Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-13 Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting ofthe Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 01-8.00 Vacation (Tomlinson/Fulton, pp 641) Forwarded to City Council Page 3 CUP 01-28.00 Conditional Use (Vista Health, pp 138) Approved Page 5 LSD 01-36.00: Large Scale Development (Vista Health, pp 138) Page 7 ADM 01-11.10: Administrative Item (Dandy & Schmitt, pp 524) Page 10 • LSD 01-19.10: Large Scale Development (Hometown Developments, pp 524) Page 16 ADM 01-28.00: Administrative Item (Hometown Development, pp 524) MEMBERS PRESENT Alice Church Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Don Marr Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Approved Approved Tabled No Action MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams • Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Renee Thomas Hugh Earnest • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 2 Roll call and approval of the minutes from October 22, 2001. Estes: Welcome to the November 13, 2001 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission, the first item of business will be the roll call, Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll eight Commissioners were present with Commissioner Shackelford being absent, Commissioner Bunch arrived at 5:45p.m. Estes: A quorum being present, the next item of business is approval of the minutes from the October 22, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, comments or amendments to the minutes from the October 22, 2001 meeting? Seeing none they will be approved. Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 3 VAC 01-8.00 Vacation (Tomlinson/Fulton, pp 641) was submitted by Dave Fulton on behalf of Gerald Tomlinson for property located at 2522 S. College (lot 12 of Taylor Estates). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.10 acres. The request is to vacate an existing utility easement. Estes: The first item of new business is a vacation request. This is a vacation submitted by Gerald Tomlinson. It is submitted by Dave Fulton for property located at 2522 S. College Dr., lot 12 Taylor Estates. The request is to vacate a 15' wide utility easement through lot 12 as shown and described on the maps and legal descriptions that are provided in your packet. The reason for this request is that this easement was shown on the original country club estates for this property. Apparently, when this area was replatted for Taylor Estates this easement was not formally vacated through the city, there are no known utilities located within this easement. Is the applicant present? Conklin: I encourage the Commission to move this forward. This is a utility easement that was platted a long time ago. The developer came back and replatted this land. This easement was never vacated. We are trying to clean up the situation. It has caused some delay already for the owner of the lot and it is something that, under ordinance, we bring to you and weencourage you to approve it tonight. Ward: Seeing no opposition, did you open it up to the public yet? Estes: No, I have not requested public comment but before I do that, what is the sense of the Commission? Do you wish to hear this item without the applicant present? Would there be a motion to that effect? Marr: So moved. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to hear this vacation request in the applicant's absence, is there a second? Hoffman: Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffi Ian, any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll on the motion please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to hear VAC 01-8.00 passed by a vote of 7- 0-0. • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 4 Estes: Motion: Ward: The motion to hear the vacation request without the applicant present passes unanimously. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this vacation request, 01-8.00? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full Commission for motions, discussions and comments. Seeing that the findings are that this won't be anything that we are really giving away, I'll make a motion that we approve VAC 01-8.00 for a vacation for Gerald Tomlinson. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve VAC 01-8.00, is there a second? Hoffman: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any discussion or comments? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? • Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAC 01-8.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. • Estes: The motion passes unanimously. • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 5 CUP 01-28.00 Conditional Use (Vista Health, pp 138) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Vista Health for property located at 4253 Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office containing approximately 9.44 acres. The request is for a 30 bed medical facility (use unit 4) in a R -O district. Estes: The second item of business is a conditional use request. This is submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Vista Health for property located at 4253 Crossover Road, the property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office, containing approximately 9.44 acres. The request is for a 30 bed medical facility. A use unit 4 in a R -O District. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following condition. Are there signed conditions ofapproval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: No. Estes: The one condition of approval is Planning Commission approval ofthe accompanying large scale development. Is the applicant present? Brackett: Yes. Estes: Would you identify yourself please and provide us with the benefit of your presentation? Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates, I'm here representing the owners tonight. The only presentation that I would say is that this is a continuation ofa use that this land is already being used as There is already a medical facility on this land and we feel that it is a reasonable request. Estes: Motion: Thank you Chris. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this conditional use request9 Seeing none I will bring it back to the full Commission for motions, comments and discussion. Hoffman: 1 move for approval of CUP 01-28 subject to the Planning Commission approval ofthe large scale development. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve CUP 01-28, is there a second? • Allen: I'll second. Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 6 Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any discussion? This is a conditional use request and will require five affirmative votes. Marr: Just a question for City staff. Has there been any type of complaint or concern from any citizens in the area? Warrick: Staff has not heard from anyone. Estes: Any other discussion or comments? Hoffman: I think 1 need to include in my motion that I do find the findings of fact that have been stipulated in our materials tonight. 1 do concur with those. Estes: Commissioner Allen, does the second accept that amendment? Allen: Yes. Estes: Any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 01-28 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion to approve CUP 01-28 passes unanimously. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 7 LSD 01-36.00: Large Scale Development (Vista Health, pp 138) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Vista Health for property located at 4253 Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office containing approximately 9.44 acres. The request is to add a 30 bed medical facility. Estes: The next item of business is the accompanying large scale development submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Vista Health for property located at 4253 Crossover Road. The property is zoned C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 9.44 acres. The request is to add a 30 bed medical facility. This LSD 01-36 is recommended by staff to be approved subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Estes: The first condition of approval is Planning Commission determination ofa requested waiver to allow for a 33' parking lot aisle located on the west side of the project. The requirement is for a 24' aisle. The applicant is requesting a waiver in order to facilitate the turning radius needed for delivery truck traffic; condition number two, Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards; condition number three, Planning Commission approval of the requested conditional use for a medical facility in an R -O district; condition number four, plat review and subdivision comments, to include written staff comments provided to applicant and all comments from utility representatives; condition number five, staff approval of final detailed plan specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, public and private, sidewalks, parking lots, and tree preservation. The information submitted for 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 number six, large scale development approval to be valid for one calendar year; Condition number seven, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction; Condition number eight, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: Grading and drainage permits, separate easement plat for this project, project disk with all final revisions and completion of all required improves or the placement ofa surety with the city as required by §158.01 guarantees in lieu of installed improvements. Is the applicant present? Brackett: Yes. Estes: Would you identify yourself please and provide us with the benefit of your presentation? • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 8 Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates and I don't have a presentation for this LSD but I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant's representative at this time? Marr: I have a question, on the 33' issue, I read your letter request and it was to allow for delivery use is the reason. Is there currently a 33' access in the parking and how does the current location handle delivery if it is not? Brackett: The loading dock is not in this parking lot, it is before you get to this parking lot for the existing facility so the trucks don't have to travel down through this parking lot. Currently there is not a curb on the west side of the parking lot so any truck that did take that route could turn because they could go out onto the grass. We just felt that the 33' would be a good use here for that. Marr. Ok, thank you. Estes: Any other questions of Chris at this time, seeing none, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested LSD 01-36, large scale development for Vista Health? Seeing none, I will bring the matter back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, questions or motions. Hoffman: I would like to ask the Subdivision Committee if they had discussed the elevations and what the feeling was about the meeting of commercial design standards? Ward: We reviewed all those as far as the brick of the building, it is very much designed like the other buildings out there that they already have so it is very compatible so we feel like it meets all of the commercial design standards as far as all four elevations. Hoffman: It is kind of in the back? Ward: Yes, but it is a very nice office building, hospital. Hoffman: Ok, that's all I had. Estes: Any other discussion? Commissioner Man, did you have a question? • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 9 Motion: Marr: Estes: Allen: Estes: No Sir, I was going to make a motion. I would like to move approval of large scale development 01-36 subject to the eight conditions as identified by staffwith the finding that the large scale meets the commercial design standards as outlined in ordinance 166.14 and allowing the waiver for the 33' parking lot aisle in lieu of the 24' requirement to allow for delivery access. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01-36, is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve LSD 01-36, are there any comments, any discussion? Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-36 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 10 ADM 01-11.10: Administrative Item (Dandy & Schmitt, pp 524) was submitted by Brian Dandy & Robert Schmitt for property located on lots 1,2, & 3 of City Addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to build a multi -family unit on a lot without street frontage. Estes: The next item of new business on the agenda is an Administrative item, AD 01-11, submitted by Brian Dandy and Robert Schmitt for property located on lots 1, 2 and 3 of city addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, the request is to build multi family units on two lots without street frontage. