Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-26 Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 26, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 01-27.00 Administrative Item (Master Parks Plan) Approved Page 3 ADM 01-45.00 Administrative Item (Archer) Approved Page 11 PPL 01-7.00 Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, pp 359) Page 13 Approved ANX 01-5.00: Annexation (Griscom/Guist, pp 476) Forwarded Page 17 RZN 01-24.00: Rezoning • (Worley/Griscom/Guist, pp 435/474) Forwarded Page 18 RZN 01-27.00: Rezoning (Worley/Griscom/Guist, pp 435/474) Forwarded Page 20 RZN 01-25.00: Rezoning (Bayyari, pp 363) Forwarded Page 22. RZN 01-26.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) Forwarded Page 32 RZN 01-28.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) Forwarded Page 34 • • • • MEMBERS PRESENT Alice Church Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Don Marr Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 3 Roll call and approval of the minutes from November 26, 2001. Estes: • Welcome to the Monday evening, November 26, 2001 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business will be to call the roll. Renee, would you call take care of that please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll six Commissioners were present with Commissioner Hoover being absent, Commissioner Bunch arrived at 5:45 p.m and Commissioner Shackelford arrived at 5:55 p.m. Estes: Six members being in attendance, a quorum is present, the next item of business will be approval of the minutes from the November 13, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, comments regarding the minutes from the November 13, 2001 meeting? Seeing none they will be approved. ADM 01-27.00 Administrative Item (Master Parks Plan) was submitted by the Parks and Recreation Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. The request is to adopt guiding policies and implementation strategies to replace the current Parks component of the General Plan 2020. Estes: The first item of new business is an administrative item submitted by the Parks and Recreation Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. The request is to adopt guiding principles, policies and implementation strategies to replace the current parks component of the general plan 2020. Tim, do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Conklin: Yes I would. If you will recall, several months ago the Parks Division did bring forward the ten year Master Parks Plan to the Fayetteville Planning Commission. At that meeting, several Commissioners were concerned with regard to having something that was more familiar to them and would actually offer guiding policies and strategies when you look at development items up here at the Planning Commission. What we have done was to go back and take a look at what Lose & Associates developed and we had a meeting with the Parks Division, Planning staff along with the Urban Development Director and sat down and pulled out of their ten year Master Parks Plan guiding policies and implementation strategies. You can find those in your agenda starting on page 1.2. What we're trying to do here is to make sure that when we do bring forward master plans, they are consistent with our Fayetteville General Plan that you worked on. Within this document there are a set of guiding policies and implementation strategies. What we proposed to do is to bring these policies, strategies to you this evening. These will replace what is currently in your General Plan 2020. Those will also be inserted into the ten year Master Parks Plan. I would like to briefly go over those guiding policies and • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 4 implementation strategies. You'll note that there is similar terminology and format that has been used to develop these. One of the things we are trying to do is to make sure that all our long range planning documents are consistent with format and consistent intemally within each document and, in order to make sure that we do have these long range planning documents we don't have any inconsistencies. Starting on page 1.2, the first guiding policy that we pulled out and developed was to "develop a city wide trails and greenway network". Under there are implementation strategies to actually achieve this; they include hiring a greenways and trails coordinator, it also includes our park land dedication ordinance. I won't go through them all. Another guiding policy is to "increase park safety and accessibility". It talks about the park patrol, our ADA standards, design standards another policy is to "upgrade existing and provide additional community and neighborhood parks" and it talks about implementing the detailed recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. It talks about providing neighborhood parks within '/2 mile radius of all residential areas. It talks about community parks being provided within a two mile radius of all residential areas. It also incorporates the park land dedication ordinance we currently use to actually add these parks into our system, and other funding alternatives. Another guiding policy was to "provide a multisports complex". The strategies include actively seeking land to provide this type of complex, provide multiple recreational activities on one site. Partner with user groups, develop multi sports complex, seek various funding sources to develop these multi sports complexes. Another guiding policy that was brought out from the ten year master plan was to "preserve open space". That includes utilizing our park land dedication ordinance, evaluating existing and future open space needs in Fayetteville, providing adequate ongoing management and maintenance resources for open space preservation, coordinate with the Planning Division and develop strategies to preserve open space, encourage developers to preserve open space, use existing funding and alternative funding sources for land acquisition and review opportunities for conservation easements. Many of these activities we're currently looking at with our tree settlement lawsuit with regard to conservation easements and open space preservation. Another guiding policy is to "increase program diversity". That includes improve and clarify the partnership agreements with other agencies