Bunch nai lr-b-v-' Y B. Estes I L. Hoffman `� S. Hoover N. Alien 12 Y I D. Marr A. Church Y t Shackelford U L. Ward Y "' ACTION SV"1'GS VOTE %_6_ 0