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval listed in your packet. Do we have signed conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, what you have in your packet on 4.1 is the staff report from April 19, 2001. I included that staff report because at that meeting we did place a condition ofapproval, which is condition number two. It reads "the density shall be limited to six units per lot." The applicant is proposing to construct one six plex on each lot. The density allowed in a R-2 zone is 24 units per acre by right, this equals approximately 12 units per both lots. The reason why 1 have brought this back to the Commission, this item. is before we go to the large scale development is that once again, we are dealing with two lots, particularly, this lot does not have street frontage on Fletcher. Center Street right of way which runs east and west is between Fletcher Street and this property. Center Street is undeveloped. The applicant came to the Planning Division and asked what it would take to develop this R-2 lot which allows multi family units, up to 24 units per acre. Looking at our ordinances, we informed him that there were two options. He could go to the Planning Commission and ask that the Planning Commission approve this development without the street frontage, which is what we did back in April, or construct a street. This administrative item was a request by the applicant not to construct the street. The reason why staff placed condition number two with the language oflimited to six units, that is what the applicant provided to staff. From our experience, if we don't put it in writing, things tend to change over time and that is not something that we came up with, the six units. However, this property is zoned R-2, the applicant proposed at that time six four bedroom units which would be 24 bedrooms total, he is now proposing as part of the large scale development, ten two bedroom and two one bedroom units, so the number of bedrooms has decreased by two. Staff is not opposed to modifying that condition, but since that was a condition ofapproval back in April, I wanted you to act on it prior to considering the large scale development. Estes: Is the applicant present? • Osborne: Yes, I'm Richard Osborne, representing the applicant. • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 11 Estes: Mr. Osborne, do you have any presentation that you would like to make to the Commission regarding this requested administrative item? Osborne: Tim has done a very fine job of covering it. I will mention that I live on Mount Sequoyah, not too far from this proposed development so I have a personal interest as well as professional I guess you would say. We believe, Bob and everybody involved, that we are going to get a tenant that will fit better in the neighborhood in a two bedroom apartment and a one bedroom apartment than we would have gotten in four bedroom apartments. While we have increased the number of units we have decreased the number of people and I believe that everything else is in compliance with staff requirements, I believe that Tim mentioned that. I know that you are all familiar with this, if you have any questions, Glenn Carter, the engineer is here, Mr. Schmitt is here. Mr. Dandy is here and I'm here and we'll answer any questions that you might have. I think these three items are going to run together. If I may take just a minute to address one thing, the way I see it is, the City Attorney may correct me if need be, this is a choice for you to make on waving the street and approving the LSD and thereby allowing the intersection to stay pretty much the same that it is now or adding a street which would be a fifth street coming into that intersection which may be a little bit busy for that area. That is alternative A. Altemative B would be that we'll just build a street and go ahead. We think we're doing what staff wants us to do. We're trying to, let's put it that way. Mr. Chair, I hope you will approve this waiver of the street and the proposal to put in the ten two bedroom units and two one bedroom units. I'll answer any questions that you have. Estes: Osborne: Estes: Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Osborne at this time? Or Mr. Carter, Mr. Schmitt or Mr. Dandy? Seeing none, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, motions. Mr. Conklin, I have a question for purposes of clarification. We have seen this request before is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: We granted the request, why are we now seeing it again? • Conklin: Because the large scale development, which is the next item on your agenda has ten two • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 12 bedroom units and two one bedroom units on one of the half acre lots that Mr. Schmitt is developing. Staff put a condition, which is condition number two, that states the density shall be limited to six units per lot. When we talk about density we are talking about dwelling units, a structure or a unit that has a kitchen and bathroom facility, occupied by one family. The definition of family is up to four unrelated individuals. I put six units because that is what the applicant provided as a site plan to the Commission. I am always concemed when you look at site plans that they actually do what they say they are going to do on the site plans so that is where six came from, since then, and we have been at this for five months now with the applicant, the plans have changed, we're up to instead of six four bedroom units, ten two bedroom units and two one bedroom units. So we started with twenty-four bedrooms with six units, we're down to twenty-two bedrooms with twelve units. That is the maximum density allowed by right under R-2 zoning, this is a hal f acre lot, it allows up to twenty-four units per acre. Twelve units would be the maximum density. Since I did make that a condition ofapproval, I am asking that the Commission amend that condition ofapproval. I really thought that is what Mr. Schmitt wanted to do back in April is a six plex, a six unit apartment building. However, his plans have changed. I really can't think of a reason why you should deny that since the property is zoned R-2, it was zoned R-2 in 1970 from the research that I can find, it has sat there all these years. We have a multi family zoned piece of property. 1 brought this to you once again, I was very concerned that we had Center Street right of way between this property parallel to Fletcher Street. The City of Fayetteville staffdid not want to require this applicant to build Center Street because it would make a dangerous situation building this street at that intersection. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Any other questions, comments, motions? Motion: Ward: We've already granted a waiver, 1 think we did it unanimously for the use of Fletcher Street and not build Center Street. I live up on Mount Sequoyah and I was not in favor personally of an apartment complex, when you build four bedroom units I think you get a different type of clientele with renters of four bedrooms than in one or two bedrooms. My ideal is that the twelve units with the ten two bedroom units and the two one bedroom units is a much better situation for me living up there than having a bunch of these four bedroom units up there. I will make a motion that we approve AD 01-11.00 for this administrative item allowing twelve units along with all other conditions of approval. Estes: Mr. Conklin, it is my understanding that the request is to build multi family units on two lots without street frontage, is that the administrative item? • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 13 Conklin: The administrative item, I'm bringing back to you an administrative item that was approved, not to require the applicant to build the street. Condition number two stated that he couldn't build more than six units on each lot, that came from the applicant. The applicant changed his plans, he wants to do twelve units on each lot Instead of six four bedroom units, he wants to do ten two bedroom and two one bedroom units. Therefore, in my opinion, you need to modify condition number two from your original approval to allow this to go forward. I can't think of any reason why you would deny this request to change this, to allow him what is allowed by right under zoning. Estes: Commissioner Ward, is that your understanding of the requested administrative item? Ward: Yes, I believe that is it. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 01-11, is there a second? Hoffman: I have a question. I don't see the need for Center Street either but I' 'must wondering, if this waiver is approved, the plan is a little bit difficult for me to read. I'm going to ask staff this. Does the applicant plan on widening Fletcher to accommodate this driveway? I guess I'm not seeing where the right of way is corning to. Are they adding right of way to Fletcher to approach this street frontage? Conklin: This large scale development, one of the conditions of approval on this, not to confuse things more, was that they go through large scale development. That is why you have the next item on your agenda. Staff recommended that as a condition and you approved it. If you turn to page 4 4 there is a survey that shows the lots. It shows the Center Street right of way that I've been referring to. Staff is recommending a condition that the applicant be responsible for improving Fletcher Street 14' from centerline including curb, gutters and sidewalk. On parcel B there is a large scale that is before you this evening and in process right now is a large scale development for parcel A. Staff will be making the same recommendation. In answer to your question, yes. They are responsible for the front of those lots to improve Fletcher Street. Hoffman: The driveway that we see, because I think this isn't really related to the large scale development, is adequate and would come up to the street frontage, there is not a dimension on the driveway. Can you tell me why the driveway is at Fletcher? Conklin: They do have a radius there. At the neck of the driveway it is going to be 24' from back of curb to back of curb. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 14 Hoffman: It widens up considerably and they don't have radii listed. Conklin: I'm not sure what radius they are using. Their engineer may be able to answer that question. Hoffman: Would you mind? Carter: The radius is 25' I believe. Hoffman: On both sides? Carter: Yes. Hoffman: Is the hatched area shown through that is that a sidewalk? Conklin: That is the sidewalk. Carter: The hatched area is the sidewalk. Radius is 25'. Hoffman: Where does the Fletcher right ofway...I'm trying to describe this line on this map, where the driveway flares out, is that pretty much the Fletcher right of way? Carter: If you look on the driveway, on the right side there is a line that crosses that curb, it says R.W. Fletcher Avenue. That is the Fletcher Avenue right of way. Hoffman: Alright, that line follows across and hits the curb of the driveway on the other side too? Carter: Hoffman: Carter: Hoffman: Estes: Marr: Yes. What is the private driveway listed to the left of that? Is that not a part o f this property? It is not. That is a private residence. Ok, thank you very much. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 01-11, is there a second? I'll second. Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 15 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 01-11 and a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any discussion, any comments, any further questions of the applicant? Marr: I want to make sure I understand, basically, everything else will remain in place that has been previously approved with the condition two being the change. Conklin: That is correct, that is what we are asking. Marr. Which is, just to explain my second, I think that obviously the applicant and owner of the property has the right, based on the zoning to bring whatever request within the limits and that is why I will support hearing it. Estes: Any other questions? Renee, would you allow the record to reflect that Commissioner Bunch is present and would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-11.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion to approve ADM 01-11 passes by a unanimous vote. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 16 LSD 01-19.10: Large Scale Development (Hometown Developments, pp 524) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Robert Schmitt of Hometown Developments for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue & Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Estes: The next item is the companion large scale development, this is LSD 01-19.10, a large scale development for Hometown, submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter and Associates on behalf of Hometown Development for property located on the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rogers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Estes: Condition of approval number 1 is Planning Commission approval of an administrative item to allow a lot zoned R-2 to be developed without the proper street frontage with 12 apartment units, this is the action that was just taken and this was the administrative item that was approved by a unanimous vote. Condition number two, one ADA parking space shall be included on the site plan and shall meet standard specifications for van accessible parking to include an 8' aisle and an 8' parking space; Condition number three, trees along the right of way east of the proposed drive must be trimmed to provide adequate site distance prior to final certificate of occupancy. You have a memo in your material Commissioners from Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, regarding the site distance; Condition number four, Planning Commission determination ofoffsite improvements to Fletcher Avenue. The applicant is proposing to widen the street to 14' from centerline adjacent to the Center Street frontage to meet local street standards. A recent traffic count has determined that 834 vehicles per day presently use Fletcher Avenue. This development is projected to add 80 vehicles per day; Condition number five, no public sewer lift station shall be used for this development. You have information in your material from the Engineering Division regarding the sewer line capacity on Mount Sequoyah; Number six, all replacement trees shall be a minimum 2" caliper, you have a memo from our Landscape Administrator, Ms. Kim Hesse regarding the tree preservation for this development and that memo is included in your materials; Number seven, all dumpster and utility equipment shall be screened; Condition number eight, plat review and Subdivision Committee comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives; Condition number nine, staff approval of fatal detailed plan specifications applications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, public and private, sidewalks, • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 17 parking lots 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 number ten, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 sidewalk with a minimum 6 greenspace; Condition number eleven, large scale development approval to be valid for one calendar year; Condition number twelve, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction; Condition thirteen, prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required, grading and drainage permits, separate easement plat for this project, project disk with all final revisions, completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the city as required by §158.01. Is the applicant present? Osborne: Yes Sir. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? If so, would you please state your name and give us the benefit of your presentation. Osborne: I'm Richard Osborne representing Bob Schmitt and Bryan Dandy. This is Glenn Carter the engineer, I think I probably would save us a lot of time letting Glenn address this. Carter: I believe he stated clearly what our intention is and I don't really have a presentation. It is as you have all seen it before and I would be glad to answer any questions you have concerning any technical questions or engineering for the project, I believe we have complied with all the ordinances and requirements of the city. If there are any questions I would be glad to answer them. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Carter at this time? Hoover: On the plan that we have here, I'm counting six units, are these one story or two story units? I'm confused. Carter: There are twelve units and there are five two story and one one story, is that correct? Schmitt: There are six two story, they are not separate units, there is one unit on the bottom and one unit on the top. Hoover: Ok. • Schmitt: The reason those lines are there is because they stair step down the hillside, that is the • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 18 reason those lines are there to show elevation. Estes: Commissioners, any other questions of Mr. Carter at this time? Marr: Are there elevations for this development? Carter: Yes. Marr. We don't have those in our packet, is there actual elevations? Carter: Oh, you mean...no, there is not. Marr: Excuse me, they're not? Carter: No Sir, there are not. Estes: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant at this time? Hoffman: Does the apartment building have a fire sprinkler system in it? Carter: No. Hoffman: Ok, thank you, that is all. Estes: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Seeing none, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development, LSD 01-19.10? If there is, would you please come to the podium, introduce yourself to us and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Vick: Good afternoon, my name is Al Vick and I live on East Rock Street. I'm a little bothered by this because consistently this neighborhood has asked not to have roads going across Mount Sequoyah. You have something down here in the next section that is on waiving the minimum street requirements. I'm assuming that that is going to be for Center Street. If they widen this road by 14' that means that people who live there are going to have some of their property taken away. They are going to be putting up with construction equipment running up and down their streets for the next year, year and half or whatever while all of this is being done. I'm concerned about this, I think and I know that I've been given authority to speak for Dr. Joanne Hoye who couldn't be here tonight, that people have come to this neighborhood and moved to this neighborhood because it is a nice quiet place • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 19 Estes: Peters: Estes: Davidson: to be. There are red fox running around in there, wild turkeys, it is a nice place to be at. Each housing unit that you start building, each expansion of the roads that you put in is going to necessitate more of the same. Ultimately, my belief is that it is going to destroy that neighborhood. I know that it is zoned R-2, I know that legally everybody can possibly do that or that it is legal for them to do that. However, it is going to change the face ofa nice neighborhood forever. I would urge you all to think about that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Vick. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development? Hi, my name is Didi Peters. I walk around up in Mount Sequoyah. I don't live in that neighborhood but there is another development that this gentleman has done on N. Olive Street and there have been many complaints about the cleanup and sewage issues. It looks to me that the grading has not been kept up with and the parking is a big problem there. I'm concerned about the number of parking spaces. They haven't even completed occupancy on the one on Olive Street and there are already too many cars occupying the space. I'm not sure if they belong to residents but they are there early in the morning and • I'm curious as to why there are no sprinklers. 1 don't know if it is needed, that would be a planning issue. There is a large wooded area behind there, Walker Cemetery and also the Confederate Cemetery is very close. My issues mainly are parking, the fire, not keeping up with what they've promised as far as debris and grading. Also, I'm curious as to why there is no elevation plans in your packet. It seems that this developer has repeatedly promised one thing and has changed his ways halfway through. I think it should be part of the packet and I'm disappointed that it is not. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Peters. Hi, my name is Sharon Davidson. I live on Rodgers, near this proposed development. I have been outspokenly against it from the beginning for many, many reasons. I hope you all will consider all the reasons brought up tonight and consider the collective actions of these gentlemen as to how we can put faith in what they say they will do. Let's get back to real issues, even if they were people we could feel we could trust their word. I have a question for our attorney later about their word early on in this process. One, I have pictures as to the tree pile which precipitated all the interest in this when they came in, I was there that day. Their bulldozer backed over the concrete section of sidewalk at Olive and Spring, broke that, pulled up the hill, pulled in there, I didn't know who owned the property, didn't know what was going on, later that day there was a big pile of trees. Ok. It is for this reason and reasons such as the two beautiful trees that were removed by Sweetser down at the old folks home that we have gone to all the trouble for this tree • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 19 Estes: Peters: Estes: Davidson: to be. There are red fox running around in there, wild turkeys, it is a nice place to be at. Each housing unit that you start building, each expansion of the roads that you put in is going to necessitate more of the same. Ultimately, my belief is that it is going to destroy that neighborhood. I know that it is zoned R-2, I know that legally everybody can possibly do that or that it is legal for them to do that. However, it is going to change the face of a nice neighborhood forever. I would urge you all to think about that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Vick. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development? Hi, my name is Didi Peters. I walk around up in Mount Sequoyah. I don't live in that neighborhood but there is another development that this gentleman has done on N. Olive Street and there have been many complaints about the cleanup and sewage issues. It looks to me that the grading has not been kept up with and the parking is a big problem there. I'm concerned about the number of parki ng spaces. They haven't even completed occupancy on the one on Olive Street and there are already too many cars occupying the space. I'm not sure if they belong to residents but they are there early in the morning and I'm curious as to why there are no sprinklers. I don't know if it is needed, that would be a planning issue. There is a large wooded area behind there, Walker Cemetery and also the Confederate Cemetery is very close. My issues mainly are parking, the fire, not keeping up with what they've promised as far as debris and grading. Also, I'm curious as to why there is no elevation plans in your packet. It seems that this developer has repeatedly promised one thing and has changed his ways half way through. I think it should be part of the packet and I'm disappointed that it is not. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Peters. Hi, my name is Sharon Davidson. I live on Rodgers, near this proposed development. I have been outspokenly against it from the beginning for many, many reasons. I hope you all will consider all the reasons brought up tonight and consider the collective actions of these gentlemen as to how we can put faith in what they say they will do. Let's get back to real issues, even if they were people we could feel we could trust their word. I have a question for our attorney later about their word early on in this process. One, I have pictures as to the tree pile which precipitated all the interest in this when they came in, I was there that day. Their bulldozer backed over the concrete section of sidewalk at Olive and Spring, broke that, pulled up the hill, pulled in there, I didn't know who owned the property, didn't know what was going on, later that day there was a big pile of trees. Ok. It is for this reason and reasons such as the two beautiful trees that were removed by Sweetser down at the old folks home that we have gone to all the trouble for this tree • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 20 ordinance. Here is one more thing, a 2" tree replacement for large trees, that is why we were forced to put in a tree ordinance because these types of gentlemen act first, whine later and don't care what they end up doing to us. Ok, we have the Olive Street example, I believe that is a Schmitt development, am I correct? Sir? Estes: Ms. Davidson, if you would please provide us with the benefit of your comments and any questions that you have. Davidson: I don't want to make any... this is a collective part and I wanted to make sure I know I'm speaking right. Estes: Ifyou have any questions, please direct them to me as the chair and if I can't answer them then I will direct them to an appropriate person. Davidson: Thank you then. My question is I do believe there is a track record here with the four plex that was crammed into a location on a hillside there at Olive, it runs into that lady's pasture. They are having problems there. I think he said he built a place on Lighton Trail which is directly behind us, that rental residence brings a lot of traffic and here comes to the main issue of what we're building here which is apartments, not even duplexes, this was the point to begin with. If we were going to have duplexes, we understood duplexes had a chance to blend with the neighborhood and also keep consistent who the basic residents of the neighborhood are, family, people. These gentlemen are catering best I know, to a particular market which is college students. If you' Il notice on the corner of Dickson and Fletcher is what was a single family residence that is now occupied by a minimum of four college students each with their own SUV. You go one block down the street right past a dangerous intersection where a school bus can barely pull that hill on Spring and you have all kinds of construction we're dealing with now with cables, with sewer with everything and there is another house right there. Four SUVs, four college students, living in what was a single family residence house, each with their own SUV, that is just two houses. We can absorb a little of this but his system is to inject all these different types. I am sorry, they are young, we hear them at the games cheering and I hear these guys in the back, they are good hog fans having a good time, they're whipping up and down the road in their vehicles, coming and going and staying up late. Ok, we have a little of that. These gentlemen are wanting to build apartments. Apartments are a total different dynamic in a mixed neighborhood. I haven't seen anything yet as to what kind of materials they are going to be, any of that system as to what we're going to be left with after they are not the revenue making things that they want and they downgrade them. This gets back to R-2 in general. Ok, if we look at our map, there are sections of R-2 that are right in this mountainside that are totally inappropriate. Yes, we seem to have the HUD housing right • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 21 Estes: there below the cemetery. I don't think the mountain top and that whole side can handle lots of apartments. The road situation is amazing there. I would like you all to please, before you do indulge these gentlemen, at already a very expensive cost to all of us, I know our city is crunching for money. I've asked for numbers as to how much our city departments have had to spend to accommodate these gentlemen, I don't know about that yet. These roads that we're going to have to widen and fix, there are five roads that come together at one point which is right where their driveway is supposed to be, in the middle of the steep sloping mountain, next to a hilly grass park where children play, where people walk, where people walk more than drive. Again, you come up Spring Street, it is a pretty dangerous street in the winter, most people can't access it and young drivers in SUVs are going to be in ditches. You can not get out on College at Spring, there is no light there so traffic can't feed that way. We have two other streets to feed to this, that is Lafayette and Dickson. Lets all please go there at 5:00 and try to turn off of Lafayette onto Fletcher, we know we have that horrendous problem around the corner at Lafayette and that intersection going up the mountain, where our four way stop signs are. Ifyou all would go to that intersection at 5:00, you might see part of where these big problems are going to be if these type of things are entered in. One thing, you're opening the door, this is the corner of this R-2 that is inappropriate for the mountain. Ifyou look at where our R-2 is, it is reasonable between Sixth Street and Fifteenth Street as far as topography, as far as what is already zoned there for business, what is being put in there. Our area for R-2 dense apartments for college kids is essentially from Happy Hollow down to I540 in a nice strip, it is laid out there, that is where it is going. We don't need them capitalizing on what is appropriate in that area because it has been extended too far in a totally unreasonable area and especially at this time. Here it is, whatever they are proposing, it is inappropriate at this time. We have no money, no resources to accommodate them. They are devaluating the whole neighborhood. I do have a question for the City Attorney so other people who I know are concerned and can speak better than 1 as to some more issues. When they signed the letter promising six units, and again, we have issues with units. Can someone tell me, in apartments, which is what seems to be a unit if it is not a single family dwelling, before they had four bedrooms per unit, how many four bedroom units can you have verses how many 3, 2 or 1 bedrooms? I'm confused about the units and how we add up all these bedrooms and units. Ms. Davidson, it is my understanding, and if I'm not correct Mr. Conklin, perhaps you can edify us that the density was to be six units per lot and within each of those six units were to be four bedrooms so there were twenty-four bedrooms, six units, twenty-four bedrooms per lot. For whatever reason, the applicant came back, and I think wisely so, and perhaps in response to some of the comments ofCommissioners at Subdivision and changed it to a ten two bedroom units and two one bedroom units. This was simply a design change on • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 22 behalfofthe applicant and I can't speak for the applicant but I know that I did attend that Subdivision Committee meeting and it is my memory that Commissioner Ward chaired that meeting and that there were some comments regarding the lack of appropriateness of six four bedroom units. Davidson Thank you for reminding me about that. I was thinking this predated that when they originally said they were putting in duplexes. 1 may be wrong, but I thought the original paper they signed was saying they would put in six duplexes. I wouldjust want to make sure, and I don't know did all of that become moot once they became a large scale development? Do they not have to comply with that original paper? Estes: The reason for the large scale development is that when the administrative item was first submitted regarding the request to build multi family units on two lots without street frontage a condition that the Commission put on that was a grant ofthat request subject to the large scale development. Without the requirement of the large scale development, we wouldn't be even hearing this item this evening. Davidson: Right. I think I understand that Sir. I believe this is the point I would like to get across to everyone who is not really familiar what we're fighting on here. Again, it is inappropriate R-2 zoning and the ability of someone to come in and demand huge amounts of city resources to accommodate their desire, not to build a home, not to make a living, but to make money. My desire is to ask one, we wait for impact fees to be enacted before we start letting all of these R-2 projects go into neighborhoods where they are not wanted, where they are not good for the neighborhood, when their sole purpose is for the benefit ofthat developer which is obvious here. I ask to try and consider withholding, we're in a big crunch here, next year is going to be real depressing for all of us and if we're stuck with all of these guys who in the last minute got these projects in that will degrade our town, that will create erosion, runoff problems, I think ifyou speak to the people who live in the little house right below this project, you'll find that their house is flooding more simply because of what these men have done to this one lot. This one lot is in the comer, it opens up, watch out, they are going to come back and want to build Center Street because they've put in a project, they've made the way, they've opened the door and if you let them open the door to ruin that whole side of the mountain beside the cemetery, again, we have the wildlife area, we have homes, families, residents. This changes that whole dynamic. This corner piece is the one that 1 ask you to consider waiting, put it off. It is still there, they still have that right at this time but it is not an appropriate time. In doing so, the way you can protect us please while we have this R-2 thing, which I do not believe our City Staff would say they recommend this project, I don't think if they can ever say anything like that, speak out for it, ifyou listen to their words they are saying "We have to • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 23 Estes: do this because..." Up here at R-2 zoning, that is a blanket, where the blanket of protection comes from is for you all to not grant waivers, for you to please wait. Thank you very much for listening, please do not grant any waivers. Thank you Ms. Davidson. If I may make a comment. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding, this is not a rezoning request. This property has been zoned R-2 for a number of years. If I also may add that the remaining item on the agenda, the administrative item regarding Center Street, if the LSD is approved then that administrative item will not be heard. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide comment on the requested LSD 01-19.10. Yes Sir, if you would introduce yourself to us please. Belt: Yes Sir, I'm Rick Belt, I live on Rogers Drive. I am curious about how far the widening of Fletcher Street is supposed to go. Estes: Mr. Carter, would that be an appropriate question for you to answer? Could you respond to that please? Carter: The widening of the street is only in front of the lot, from property line to property line. The street will be widened approximately 41/4 to 5' to give a total of 14' from centerline. Estes: Does that answer your question? Belt: Yes, but 1 must point out that that is on a curve and what is the point of widening it if it is for a very brief span? Estes: Mr. Conklin, can you answer that question? Conklin: Our ordinances allow us to require street widenings when the project abuts a street that doesn't meet our current street standards so typically staff is making a recommendation that it is 14' from centerline, curb, gutter and sidewalks. That is pretty much the standard improvement that we require based on a local standard street of 28' wide. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Mr. Bell, does that answer your question? Bell: Thank you Mr. Bell for your comments. Osborne: We would be happy if you want to waive the widening of the street. Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 24 Estes: McKinney: Estes: I understand. Personally I'm not prepared to do that. Yes, Mr. McKinney? I'm Rick McKinney, I live on Olive Street. Just because your R-2 allows the maximum density does not necessitate that you approve it. I believe that the clearing that has been done on that lot has changed drainage and created a good deal of erosion from what I have witnessed down there, it has probably affected some downhill neighbors already if I'm not mistaken even though they may be distant, it will create a change. I'm not sure Mr. Estes if you answered one of the people questions about the related development that is almost complete without clean up gentlemen, on Olive Street. According to the permit box, Hometown Development is involved in that and frankly, I think it is terrible. You know, to put that many units in that small lot, the concrete is already cracking that they have laid, the ditches are not clear for drainage, I'm not sure that they would ever be if we were not up here at this time discussing this second development. The amount of violations in code during building construction that are in those permit boxes is absurd. I would hope that the city has reinspected them like they should to make sure that they have been corrected. If this is a tell tell sign of the type of construction that is going into this next development, these buildings are not going to last for a number of years. They are not going to last on the ground and foundation that they are going to excavate and put them on. I just don't see the quality of construction and materials going into these buildings. I believe that these people will have made their money and will be gone when I'm still living in this neighborhood and perhaps when my children may be living in this neighborhood as adults ifthey stay here. The type of development I think that you folks need to consider as our representatives needs to be ofa little bit lesser density than this development. My wife also was concerned about the number of vehicles that will be parked in this parking lot. I think we're looking at, I heard a figure of 80 more passages per day in the street due to this addition, 10 dwellings, 10 units, I believe in a parking lot if you get one or two people per unit you are going to have an amount of cars or trucks that will not be able to adequately park in this lot that they are proposing that you approve. I am concerned about the sewer up in that area. They are not requiring a lift station yet we're not sure it is going to adequately handle the sewage that is going to come out of these units. Here again, the drainage in that area, the surface drainage is not controlled very well even though there are rough ditches out there. At this time, I would ask until some additional conditions for maybe fewer units or ifthey would like to propose fewer units in this lot, a half acre and the number of units is just unacceptable to me and I ask that you not approve it at this time. Thank you Mr. McKinney. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development? • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 25 Thompson: Hello, I'm Kathy Thompson, I'm the president of the Washington Willow Neighborhood Association. I know that I do not live on Mount Sequoyah but I walk there everyday and it has been a part of my life for twenty years and I speak for other people in the neighborhood association and am urging you not to approve this. I think that it is obvious to everyone what has happened down on Olive Street and if for some reason you do pass it, I know that legally it is zoned for it then I urge you extremely to pay close attention and care to what they are doing there. I feel like that what was done on Olive Street shouldn't have happened and I also believe that it was not what they said was going to happen and I think that one of the reasons we're all here with these fears is because of that very situation on Olive Street. I won't get into the fact that I feel like it is aesthetically not proper for the neighborhood or for our area, I think everyone has already said that. I am just going to ask you one more time from the neighborhood down below that cares about the neighborhood up on the mountain to please reconsider and really think about what you are being asked to do. Thank you. Estes: Faust: Thank you Ms. Thompson. Good evening, my name is Harriet Faust. My husband and I have lived on Spring Street and Olive Avenue for over 31 years. I presently live on Olive Avenue and look at what everyone has been referring to. Not too long ago I believe it was Gregg House that was coming up here before you, it was withdrawn at the last minute but I think it will be coming back to get permission for 48 units which are right next to or very near by the units you're talking about right now. I'm wondering if anyone has considered those extra units. We all assume that the intentions are good and the property and the rentals will be nice. It appears to me that these are some very big developments that are coming in there slowly, inking their way in and we're going to have a traffic problem that is well beyond our control. For 31 years we'ye watched traffic increase going up Spring Street and an enormous amount of traffic does not take Fletcher, it comes across Olive, tums and goes up Spring to take Fletcher. We've watched it come by our house for years. They have to travel across Fletcher or Olive especially on bad weather days. This is my main problem. The last development that Mr. Schmitt did in our area was the one on Olive that everyone has referred to which now has a ditch drainage problem which causes the water from the mountain to overflow the road, it goes into what is now Dr. Meldram's property, it used to be the old Gregory property. I don't think that Dr. Meldram is even aware of the problem yet, but I'm sure he is going to be one day. The property developed on Olive, which is about two blocks from the property you are discussing tonight has a solid concrete driveway, in fact, the whole mountain in concrete, of a greater than 5% grade, all eight to twelve of the vehicles that are parking there are going to have to park on the flat street area of Olive most of the winter time. They will be unable to get up into their • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 26 Estes: property as I am unable to get into mine. I have to also park in front of my home on Olive, as do many other people in the neighborhood. I doubt a garbage truck or fire truck is going to be able to get through Olive when we have bad weather under these new conditions with these new vehicles added to this one little street of Olive. Before he built these four cabins, which by the way are three bedroom, two bath, two story homes in my book, we had 5-8 cars always parked when it was a prediction of snow or ice, now we're going to add 8-12 more and there will be no way someone will be able to traverse Olive Avenue at all because if you make a turn on it and someone's coming at you, you have to back up, you backup onto Dickson or you're going to back up onto Spring and you're going to get stuck because it is going to be ice and snow. The area is a neighborhood and though we were told these were going to be cute cabins, I'm sorry to have to say I just have to cringe every time I look at it because it is a solid sheet of cement. It was a beautiful lot, gorgeous trees, everything was gone. I'm concerned with the increase in traffic flow in the area. We have a tremendous increase in walkers going up the mountain. At some point, the city may want to do a walking or jogging trail. With all of this traffic my husband and I are strictly of the opinion that Center Street should be opened at least to Fletcher if not further. The City needs to open Center for another avenue to get up to this area before we get all of these new developments. Remember, you haven't heard from Gregg House yet, he's still coming. He still owns that land, I'm sure he is going to build all of those units. Thank you. Thank you Mrs. Faust. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this requested large scale development? If so, would you please come forward, introduce yourselfand provide us with the benefit of your comments? Harris: Hi, I'm Patrick Harris. First off, I want to say I'm completely blown away because I feel like I'm affected by this more than all of these other people here because I'm the closest house to this development. I'm completely blown away. Really, it is amazing. Three main concerns of mine. One, is he going to be a good neighbor? Two, is it going to be dangerous? Three, is population density and the general appropriateness of this for the area? A good neighbor, first, the removal of the trees which I'm sure you are all aware of, removal ofa huge number of trees from a very small lot which will not be replaced underneath the guidelines ofa R-2. While I'm on R-2, I want to mention one small thing, the reason these are zoned R-2, it seems to be because the plan is to build Center Street. That is part of the city's master street plan and it would make sense to have R-2 on Center Street. If they are not going to build Center Street how is the R-2 zoning appropriate for that area? I'm really concerned about that. Dangerous, I think this has all been mentioned before but with the waiving of the building of the road, I know it is a dangerous intersection, it is only going to get more so with more driveways there but there needs to • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 27 Estes: be more access. There is not enough access to the area for this1/4 acre development and the other 'A acre development to come right beside it. On top of there not being enough access, obviously, Spring Street continues to be mentioned as an issue. The widening of the road is a good thing, 14', sidewalk, it is all great but people are forced to walk on the road now. That whole stretch of road up there, people are forced to walk on the road to get from point A to point B and until the whole area is widened and there is appropriate sidewalk for that area, it will not be safe for people to walk which is a very common thing up there. Like many people have said, there are more walkers generally than there are cars. In addition to the access, is the dangerous intersection itself. It is a blind curve, I know there is a stop sign there and I know we can sit here all day and say if people would follow the traffic laws it would be a much safer intersection but no one stops at that stop sign. I'm not here to bust my neighbors, but no one stops for that stop sign and primarily because they can not see up and down Fletcher and up and down Rogers. Finally, population density. As you can see there are some other zoning area that is R-2. what has been developed has been developed appropriately, what has not been developed is a very nice place to live. We would like to keep the feel of Mount Sequoyah, I've only lived in the state and here for a year, I would like to keep this area the way it is for as long as possible because it is an incredible place to be, it is an attribute to Fayetteville, it makes me want to stay in this town. If you continue to develop you will push people out. That is all I have to say. Thank you Mr. Harris. Does anyone else wish to comment on this requested LSD 01- 19.10? Seeing none, I will give Mr. Osborne, the applicant's representative an opportunity for a rebuttal presentation. Osborne. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I know that it is not a zoning issue, but Dust want to mention that the property was zoned before Bobby could walk. He has lived here 32 years. Twelve of those years he lived on Mount Sequoyah. His great grandfather is buried in Walker Cemetery. He is not trying to ruin the area. He thinks very long and hard about this project daily and I think he is going to put a nice development out there. Every issue that was brought up by the opponents is covered by either a city ordinance or an agreement with the Planning staff. I don't knowofa thing that they said that is not already covered. I don't know if there is anything that we can do about the police and fire protection of the street and all that. We've got a nice project and it boils down in my view • to one thing, we either go with the large scale development which was requested by the staff, and we think we've complied with everything, we regret that the trees were cut down. We are sorry that we did that. At the time that it was done, he had the right to do that. It was a pre -platted lot, quite frankly, if we had it to do again, we would not cut the trees down but they have all been replaced. I believe we have done everything Ms. Hesse • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 28 has asked. If there is anything that is not done that she wants done, we'll do it. We're doing everything we can to comply with this request of the staff. If there is anything remaining, we'll agree to it and we'll put it in writing, of course. It boils down to we can do it under the LSD proposal or build Center Street, I think this is a far better proposal, far better. If anybody has got any questions, we'll be happy to respond. Estes: Thank you Mr. Osborne. I'll bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion, comments, any questions, Mr. Conklin? Conklin: I would just like to point out, during your deliberations, on page 5.3 we did include § 166.05, for Large Scale Development. I bring this up to kind of go over what you can consider when you look at a large scale development and make a decision to approve or deny large scale developments. Those start actually on page 5.4 at the top of the page. No. 1 The development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of the section. No. 2 The proposed development would violate city ordinance, a state statute or federal statute. No. 3 The developer refuses to dedicate a street right of way utility easement, or drainage easements required by this chapter. No. 4 The proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition for the purpose of this section, a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography or the nature of the traffic pattern. No. 5 City and water sewer is not readily available for the property within the large scale development and the developer has made no provision for extending such service to the development. No. 6 The developer refuses to comply with the requirements for onsite and offsite improvements. Conklin: I just wanted to bring those to your attention. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Any comments, discussions, motions? Hoover: I have a question for Tim. There has been a lot of discussion for a similar development on Olive Street and I'm curious as to how many units that is and the size of the street in comparison to what is going on here as far as size. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 29 Conklin: I'm sorry, I don't have that information. The traffic count information that you have before you, we did pass down a map where that traffic count was taken. It was taken at about the location of where those units were built. Hoover: How many units is it in Olive? Do you know that? Conklin: I'm not sure. Faust: On Olive Street, there are four homes, they call them cottages. They are three bedroom, two bath, two story buildings. There was never a traffic count on Olive. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Faust. McKinney: The traffic count was done on Fletcher Estes: Ok, thank you Mr. McKinney. Hoffman: I have gone through the items on page 5.4 under which we may approve or deny a development pretty carefully because it is my stance to usually try to be squarely in the middle of things. I am really concerned with the character of the neighborhood and I'm also concerned with the ability ofa developer to use his lot and develop it according to the city standards However, I think this needs more work and I won't be able to support it for two main reasons. Under item number two, the proposed development would violate a city ordinance in that it does not have, I believe, adequate fire department access in that I think there are things that the applicant can do to mitigate the fact that the buildings are not sprinklered by the additions of fire walls and things. If it is not sprinklered, I believe a fire truck can only go in 150 feet before it has a turn around or a backup space. This project doesn't provide for that. Nor have I seen in any of our literature where the fire department has even reviewed this or approved this layout. Secondly, under item number four, it is my understanding that there is going to be a companion development on tract "A:" and the traffic count would then be increased by about 20% on Fletcher Avenue which I have looked at pretty carefully. In terms of creating or compounding a dangerous traffic condition, I would suggest to the applicant that it might be a good idea to take a look at a traffic impact analysis done by a private traffic engineer. I don't believe the city has the capability of making those kinds of determinations, I certainly don't. I see a 20% increase for just this development and the companion one as being a significant increase. I guess the third thing, and it is really not a part of this list but I believe that on large scale developments we always require elevations and make a determination about commercial design standards. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 30 Conklin: No, this is a residential project. Commercial design standards do not apply to this. Hoffman: We did that on the conditional use on School. Conklin: Yes, for multi family and staff has asked applicants to provide those as part of the conditional use application. Hoffman: Ok, so I stand corrected on that. Items two and four to me are still significant and I do not want to hold this developer up. If he could meet all of the city standards, I do have sympathy for both sides. I really feel like we're just not quite there yet. Certainly, the number of units with that kind of traffic on that small street is a major concern along with the fire access. 80% of the deaths that occur in fires in the United States occur in residential apartments or single family dwellings between 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. If we don't have what I believe to be the required fire access, then to me we've violated a city ordinance. That is where I'm standing at this time and can't support the development as it is drawn. Estes: Petrie: Estes: Mr. Petrie, I have a question regarding the existing sanitary sewer system on Mount Sequoyah. We learned from the materials which you have provided that there is a lateral number one and a lateral number two. Which of these laterals have created some problems in the recent past? It is lateral number one, the way it is labeled on this drawing. That is the lateral that feeds the majority of Mount Sequoyah. This site will not be connecting to that lateral. It will be another lateral that comes up Spring Street. To my knowledge, there have been no complaints from that particular system. Does the applicant propose to connect to lateral number two Mr. Carter? Simply stated, my question is that Mr. Petrie I believe has explained to us that it is lateral number one that has caused some problems in the recent past, are you connecting to lateral one or lateral two? Carter: We are connecting to lateral number two. Estes: The second question I have, is Ms. Hesse still with us? Ms. Hesse, there has been some discussion regarding the tree issue and you have favored us with a memo that we have in our packet but the people in attendance do not have that. The historic background is that this lot was clear cut, what recommendations have you made and why have you made those recommendations? • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 31 Hesse: Marr: When this first came through it was separated into two so it didn't fall within the requirements for tree preservation. It would have to be a large scale development, one acre or more for that to be the case. Under the conditions that you placed on it, it was put under large scale development. That is when we looked at the ordinance, by that time the trees had been removed. That is why we are requiring that 30% of the site be replaced. Based on the ordinance at the time this went through, you base those as 800 sq. ft. per tree. Basically, 30% would be 6,400 square feet approximately, that is 8 large canopy trees. Those can be planted in a lesser space so we are requiring a minimum of3,200 sq. ft. planting space for those eight shade trees. Chat has been provided on the latest plan that I reviewed. Under the ordinance which is no longer in place, but was in place during the proposal of this development, we are basically meeting all that we can require of them in replacement trees. Thanks. I have a question while Ms. Hesse is at the podium. Was there consideration given to larger replacement plantings? We heard some reference in public comment earlier that the size of replacement trees were too small, can you speak to that? Hesse: As the administrator, I can only require what is in the ordinance. That would have to come from the Planning Commission. Per ordinance, it is required 2" caliper. Marr. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Ms. Hesse. Conklin: Just from some of the responses we got from the audience regarding whether or not a traffic count was done, this is what Perry Franklin, our Traffic Superintendent, indicated to our Staff Engineer, we asked him today twice regarding this. There was a traffic count done on Olive, it was done 200 feet north of Dickson Street. I don't live out there so I can't verify whether the tube was down on the street or not but the numbers that they counted, once again, I'm J ust reporting to you what our city traffic department did, they did some counts there and you might want to go over it. Marr: Is that this handout? Conklin: Yes. The reason why the city traffic department, I'll try to explain why the city went out there to do this. Commissioner Allen, from my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong since I was not at agenda session, but one of our Commissioners asked for a traffic count to be done. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 32 Allen: Conklin: Davidson: Estes: Osborne: Estes: Osborne: Estes: Osborne: Carter: Estes: Bunch: Osborne: Right. I just wanted to base a comparison between the two streets. Ok. That is why Olive Street was chosen and the city went out there and did that. Apparently, there is some concern that it really wasn't done. It wasn't done at the right place. I have a question of the applicant. There is an adjoining lot and it is reasonable to expect, and perhaps there is even a probability that that property will be developed in the near future. What plans have you made for connectivity and cross access to that property? Are you speaking about the Dandy lot? Yes. Repeat your question please. What plans, if any, have you made for cross access and connectivity and I'm thinking about traffic flow and particularly, the traffic flow off of Fletcher. I think I need Mr. Carter to answer that. He is the engineer that drew the plan up. There is no cross connection planned. Commissioners, any other questions? Any comments? On June 14th in a meeting ofa Subdivision Committee, the applicant, Mr. Schmitt, asked us to look at his record in considering this particular development. He told us about some of the developments that he has made. The question 1 have at this time, we've heard quite a bit of comment about a development on Olive Street, I would like to ask the applicant if that is his development on Olive in between Dickson and Spring on the east side? Mr. Bunch, he believes he has met all of the requirements, but he is going to go back and take another look and if there is something else to do, he's going to do Bunch: • My question is, is that his development? Osborne: Yes Sir. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 33 Bunch: Ok.. Osborne: Let me rephrase that, I don't know what they are talking about. He has a development on Olive Street. Bunch: There is just to the north of Spring and on the east side of Olive a very recent development with a considerable amount of concrete, four buildings. Osborne: Again, that gets back to what I had mentioned earlier We think that we have complied with all ofthe ordinances, but if we haven't, we will. If there is something else to do out there we're going to go and do it. I don't think he had even noticed that there was an objection out there. Nobody bothered to call him and say there is something wrong, but we' II take care of it. Bunch: One of the things that concerns me in looking at these types of developments, is of course, meeting the letter of the law and the technicalities of our development codes. Another is looking at the spirit of the law and the spirit of the development codes and some of these look like they have been a masterful job of looking for loopholes in order to meet technicalities just to get by without trying to deal with things like compatibility with neighborhoods and that kind of issue. Osborne: Yes Sir, I understand what you're saying. In this case we submitted the LSD at the request of the city. We think we've done everything that city staff has asked us to do. We have not looked for a loophole and we've tried to comply with what we were requested to do and we. believe we have. We're here tonight, not looking for a loophole, we're looking for the best way to develop which would be the LSD at issue now or build Center Street which is the other alternative. We agree with the city staff the best altemative is the proposal now on the table. Bunch: Of course, when you use the term "the best way to develop" that becomes a rhetorical question and has quite a bit to do with the number of units, the architectural style, whether or not it is compatible with the neighborhood, what impact it has on a neighborhood and judging from, at the applicant's request, to look at his record andjudging from that past record to see if that is indicative of what he would also try to put in this neighborhood I can not support this development at this time. Osborne: Well, like I said, we tried to comply with all the city ordinances, state laws, whatever. I understand the city is about to undergo a review of the zoning, maybe you will include Sequoyah Mountain in the review ofthe rezoning, maybe some of the other ordinances • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 34 Estes: Conklin: need review as well. That is all we've got to go by is the ordinances. He has done what he is required to do, we believe he has complied. If there is more to do, we' 1I try to be good neighbors, we'll try to do it. Any other discussion? Mr. Conklin? If you decide to deny this large scale development, I would just ask that you clarify exactly what you are asking the developer to do to comply with our city ordinances in order to bring this back forward. I just want to make sure it is clear to the applicant and staff what you are asking them to do and what code sections, or code that you are asking them to comply with. It is a large scale development and if you do deny it I think you need to let the applicant know exactly what he needs to be bringing back to you. Hoffman: I want to be clear about what I was referring to because I don't know, it may pass, but if it doesn't, my concems are that fire department access, according to the fire code is met. It doesn't look to me like it has been at this time and that the 20% increase in traffic volume, this is a subjective opinion on my part, but I have to say and look at these reasons very carefully for denying this. You know, if this was my lot I would certainly want to make the most of it and I understand that. I don't want to compound a dangerous traffic condition. We've got grades and we've got a narrow street and we've got site distance problems and things that we know about. It is any recommendation if this is denied that a private traffic consultant do a traffic impact analysis and that the traffic impact analysis be done, not only for this development but if there is to be a companion development, and I don't know, I don't think I'm really supposed to talk about something that hasn't come before us but if I understand correctly, there is one in the works, it would cover both developments and it would show how this would impact the nature ofthe street and traffic flow for the neighborhood. Those are the two issues I have in my mind. Osborne: With all due respect Ms. Hoffman, I believe these matters you are talking about have been reviewed by the staff. Without bringing this up there and pointing I don't know how to show you, but there is a fire hydrant on the property at the request of staff. It is shown to be installed at the request of your staff and we believe we are in full compliance with all ordinances that grants ability ofthe fire department to get in there. The 20% increase in the traffic figures, the figures I saw showed about a 10% increase in traffic. Hoffman: For this one side that is correct. If you take both sides, it is 20%. • Osborne: We're just dealing with one side tonight. As far as those issues that Mr. Conklin addressed, the staff reviewed that and they still recommended in favor of the project. You • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 35 were aware that there was a fire hydrant there? I just wanted to be sure. Hoffman: Yeah, I saw that there but a fire hydrant is different than a road access and 1 don't see that we have any record of the Fire Chief addressing that. Marr. I guess maybe if I could ask a question of Tim. What does it hurt us to get the opinion of our Fire Chief on whether this would be considered a safe development from his standpoint, from access into a drive. I have the same concern that Commissioner Hoffman has and the fact that this access of parking, there is no out. Regardless of whether there is a fire hydrant there or not, I wouldn't want someone trapped on one end ofthis ifa fire happens to be in the middle and they are on the other end of it. I have a concern of being able to get out ofthis thing from one end of it. I don't see what it hurts. We certainly got an opinion from Perry Franklin on site distance. Part of the issue is that we're not supposed to be looking at both developments. Part of planning is planning for what is going to happen in the area. I can't help but look at what the zoning is and what the requirements are and if this has a 10% impact and there is a peer property with like size and like development coming down the road then I can use some common sense that that is going to double. I think that creates some issues relevant to traffic and danger which is obviously a condition we need to look at. This property sits on a curve, while it is not a requirement, or not something that we can look at, from a good will standpoint it seems to me that I do struggle with trying to picture in my mind what a residential elevation is going to look like on a property I've already heard concems about from the prior neighborhood, even though it is not part of the consideration. I have an issue with fire, I understand there is a hydrant. Did we consider access out any other way from the property? Maybe it is ,lust humanly not possible, but I want to know if we looked at that. I think traffic count is a concern that also needs to be addressed. Conklin: With regard to the Fire Department, they do receive a packet of information as a part of this internal review. That is not a bad idea. We can go back to the Fire Department and ask them to look at this one more time. With regard to traffic study, I would like more clarification on that, we're asking the applicant to hire a consultant and pay a consultant to produce for him a traffic study, or are we asking the applicant to pay the city to hire a traffic consultant. Dust bring this point up, the last thing I want to do is have the applicant hire a consultant and then maybe the study is not good enough because the applicant is paying for a study to answer a question that you have. Marr: For me, I would prefer that the city manage that. I think it is the city's job to evaluate the traffic count and the impact on it. Whether we ask the developer to pay part of that or some of that or all of that, I think we need it. We have some discrepancy about what we • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 36 have in front of us that we're making a decision on. I also am going to consider it in addition to what else comes right here. If it is the same applicant with an identical development coming right behind it, I can't help, I'm not going to put blinders on to say I'm only going to look at these 10% traffic count. If we did that, nobody would be looking at College someday. Nobody would be looking at some of the other roads that we've had in the city that I think we have to look at. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm a business person, if I own land I want to develop it also. I do think we have a right under what I read as these guidelines to get some input. 1 think when we have some discrepancy about some of us are uncomfortable with whether it is safe. What does it hurt to get our Fire Chief to say it's not if it's not. If they're comfortable with it or if someone is caught on one end of this thing with no out access that they feel comfortable that we can have a safe condition still exist. Conklin: I agree with you. On the traffic study, I don't have money in the budget for planning to do that. Marr: What do those typically cost? Conklin: I don't know, do you have any idea Ron? Petrie: I would hate to guess. I don't know. Marr: What did it cost us to do this one? Conklin: That's just a count. Hoffman: My intention, a traffic study is done by a P.E., it is a traffic engineer, I don't think it matters who hires them, they are going to use a standard manual and it is going to tell them a lot. I don't really know the terminology but it is going to tell them based on national standards and vehicle trips per day and terrain issues and things like that whether or not this is feasible and then they make recommendations independently. This is an independent traffic consultant, just because the developer hires him doesn't mean that he is going to tell the developer necessarily what he wants to hear. We saw quite a bit of that in CMN I think. They had an independent traffic engineering firm take a look at their roads and they had some recommendations that the city followed that since we are not in the business of designing roads for brand new developments or putting this many people in an infilling development. It would just be a good idea, since this is their development they should bare the cost of it. I am just looking for some expert opinion and I don't know that they arc going to break the bank. I think that traffic studies can be defined in their scope and • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 37 I think we've defined pretty much, or I have tried to be fairly specific about what I'm looking for. Conklin: Ok, I just wanted to clarify who is hiring and paying the consultant. Hoffman: If the city can get a better rate, then they can reimburse the city, that might be an option. Marr. I just think it is important for it to not be, I can see where the applicant, if it was a requirement, does a study and then somebody says "Well, of course, it is his person and the study came out his way." I don't think that is fair to the applicant. I think the city needs to manage that process if we're going to make a requirement. Conklin: When you say manage.. . Marr: I guess hire the individual to have it done, have the report given to the city and the city then distributes it to the appropriate parties. • Conklin: And the applicant reimburses the city for that? Marr. If you are wanting me to say that, then yes. • Conklin: I'm sorry, I'm bringing up an example from another state I used to live and work in. The applicant would pay the city for that, have we done that before? No. My concern was having the applicant go out, hire a consultant, and everybody say the study is invalid because he is paying an expert to come here to the Commissioner with his report. Marr: I could not agree with you more that that possibility exists. If it takes that, we'll feel comfortable if we see it and they pay for it and maybe we put some, I have no idea what it costs. Maybe there is something that makes it so it is not unreasonable or financially unbearable on the developer. I think we need it. Allen: I just wanted to say that as planners, I think we're not doing an effective job of planning if we only look at one tiny element and not consider the whole. That is my concern here. Estes: Petrie: Mr. Petrie, did you have a comment? I just wanted to add that we do have a traffic engineer on staff in the Engineering Division. My recommendation would be they do hire their own engineers and he reviews their • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 38 findings and you have both parties findings come before you would be my recommendation. Williams: A lot of the comments that were made by the neighbors here, I think the Commission certainly shares and staff does too in concem to this R-2 development. That is why I think the staff is looking at, possibly the first time in thirty years undergoing a comprehensive rezoning examination of Fayettevi I le. That would be a major project probably including you all also. That is really the problem I think involved in this particular large scale development. However, when you are making your decision on this particular project, this large scale development request, I think you have to look at this particular request. I don't think it is right to speculate very much beyond that or to try to hold them to any different standards other than the criteria that is right there in our ordinance. Also, it sounds to me like the comments that I've heard from you are comments that you need further information as opposed to a rejection ofthis particular proposal. If that is your feeling then of course, the proper decision would be to table as opposed to deny this large scale development. Marr: Kit, I appreciate your comments. I think they are very accurate. I guess for me, or at least maybe what I'm looking at when I talk about a development is a half acre development that has a 10% impact seems substantial for the size of it to me. Therefore, I think it has the possibility of creating dangerous situations and I would like to feel better about it. 1 am not recommending denial. I am recommending that I would deny it today based on the information in front of me because I think there is more information that I personally would like to see. If this is all I have to consider, that is how I would vote. However, I do think it would be beneficial to get that information to consider it because those are my sticking points to not vote on it. I actually applaud the applicant in that I do agree that I think smaller units are more effective than six four bedrooms and I'm certainly more comfortable with that than the last thing I saw. I think we have zoning issues, Kit's comments are right. Some of the concerns are how the zoning is and that is something that we need to look at, but that is not something we're here to do today. My issues are fire, traffic and connectivity or access out ofthis site on one end ofthis. I would not vote for it until I get more comfortable from the experts around those issues. Hoover: I have an issue to add to that. I wanted to know where is the guest parking? I mean ifyou are going to have this many units, where do the guests park? Where does a guest park when they come to visit? Osborne: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. • Hoover: Where does a guest park when they come to visit? • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 39 Osborne: Glenn, that is your department. 1 have a couple of other things, if it is permissible, I would like to mention. The city has limited us to the number ofparking spaces now shown, staff did. Hoover: Tim, how do we handle that in other apartment units? Conklin: We allow one space per bedroom but we also allow 20% over that so we have a minimum and a maximum. Some developers choose to do more than the minimum. Hoover: Ijust find on this particular site, there is no way anyone could park on Fletcher. Then with the dead-end parking, with the dead-end drive way.. . Osborne: We'll put more, you have to get your staff to let us though. Hoover: I don't see how you could get anymore in here actually. To me this is a big issue because you know there are going to be guests if there are that many units and I don't understand that. That is a big issue for me besides all the others that Commissioner Marr mentioned. Planning in general takes in the context of the whole area and I find it very difficult to look at this as one single segment without looking at what is going on in this area. I agree, we can't put blinders on that there is not going to be a development next door. Actually, I find it always to the developers advantage to bring the entire thing in. Lots of times, for instance, I do have an issue with where this dumpster is located and how that is going to be screened because you are going to be able to see that from Fletcher, unless it is screened on all four sides. Where as, if the whole development came in together perhaps they could have one dumpster instead of two. Perhaps they could have one detention pond instead of two. I really see it as an advantage for the developers. As a planner, I can not look at this as just one isolated lot in the city. It has an effect over a lot of the area. It would be like any other development, when we have a bar come in on Dickson Street. We look at how it affects all of the area there and what would be going on in that area, not just one isolated element of it. Estes: Mr. Osborne, did you have a comment you would like to make? Osborne: Yes I do, thank you Mr. Chairman. The driveway for these apartments is 24' wide paved. That is wider than many of the streets on Mount Sequoyah, including the one on which I live. It is quite a bit wider. As far as connectivity, we did what the staff recommended for us to do. If you want it done the other way, we'll do it the other way. They said total separation so you got total separation. We did that as directed. That is not a criticism of • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 40 the staff. They've been great to work with. We're just trying to get everybody happy and it is a little hard to do. Estes: Thank you Mr. Osborne. Hoover: I didn't quite understand the connectivity. The staff wouldn't let you connect to another development? That is unusual. Conklin: Mr. Chair, can I explain myself? Estes: Yes Mr. Conklin. Conklin: Thank you. Ok, we started out with two lots, two different owners, they said it was two separate projects. Both combined were over an acre, separate were less than an acre. I have to deal with this as City Planner. I made an interpretation. It is really not an interpretation, dealing with one owner, I said if you are going to combine lots, I don't care if it is one owner, three owners, five owners, if it is over an acre, you are going to have to go through large scale development. Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Dandy insisted it was two separate projects. I said "Fine, I can't make you make it into one project." I can't make people join together and develop property together. I said "You have to meet every single ordinance separately, on your own." Throughout this process we've gone back and forth with lift stations on other people's property, detention ponds on other people's property which has resulted in trying to bring forward a complete stand alone development. I'm not opposed to combining the driveways, but it kind of goes against everything I told them up front which was to do two separate stand alone developments. I have kind of put myself in a corner here because I think the public is aware and the Commission is aware that there is another development coming to you and the whole issue was they were not required to go through large scale development because it was under an acre. That is where we are at today. I've taken a hard stand on that, it has to be two separate developments. However, both are coming through large scale development and if that is something the Commission would like to see, I'm all in favor of that. Williams: Mr. Chaimran, let me defend Tim just a second In early meetings he did encourage this all to be developed in one unit and it was a choice that they basically refused to do that. They were insisting on separate projects and that is why Tim made the decisions he made. Osbome: They are separate. They have got separate financing, it is two separate families. They are not related in any way, they are just friends. They don't want to tie it together. Mr. Dandy lives in Springdale and Mr. Schmitt lives in Fayetteville. They are not related in any way • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 41 other than they just have adjoining property. If you want us to develop one way, we don't care. Estes: Mr. Conklin, if this Commission was to deny this LSD request, would it be permissible for the applicant to appeal to the City Council? Conklin: Yes. Estes: If the request was pulled by the applicant when would it come back on the agenda? Conklin: It would come back to you if they reapplied, next year. Estes: If this Commission tabled this LSD request, when would it come back on the agenda? Conklin: November 26th. Estes: My concems are somewhat similar to Commissioner Marr and Commissioner Hoffman. The traffic issue in my mind is a subjective determination. I think there has been a very articulate request made by Commissioner Marr that there be additional material data provided. The fire protection issue is some concem to me. I note that the plat we've been provided with, the fire hydrant is on the Fletcher end of the property. I too would like to hear from our Fire Chief regarding compliance. I will tell you this, Commissioner Hoffinan makes her living coding and certifying code compliance. When she tells us that this does not comply, that gets my attention. That carries great weight with me. Hoffman: I'm not trying to be mean about it. I think that planning is somewhat subjective in nature and it really does bother me to turn something down and that is why I was whispering to Bob about the tabling verses you going on and appealing it. That is certainly an option that you've got. It seems like with a little more work and you know, maybe meeting with these people, I don't know if that has been done yet or not but I feel like building a consensus with a project is a lot better than having an adversarial relationship with your neighbors. Motion: Estes: With the chronological time line provided by Mr. Conklin, I'm going to make a motion that we table LSD 01-19.10, the reason I'm doing that is for the reasons stated by Mr. Conklin. If the applicant pulls it then we'll see it next year. If we deny it and it is appealed to the City Council, that further delays the most expeditious way for this to come back • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 42 Marr: Estes: before us, hopefully, with our concerns addressed and the problems stated and articulated, solved is for this to be tabled. That is the reason I make a motion to table LSD 01-19.10. I certainly support that. 1 don't know how we've done it in the past, should we tie into that tabling bringing back to the Commission on a particular date with the following information and outline that information so it is clear what we're looking for. I think that has been articulated in the comments and discussion, but if not what I'm interested in seeing is I want our Fire Chief to take a look at it and give an opinion as to whether he feels it conforms with code or not. Second, I would like to see some more imperial data on the 24 hour two way traffic volumes. Those are my concerns. Hoffman: Can I add on the fire code stuff that you have a lot efdifferent ways to meet the fire code? Marr: The third thing, the only other issue that I've heard that I think certainly is something and maybe the staff gives us more information on is relative to Commissioner Hoover's comments on the guest parking or the parking requirements relative to this development. If those three things are in that table motion then I would second that. Allen: Before voting I just have another question to ask. I wondered whether or not the neighbors had been involved in aspect of your planning? Osborne: Other than at the public meetings, I'm not aware of any. They've been at almost every public meeting we've had. Allen: You've not made any attempt to get together with them and see what might be more workable from their point of view. Osborne: No Ma'am we haven't. We will make an effort to do that. Allen: Ok, that would be helpful. Estes: Commissioner Marr, your comments are incorporated in my motion. Marr: I'll second that. Petrie: Can I get a clarification? Ijust want to make sure we understand on the traffic study. You mentioned imperial, for one is this traffic study going to be done by the applicant? Number two, do you just want data, do you want conclusions that this will be a safety problem, that • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 43 this will not create a safety problem. I think that is what you are after, but I would like some guidance. Hoffman: When you do a traffic study, it is my understanding that a traffic impact analysis addresses by its very nature trips per day, safety information, parking, driveway widths, road widths, grades, I don't know what else, but a traffic impact analysis is just that. It analyzes the impact of the development on the existing street. Marr: I guess Ron, if I could also add onto that what I'm looking for is item number four, it talks about the development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. Is the count such that it would create or construe a means on which the risk of accidents increases involving motor vehicles. I would prefer that the method you described in our discussion of someone in the engineering staff who does that do theirs, that the developer hire someone to do their own and that be submitted to your contact ofwhich both results be presented to the Commission. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Conunissioner Marr to table LSD 01-19.10, is there any further discussion? Ward: I kind of after studying this and watching this through Subdivision and Planning Commission several times, I personally feel like on this particular issue, as a Planning Commissioner we're at a big disadvantage because this property has already been zoned R-2 for a long, . long time. It is allowable on an R-2 to have 24 units per acre A half acre which this is, they can have 12 units. That is really the crutch of the main problem. If this is a rezoning or another type of use, a conditional use, we could limit the number of units, number of bedrooms or what not on this property and we would have a lot more control of what is going on. I feel like that they can meet all the ordinances that we have. I feel like they can propose to put as many units as allowable up to the 12 units on there and all these things are allowable under our ordinances. I personally feel like there are too many units on there but if it is allowable it is allowable, it is the rights of the property owner, it is zoned that way. That is my main problem with it is I believe they can meet all of the ordinances. I feel like I would have to vote for it since they have met all of those ordinances. I think it is going to be hard to prove that this is more of a hazard in traffic than any other place in town that is not already up there. I live on Mount Sequoyah and we all deal with those kinds of problems. Those are just some of my thoughts and comments. Hoover: The planning staffshared with us information from the Fayetteville Police Department about the number of accidents that have happened in that area and I think it is important for all of the Commissioners to have that information if they would share that with us. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 44 Estes: Mr. Conklin, do you have that material available this evening? Conklin: One accident according to the Fayetteville Police Department.. . Petrie: That was the information that was given at Subdivision, there has been one accident in the past of the year that was reported and police responded to. It had to do with failure to yield. Marr. Estes: We heard that from the stop sign running, failure to yield. We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Marr to table LSD 01-19.10, is there any further discussion? Bunch: In fairness to the applicant, I too will say what some of my concerns were since we are voting on a motion to table. One of the concerns since we have a companion development, whether it is a part of it, kin to it or whatever I believe coming up in the very near future to Subdivision, I don't see the space between the two mirror imaged developments, maybe I'm not reading the drawings correctly. I don't see a whole lot of treatment of the space between the two buildings, the setback area. My concerns are drainage issues and maintenance issues and that sort of thing, how that is taken care of. That is one of the things I would like to let you know that if we do vote to table, we need a more clear understanding, since the same engineering company is working on both developments, how that space in between the two is considered. Concerning R-2 developments, yes, technically, we'll get back to this issue of letter of law verses intent of the law, the letter of the law says that R-2 can be developed up to 24 units per acre. The intent of the law I think is to try and create developments that are compatible with the neighborhood and fit in with the community. I don't really see that happening at this location. Again, the letter of the law allows 24 per acre I believe in trying to satisfy the letter of the law that possibly this is a little over zealous and that is where the complaints from the community and some ofthe concems from the Commission come in that it is just a little too much development for the ground. I do believe that we have a unique location with some terrain problems and with the traffic in inclement weather which is always a problem in this area with ice and snow. Indifference to any other comments that have been made on the interconnectivity between the two lots. It seems like it would be better to have the two combined because then you would only have one sewer lift station instead of two lift stations, various economies of scale. That is a decision for the developers to make, but it seems like if there was some cooperation and some interconnectivity that possibly some ofthe questions of terrain related traffic and parking problems could be resolved. I will be supporting the motion to table and these are some of my reasons for • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 45 Marr: supporting that so that in the time, if this is to be tabled, to give the applicants an opportunity to look at some of these issues because this has drawn out for a particularly long time and I would encourage the applicants to meet with the community and I understand that it is very difficult to design by committee and to meet everyone's needs but at the same time, open communication and some consensus might be beneficial here. I'm sorry Mr. Chair, one more thing, actually two more things. A question for Tim, how far away is the adjoining development? How far along is it in the process and would it be a possibility or likelihood that that could be an additional agenda item on our November 26th meeting so that even though these are independent, we have the opportunity to see both? Is it far enough along to look at it that way? Conklin: I know it has been submitted to our office. I don't recall reviewing the development today, and Ron was there, and both of us can't recall if it was.. . Petrie: Maybe Glenn can help us, but I think it is going to Subdivision, it has already been to Plat Review. Carter: We're going to Subdivision Committee this Thursday I believe. Marr: I would encourage city staff that if it makes it through Subdivision in one meeting, that we look at trying to schedule that on the same Planning Commission date if this comes back from being a tabled item and that the information may be looked at. The second question I had, I want to go back to the elevation issue because call me dense, I've been on here and I'm about to go off, and I can remember almost every Lindsey development giving an elevation. I'm trying to understand what the difference might be in something like that verses this. Why we wouldn't see an elevation in this case Conklin: Some applicant's developers like to show the Commission beautiful pictures of their development as a part of the review process. I think they use it as a marketing sales tool to show you how wonderful their development is going to be. I think that is why you've seen a lot. Marr. But it has not been something required by the city? Conklin: No. • Marr. I would encourage the developer, if he has a beautiful picture that he would like to share, I would certainly be interested in seeing it. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 46 Estes: Thank you Commissioner Marr. We have a motion by the chair and a second by Commissioner Marr to table LSD 01-19.10, is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to table LSD 01-19.10 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion to table passes by a unanimous vote. Because there was no dispositive action, either positive or negative taken on agenda item number 5, the LSD was tabled by motion passed by the Commission, no action is required on agenda item number 6, the administrative item. Tim, are there any announcements? Conklin: Sure, we would like the applicant know and the public that next Wednesday at noon is the deadline to get the information to us which se ms very ambitious I guess, to hire a traffic consultant to do a traffic study and have the results by next Wednesday, but that is up to you, the deadline is Wednesday at noon. Thursday is Thanksgiving, our agenda session, I guess I'm announcing that to you today, I would like to have that Wednesday at 3:30 instead of Thanksgiving at 3:30, if that is ok with the Commission. Schmitt. Can we extend that deadline based on.. . Conklin: We have to provide the Commission an agenda and the information they are requesting. Hoffman: He could skip the cycle. Estes: I think the question was is it permissible to skip a cycle and go through the next cycle or is there any mandatory requirement that they be placed on the next agenda? Conklin: There is not, and that is why I brought it up. December 10th would be the next Planning Commission meeting. The deadline for that would be that Thursday prior to December 10th. Estes: Any other announcements? Conklin: Yes, I do have a couple more. December 4th Duncan & Associates will be here in Fayetteville, they are the consultants looking at impact fees. They will be presenting to the Stakeholders Committee and the public the impact fee methodology used for roads. I am proposing to have anoint Planning Commission and City Council information session with the consultant at 5:30 on December 4th if you can attend that. I think it is going to be • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 47 important at that meeting to have our consultant go over with you on water, waste water and roads to kind of get you up to speed on their calculations and methodology. December 13th I would like to have a Planning Commission retreat and work on our 2002 work program. This is going to be very important to set our agenda next year. We will be bringing forward our annexation policy. We will be bringing forward our amendments for our comprehensive plan. We will be talking about a comprehensive city wide rezoning. I want input from the Commission of what your priorities are with regard to our work load in the Planning Division and the staf. We are doing a tremendous amount of work right now and we just want to make sure that as we go forward next year, we are all on the same page of what we want to accomplish in 2002. That will be December 13th at 5:30, I will announce.. . Marr: What day is that? Conklin: That is a Thursday. Hoffman: What day is the 4th? Conklin: The 4th is a Tuesday. There is a City Council meeting that night at 6:30 so it would be about an hour long. Hoffman: Thursday is at what time? Conklin: 5:30, and I will announce a location on that. This is something I have not done in the past but all ofthe different subcommittees we have working on different ordinances and my list of20 things I want to accomplish in the next year or four years, I want to share that with the Commission and get your ideas of what you want us to work on first and bring that forward to you. There are a lot of issues out there. I do want to work on a comprehensive rezoning, that is going to be a six month, year or even year and a half long project. Over and over again we're seeing issues with the 31 year old zoning map. That is all I have. Estes: I would like to personally invite our City Attorney to attend that workshop session if his schedule permits. I can see that we'll be dealing with some rather complex legal issues as we talk about a city wide rezoning effort. Williams: I will be happy to attend. As you pointed out in some other issues, this would certainly be a legislative action by the City Council to do that which gives us more leverage in that • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 48 particular area Although there are complex legal issues to look at, we don't want to do anything that is going to endanger the city treasury. Conklin: I agree. Estes: Any other announcements? We stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned. 7:45 p.m. • • • • Planning Commission November 13, 2001 Page 49 ADM 01-28.00: Administrative Item (Hometown Development, pp 524) was submitted by Robert Schmitt on behalf of Hometown Development for property located south and west of the intersection of Fletcher & Rodgers Avenue. The request is for a waiver of the City of Fayetteville minimum street standards. Meeting adjourned 7:45 p.m.