and associations, anticipate future program needs, seek vanous funding sources to expand existing programs and initiate new programs. Another guiding policy is to "eliminate duplication" throughout the program areas where duplication exists. Those are the guiding pohcies, implementation strategies that we have developed internally as staff and working with the consultant. These have been to the Parks Board and approved. We are asking you, this evening, to approve these guiding policies and implementation strategies which will become part ofour General Plan 2020 and also will become part of the ten year Master Parks and Recreation Plan. That is all I have, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 5 Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Conklin at this time? Hoffman: I have a couple of questions. Thank you for putting this in the text ofthe general plan. The guiding policies, are they in order of priority? Have they been prioritized or is this an overall strategy? Conklin: We did not priontize these guiding policies and implementation strategies. That is consistent with how we look at our general plan 2020. Each of these are important. Each of these policies, strategies, the city wants to attempt to implement and achieve. There is no ranking of those priorities. It was interesting though, the survey results that came back; I believe it talked about greenways and trails and open space as some of the areas that the citizens really were concerned about and trying to make sure that we implement a greenway and trail program which one of the strategies is to develop that within one year, a master plan for trails and greenways. There is no prioritization of these guiding policies. Hoffman: Back when we had our comprehensive meeting, I think it was really important, one ofthe points that I got from it is that the Planning Department is kind ofhidden here in the middle of the preservation of open space is to coordinate with the Planning Division and to develop strategies to preserve open space. Could we add that to the mission statement or is that not appropriate at this time? This has obviously been approved and passed on by the Parks Board and I think it is really a good document. Dust want to emphasize that long range planning and coordination with the Planning Department and the various boards and commissions that are associated with planning seem to be important. Conklin: I'm not opposed to adding that if you want to add that term in there. We did have our joint meeting with the different committees and boards to talk about trails and greenways. There are quite a few strategies that we are currently using to provide open space preservation, greenway development that goes into the park system. It is also going into private open space areas when we do tree preservation areas and we record those on the easement plats or on the final plat. Hoffman: What I think I would like to do is take that sentence verbatim under the mission statement, just add an overall guiding policy would be and I'm not really sure how, without another committee looking at it, I don't want to hold it up or anything but it seems that in Subdivision Committee and in Planning Commission meetings that we have had issues that could be really well coordinated at technical plat review level, and I know that you're doing that, and at Subdivision and Planning Commission that will ensure that all of these things can occur as they come to us or that we know that they are a big priority. That is one request that I have. I' m going to vote for this regardless of what we do with the • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 6 wording. The other question that I have, and this may be for somebody in the Parks Department, can you tell me what sports would be involved in the multi sports complex? Edmonston: Back to your question about working with Planning I see that as part of visionary planning, us working close with the Planning Commission and with Tim and the planning office in environmental stewardship, in taking care of those open spaces. That is how I envisioned our mission statement as taking care of that. Then it gets clearer in with the implementation strategy as to exactly how we do that. Hoffman: I just want to make sure that we go on record as knowing that that is an overall concern. We enjoy working with the Parks Board and the Parks Department in enhancing our quality of life Edmonston: Yes. We see it very much a part too. I feel very strongly that it is up in that area but if you would like to add it to it, I already envisioned it in our mission statement, as part of the visionary planning. As to multisport, what would be in it would be softball, baseball, you know, there has been talk about Walker Park, the safety concerns, the way the fields are configured, the lighting is very poor, it was the original lighting that was up in the 1960s. It needs to be corrected. It will be baseball, soccer too. Now that we're probably moving our Lewis soccer fields it would be over there. We would also look at possibly more tennis courts In our master plan it said that more tennis courts are needed within our city. We would also even stem out with our trails. Trails have been requested by citizens, adding that, depending on the parcel and how large the parcel of land that we would get. Those would be the basic multisports that have been requested. Hoffman: We would concentrate this to Walker Park? This is kind of targeted to the Walker Park area? Edmonston: No it would not be. It would be taking the major part of baseball out of Walker Park into another park. Right now Walker Park does not have any room to grow. For us to totally go back through and reconfigure it to make it a safe playing field there is not room enough for future growth. We could no longer grow there. We would have to start over in another spot and have two spots to play in. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Estes: Thank you Connie. • Allen: I have a couple of questions. I would like to know more about Walker Park, what is • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 7 going to happen there and the other thmg that I wondered about is by what means to you propose to encourage the realtors to preserve open space, what methods? Edmonston: What plans we have for Walker Park? Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Right. It just depends on our budget. What is your vision for that area? Our vision for Walker Park is to keep some fields there. Move the league play out but leave fields there for practice fields. We never have enough practice fields. Kids are pretty well limited to the number of times that they can practice and the days that they can practice. We would like to leave some fields in, take the poor fields out, kind of open that area up a little bit more. There are a lot of things that go on in there, at Walker Park, community wise, a lot of family gatherings and all. It just seems like such an essential part of town where there is really a need and I was interested. We have met with the Fayetteville Youth Baseball Association in reference to what they wanted to do. We asked them, "Do you want us to renovate these fields or would you rather go somewhere else?" They pretty much stamped that they would like to go somewhere else and stated that they would like to be apart of it, to help in fund raising for it. They see that there is no room for the program to grow at Walker Park. We can't add any more fields in currently, they are all squished in right now. They, being the people in the surrounding area of Walker Park? No, the soccer fields are all squished in there. The people that want to move are the baseball board. Is that what you asked? I'm just not real clear as to how you plan to long term utilize or hope to long term utilize that area. I think it is just a real important location in town where there are some needs to be served. Edmonston: Yes, and it would continue to be a place for baseball, for practices. League games probably would not be played there because people seem to want all of the games to be • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 8 Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: Allen: Edmonston: played in one location. Once we would get a field, a complex located in another location, we would slowly take out a couple of those fields but make it still a practice area. There are many times that people would like to have pick up games but they can not because we have already lined the fields for league play. There is just very little room for play outside of league play. There are a lot of kids that would just like to go pick up some games during the day time and on weekends but fields are not available. Is that a high prionty? Yes it is a high priority. That and to move soccer. We're probably not going to have Lewis soccer fields any longer. Those would be the two high priorities. Probably soccer first because we're on a time frame with the University and then Walker Park would be the second. Ok, then the other thing that I wondered about was the way that you thought that you could go about encouraging developers to set aside open spaces. I wondered what means or ideas that you had. Through our Parks Master Plan, we sit down with the park land dedication ordinance, in fact, we looked at three properties just today. We look at our Park Master Plan and see if land is needed in that area to serve as a park and then we look at land that is conducive for park purposes, that would make a good park. We try to encourage it if a park is needed in that area. Of course, we have got to make certain that a park is needed in that area. If there is another park that is close at hand then it could serve those people in that subdivision. What is their incentive? Well, their incentive, I guess it helps them sell lots, we know that. It has been proven that having a park in a close vicinity of a neighborhood increases the property value and they sell well. So basically, that is the strategy that you have decided upon at this point? Pretty much so. We also look at trails too. When we're looking at park land dedication land, we also look at a possibility of trails and once we get our Trail Master Plan approved and we go through that process, then that is also considered when we're looking at land. Not only do we look for parks purposes but also for open space, conservation easements and also for trails. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 9 Allen: Right. Well, I'm all for all this. I just don't want us to have real idealistic language. I want us to have some teeth in an approach and some ideas that we're going to do rather than just sounding good. I guess I'm not real clear, I would like to know a little more. Conklin: I didn't go into detail but it talks about developing strategies to preserve open space. We have gone back and amended our ordinances for example, the flood plain ordinance. We allow people to cluster their homes outside the floodplain and keep the same density. We've done the same thing in the grading ordinance to preserve steep hillsides. The land use development ordinance, The Cliffs that we recently saw. This is kind of why I had that. If you recall at that meeting at Genesis, I had that extra box there that talked about private open space. We have an ordinance that required, in order to, as an incentive to have increased density and to preserve open space. We have the planning and development ordinances. I think in that one they saved about 40% open space in that phase of the Cliffs. I can throw out some other ones but they are more regulatory, the tree preservation ordinance is preserving open space. Developments now are meeting the minimum percent canopy and that is going to be preserved to perpetuity. Trying to go back to the incentive thing, I think developers have learned that if they follow the ordinances, they can get their projects through the process. We have saved quite a few areas of trees in Fayetteville. The park land dedication ordinance, as Connie mentioned, item number three on your agenda, you' 11 see a subdivision where that land is not suitable for a conventional park. It is a bluff, it is floodplain, it is floodway. There are very unique environmental resources there and we're utilizing that ordinance and working with the developer to save an area for a potential trail and greenway system which will become part park but it will be more passive. Instead of developing ball fields, we'll be saving habitat and environmental resources in that area. I think those are the strategies that we're looking at. We're always looking at coming up with additional incentives for developers to preserve open space. We have quite a few things already that we currently are doing that are working to provide open space in Fayetteville Estes: Thank you Tim Thank you Connie. Eric, before I ask for public comment, this document comes through you as our Parks Development Coordinator, is there anything that you would like to add to Tim's comments or Connie's comments? Schuldt: No. Estes: Alright. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on proposed park and recreation guiding policies and implement strategies? Seeing none, I' it bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments, questions of staff. Commissioners? Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 10 . Marr: Estes: First, I want to thank the Parks Department, Parks Board and city staff. I actually am thrilled with the format that this came back. I think it matches better to our 2020 format that makes it a good checkpoint for us when we look at developments. I also think that it very clearly states guiding policies and implementation strategies for which I think is much better thanjust a consultive study report. I also like that it is not prioritized because I think that in a long term plan that priorities change drastically based on funding and donations and things of that matter. I actually think it is stepped out there. To Lorel's comment, I too read the mission statement as visionary planning as encompassing the whole planning process and I agree with Lorel's comment ofmaking an emphasis on it, but I'm not sure that I would support taking that statement out because I think it takes one guiding policy and makes it almost a priority because it is open space within that item. I think that all of these are priorities and I think it already encompasses that. With all that said, I am going to recommend approval of ADM 01-27.00, subject to this report by the staff, and I thank you for your work on it. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve ADM 01-27.00, that is to approve and to forward to the City Council the Parks and Recreation Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies. Is there a second? Bunch: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Man and a second by Commissioner Bunch to approve the Parks and Recreation Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies and forward the same onto City Council, any comments any discussions? Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 01-27.00 to the City Council is approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. Renee, would you allow the record to show that Commissioner Bunch is now in attendance please? Thomas: Yes. • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 11 ADM 01-45.00 Administrative Item (Archer) Refund $ 10,233.00 plus accrued interest collected for improvements to Halsell Street. Estes: The second item to come before the Commission is also an administrative item. It is ADM 01-45.00 submitted by Julian Archer for property located at Halsell Road east of Cross Avenue. The request is to refund the offside street improvement assessment in the amount of $10,233.00 plus interest that was assessed by this Planning Commission on September 11, 1995. Staff recommends approval of the full refund in the amount of $10,233 00 plus interest. If you would please direct your attention Commissioners to the ordinance that is reproduced in your packet, as you consider this request you have two options, one is to refund the money in the escrow account with accumulated interest to the subdividers who made the contribution or two, distribute the money in the escrow account on apro rata basis to the property owners who purchased lots in the subdivision and developers or with the written consent of the majority of the property owners who have purchased lots in the subdivision and the developer, direct that the money in the account be utilized for a different purpose which will specifically benefit the neighborhood. Is the applicant present? Mr. Archer, do you have any presentation or any comments that you would like to make in support of this request? Archer: I believe you have on hand, a letter from the City Engineer recommending this approval. I would like to let the Planning Commission know that in addition the items that were required by the Planning Commission in 1995, we did also put the telephone and the electricity underground. Those utilities were put underground at our expense so that from the street perspective, there are no visible utilities and all the other things have been taken care of. Estes: Thank you Mr. Archer. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested refund, ADM 01-45? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full commission for discussions, comments or motions. Commissioners? Ward: Tim, are all the sidewalks in out there? Petrie: I believe they are but we probably need some assurance from Mr. Archer. Archer: The sidewalk, yes. All of these improvements had to be put in before we could sell the lots. That meant waterline, the fire hydrant, the sewer line and the sidewalks. Ward: Ok, and they are all up to our standards I assume? Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 12 Archer: They were approved by the city when they were installed. Ward: I'll make a motion that we approve ADM 01-45.00 for refunding of money in the amount of $10,233.00 plus interest to Mr. Archer. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 01-45.00 with the refund to be paid to the subdivider, Mr. Archer. Is there a second? Marr: Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Marr. Are there any questions? Hoffman: I have a question for staff. Did we have any of the property owners contact you and request that the money be prorated between the developer and the owners? Petrie: No and we sent out specific notifications to those property owners. Out ofthe four lots, Archer still owns two of those lots. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Estes: Any other questions? Bunch: What method is used for figuring interest? Conklin: The Accounting Division will put it in an interest bearing escrow account and I'm not sure how they select their investments or what accounts they put it in but it varies from year to year. When we do the check request, whatever interest was accrued will be returned back to the developer. Bunch: It will be the interest that was gained from the account it was placed in? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: Any other questions or comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve ADM 01-45 with the amount ofthe refund to be paid to the developer, Mr. Archer. Renee, would you please let the record reflect that Commissioner Shackelford is now in attendance and would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-45.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0 Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you Mr. Archer. Have a safe trip and get home before that storm comes in. • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 13 PPL 01-7.00 Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, pp 359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located north and east of 51" Street and Jess Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 19.45 acres with 63 proposed. Estes: The next item on the agenda is a preliminary plat PPL 01-7.00, this is submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located north and east of 51st Street and Jess Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 19.45 acres with 63 lots proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes, we do have signed conditions of approval Estes: The conditions of approval are 1) Planning Commission approval to revise Phase I to decrease the right of way for Redding Way from 50' to 42' in width in order to facilitate the location of a trail on the north side of the subdivision. 2) Planning Commission determination of improvements to Sunshine Road, Sunshine Road is classified as a principal arterial on the master sheet plan. Staffrecommends that the east side of Sunshine Road be widened to meet local street standards and the west side widened to meet county standards 3) All parkland shall be dedicated with Phase I, this includes the required 3.9 acres plus any additional that will be banked pursuant to the Parks Division requirements. 4) The 25' pedestrian access easement shall be added as a 25' park land dedication. 5) Cannondale Drive shall be revised to local street standards between Simon Way and the Granby Street stub out as requested at Subdivision Committee. 6) An 8" waterline shall be installed along Granby Street stub out to the eastern property line. This shall be indicated on the plat as requested at Subdivision Committee. 7) Plat shall be revised to reflect the storm pipes located between lots 104, 105, 106, 111, 112 and 115 and 116 to be extended beyond the northern lot lines across the proposed location of the multiuse trail as requested at Subdivision Committee. 8) The existing 15' wide sewer easement shall be vacated by the City Council prior to approval of the final plat. 9) The developer is required to submit a hydrological study for Zone A to FEMA and to obtain an approval Of map revision prior to submitting the final plat. 10) All lots must measure 70' in width of the front lot line and at the 25' building setback line. All lots are required to be 70' wide in an R-1 zoning district. Plat shall be revised to reflect compliance with this requirement as requested at Subdivision Committee. 11) Maintenance of all open space shall be provided by the property owner's association. 12) The note on the plat that reads "Proposed zoning R-1" shall be altered to reflect the current zoning as R-1, as requested at Subdivision Committee. 13) A sidewalk shall be shown on Sunshine Road south of • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 14 New Bridge Road to include a 6' sidewalk and a 10' greenspace as requested at Subdivision Committee. 14) Plat shall be revised with regard to legal description. The legal description currently does not have the correct coordinates that allow for input into the city's geographic information system database. 15) A new plat shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division that meets all conditions of approval prior to the submittal of construction plans. 16) Plat Review and Subdivision comments, to include wntten staff comments provided to his applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. 17) A detailed plan, specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, public and private, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 18) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4' sidewalk and a 4' greenspace along Waverly, Chimon and Granby and a 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace on both sides of the street along Cannondale and Wilton. 19) Preliminary plat shall be valid for one year. 20) Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Tim, condition number 18, how should that read? Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4' sidewalk and four five? What is that condition of approval? Conklin: Four foot greenspace. Estes: Is the applicant present or the applicant's representative? If you have a presentation that you would like to make would you please state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation? Humbard: Thank you very much. My name is Phil Humbard with Engineering Services. We have with us Lynn Williamson who is one of the developers and a member of Cross Creek, LLC. This is a continuation of the preliminary plat that we submitted some time back, Phases I and II. We felt like we finally got the rezoning and annexation done on Phase III so we proceeded with the preliminary plat portion of it. With that I will just answer any questions that you might have concerning this plat or anything about it. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Humbard at this time? Thank you Phil. Humbard: Thank you. Estes: Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this requested approval for PPL 01-7? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions or comments. Commissioners? • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 15 Ward: Eric, why don't you give us a little presentation about the park lands up there and the trails and what we're requiring and what Mr. Williamson has agreed to do, just to inform the public. Schuldt: Eric Schuldt, Fayetteville Parks and Recreation. The Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met on May 16th and chose to take park land dedication land requirement for this subdivision. In their motion they requested to accept land along the north property boundary. This development, the land dedication, I believe in your minutes says it requires 3.9, it should be reflected as 3.875 if we're dealing with 155 units. What we had decided to do, it is basically a greenway, it is a heavily wooded lot. Steve Hatfield came on board with the Trails and Greenways program, he requested, our original thought was to put a trail along the creek area. For development costs and for visibility purposes of the public, he has requested that we build it on top of the hill. That is what we've been doing with the developer and working with Tim Conklin to make sure that we can do that. Eventually, hopefully, the idea is to have a multipurpose trail from near1540 all the way out along that creek corridor. Thanks. Estes: I have a question Phil. What primary and secondary schools will this proposed subdivision service Humbard: I don't know, I should defer that to Tim. Conklin: I believe they are Farmington Schools. Holcomb? Estes: What is the answer? Conklin: I'm not sure exactly where the line is. There is a Farmington School District, I think Heritage Village, further to the east goes to Farmington. I'm not sure on this one Schuldt: I would like to make one other comment. The park land dedication requirement again, based on 155 units was 3.875. They are dedicating beyond that and it is reflected on your plat. It is reflected as 3.9 and then future park land is 1.67. That exact amount has not been determined but there will be a dedication beyond that and the developer verbally has requested that that land be banked for future development in that park quadrant and we're just waiting for a letter requesting that either to Tim or myself. Estes: Any other questions? Any comments? • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 16 Motion: Ward: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Shackelford: Conklin: • Shackelford: Conklin: • Estes: I'll move for approval of PPL 01-7.00 for the Cross Creek LLC for 65 lots in Phase III. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve PPL 01-700, Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hof&nan to approve PPL 01-7.00, Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, any discussion, questions or comments? Do we have signed conditions of approval? Yes we do. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, to answer your question on the school district, it does appear that it is Farmington. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffnan to approve PPL 01-7.00. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 01-7.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you Phil. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 17 ANX 01-5.00: Annexation (Griscom/Guist, pp 476) was submitted by Raymond C. Smith, Attorney on behalf of Gerald & Irene Griscom and Sylvester C. & Carol Guist for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 13.61 acres. The request is to annex into the city. Estes: Smith: Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number four, this is an annexation request. It is submitted by Mr. Raymond C. Smith, Attomey on behalf of Gerald and Irene Griscom and Sylvester C. & Carol Guist for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 13.61 acres. The request is to annex into the city. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings that are included in your packet. Is the applicant present or the applicant's representative present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? If so, please state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. My name is Raymond Smith, I'm an attorney representing both the Griscoms and the Guists in this petition for annexation of 13.61 acres from the county into the City of Fayetteville. I believe the packet there has quite a bit of material in there. If there are any questions as far as the developer on this or the planning people on this, Mr. Jorgensen, they are in the audience here and would be available to answer any questions. Thank you Mr. Smith. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested annexation 01-5? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full commission for discussion, comments or motions. Commissioners? Marr: This is consistent with our planning area. I would like to move for approval of ANX 01- 5.00. Estes: We have amotion by Commissioner Marr to approve ANX 01-5.00, is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion, any comments, any questions? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve ANX 01-5.00, any questions or comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ANX 01-5.00 was approved by a vote of eight to zero. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 18 RZN 01-24.00• Rezoning (Worley/Griscom/Guist, pp 435/474) was submitted by Raymond C. Smith, Attorney on behalf of Conley & Virginia Worley, Gerald & Irene Griscom, and Sylvester & Carol Guist for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 41.90 acres The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Estes: Smith: Estes: Motion: Marr: The next item on the agenda is item number five. This is a companion item, it is a rezoning request submitted by Mr. Raymond C. Smith on behalf of Conley and Virginia Worley, Gerald & Irene Griscom and Sylvester & Carol Guist for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately41.90 acres The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant's representative present and if so Ray, do you have any presentation that you would like to make? I'm Raymond Smith, attorney, representing the petitioners on this case. I believe the packet is comprehensive as there is also a companion rezoning which will be the next item. I'll be glad to answer any questions that anyone may have. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Smith at this time? Thank you Ray. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this rezoning request 01-24.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full commission for discussions, motions or comments. Commissioners? Mr. Chair, in looking at the staff report and agreeing with the findings that it is consistent with our land use, planning objectives and is needed and justified at the time based on where this is located and the existing R-1 development around there, I support the approval of this and will recommend as a Planning Commission that we approve RZN 01- 24.00 and forward it to the City Council. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve RZN 01-24, is there a second? Allen: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any further discussion or any questions? • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 19 Hoffman: A question for staff, can you tell me how road access is planned to the site? We don't have any road access currently shown on our plats but we do adjoin a subdivision. Conklin: You do adjoin a subdivision to the north but there is not a street stub out. This rezoning annexation, probably the best way to look at this is the map that was handed out at agenda session and tonight. It does have frontage on Double Springs Road. The developer has met with staff and we have talked about at least a minimum of two ways in offofDouble Springs Road then future stub outs for the south and east. There will be access through Double Springs Road and as development occurs out there, potential access for future development to tie into this. Hoffman: That clears it up, thanks. Estes: Any other questions? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve RZN 01-24.00, would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-24.00 and to forward it along to City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero and the rezoning request will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 20 RZN 01-27.00: Rezoning (Worley/Griscom/Guist, pp 435/474) was submitted by Raymond C. Smith, Attorney on behalf of Conley & Virginia Worley, Gerald & Irene Griscom, and Sylvester & Carol Guist for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 8.74 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF 6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Estes: The next item that we have on our agenda is a third companion item. It is RZN 01-27.00, it is submitted by Mr. Raymond C. Smith on behalf of Conley and Virginia Worley, Gerald and Irene Griscom and Sylvester and Carol Guist for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek Subdivision The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 8.74 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF 6, Low Density, Multi -Family Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as apart of the report. Mr. Smith, do you have . any presentation that you would like to make in support of this request? Smith- I have no actual presentation but I would be glad to answer any questions or have Mr. Sloane or Mr. Jorgensen answer any questions anyone may have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Smith at this time? Ward: No, I would like to direct a question to Tim about explaining to us again about the RMF 6, Low Density, Multi -Family Residential. Conklin: We amended our zoning ordinance and created three new zoning districts to reduce the density from 24 units per acre for multi family to allow for 6 units as a multi family zoning district. This will be the first time we've used this zoning. The applicant has a desire to provide some townhouse type units within this R-1 neighborhood. It is a mix of residential uses that is going to be incorporated within the actual development. Staff is recommending approval. Probably other projects that I can think of in front of Park Place, there is some multifamily residential in front of that subdivision and this subdivision will have these duplex units within the single family homes. Estes: Tim, if I understand correctly, the RMF 6 is 6 units to an acre without regard to type but limited by density, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. The maximum density is six units per acre. Estes: Any other questions for Mr. Smith? Thank you Ray. Is there any other member of the • public that would like to comment on this requested rezoning, 01-27.00? Seeing none, I • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 21 Motion: Marr: will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or comments. For the same reasons that I sited earlier and that it is consistent with our land use plan and is needed and Justified in this part of town at the time, I recommend approval of RZN 01- 27.00 to forward to the City Council. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve RZN 01-27.00, is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Comnussioner Shackelford. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZN 01-27.00, is there any discussion or any comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-27.00 and forward it to City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero and the requested rezoning will be forwarded to the full City Council for its consideration. Thank you Mr. Smith. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 22 RZN 01-25.00: Rezoning (Bayyari, pp 363) was submitted by Shawki Ali-Madoun, PE ofNorthstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Fadil Bayyari for property located west of Highway I-540 and south of Porter Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 12.22 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Estes: Al-Madoun: The next item on our agenda is item number 7, RZN 01-25.00, this is a rezoning request submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. for property located west of Highway I-540 and south of Porter Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 12.22 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? If you have a presentation that you would like to make would you please state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. My name is Shawki Al-Madoun, Northstar Engineering, I'm here on behalf of Fidel Properties. This particular property is requesting rezoned to R-1.5, on the north side of it is industrial, on the east across I540 is mainly apartments on the west side, there are R-2 duplexes on the south side and of course there is vacant property. We appreciate your consideration of this request and I will be more than happy to answer any questions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions at this time? Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this requested rezoning, 01-25.00? If so, would you come forward to the microphone please, state your name and your address and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Jensen: Thank you. My name is Sue Jensen. I live at 1980 Caton Dnve. I am the representative ofthe Pine Valley Neighborhood Association. We have a number of our people here this evening. I believe you all have in your packets a letter that one of our members has put together stating our concerns. We would like to know, we would really like to know before the zoning is changed, what actually is in mind for the property. We were told by the City Planning Department that there was no finding of fact, they did not have anything for large scale development, they had nothing in the way of prints. We do not know anything about access and egress. We're having a terrible time with that because we only have one access and that out onto Mount Comfort. We're looking at a tremendous number of changes in our area and it is going to be affecting all of us in a variety of ways. We would like to know about it at the beginning as opposed to after the fact. I made a call • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 23 Estes: two weeks ago to the engineering firm to inquire about it, I left my name and number, I have not had a return call. We have had no help from the city Planning Department. They say that they don't have anything. We are here tonight to ask you if you would consider tabling it please until we can find some of these things out and see what can be worked on. Thank you Ms. Jensen. Tim, in response to some of Ms. Jensen's concerns and the neighborhood association, could you give us a brief summary please of what we have before us that is a rezoning request and that we do not have a large scale development request or the preliminary plat and how that goes through the process and when we will see that and when the appropriate time will arise to address what I understand to be Ms Jensen's concerns and the neighborhood association's concerns. Conklin: Sure. This evening, we have an applicant who has applied to change the zone from heavy commercial, light industrial to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, which allows single family duplex, triplex uses. Before someone can submit a large scale development or preliminary plat, they have to have the zoning in place for the type of project they're going to be developing on this type of property. If we had a developer who wanted to utilize the current heavy commercial, light industrial zoning that is already there, they would submit plans for a large scale development or a preliminary plat and at that time we would consider street connections, what the developer's responsibilities would be with regard to extending streets and participating in offsite improvements. However, at this time, this evening we're looking at should this property stay heavy commercial, light industrial or should it be rezoned to R-1.5, moderate density residential. What you are considering tonight is land use, how the property should be developed in the future. Currently it is the heavy commercial, light industrial. We do not allow individuals to bring large scale developments or preliminary plats to us in zoning districts that do not allow for those type of uses so the applicant would not be allowed to provide to us a preliminary plat on this piece of property for duplexes since duplexes are currently not allowed on this piece of property. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, if you make a recommendation to approve it, it will automatically go forward to the City Council. Zoning changes, by ordinance, it takes three readings at City Council. Typically, you'll at least have two meetings at City Council. If it is denied, the applicant can appeal within ten working days to the City Council and the City Council will make a final decision and based on their decision on the zoning, if they change it to R-1.5, the applicant and developer will be able to proceed with plans to develop it with those allowed uses which would be a single family duplex or triplex uses He would submit to the Planning Division a large scale development, preliminary plat, we would go through a similar process, there would be one additional public hearing at the Subdivision Committee level, at that time we will look at streets, sidewalks, water, the typical improvements the developers are required to • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 24 participate in plus offsite improvements. Estes: Thank you Tim. Tim, the property is presently zoned I-1, the request is to rezone to R- 1.5, is this typically referred to as a downzoning? Conklin: Yes, typically we refer to those as downzonings when we're actually removing the rights of individuals to develop it more intensely. The I-1 zoning does allow for warehousing, ministorage, car sales, those type of uses. The applicant is asking to change the zoning to no longer allow those type of uses and to allow for residential types of uses on this piece of property. Estes: Thank you Tim. Is there any other member ofthe audience who would like to comment on this requested rezoning? Campbell: My name is Samuel Campbell, I live at 1881 N. Pine Valley Drive which is that housing area, mainly duplexes, west ofthe proposed development. I think the main consideration here is not just this parcel by itself but what is taking place along the Porter Road, Mount Comfort arterial. I believe it might be in the knowledge ofthe Commission that there are pending developments at that intersection of Shiloh with Porter Road. One on the south and one on the north. The traffic at critical hours from 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. is already dangerously congested as you are aware, Porter Road has a curve in it along there and as cars sweep around the curve, in spite ofthe warnings to the contrary, they come pretty fast and cars pulling out of Shiloh fuming sometimes left and sometimes right constitutes already a dangerous situation. Police Department should be called into this and testify from their point of view. I don't think there is any particular rush on this to do something with the strategic piece of property. I believe you have some papers there that indicate that this is strategic from a distribution standpoint, it is a warehousing area, a small business area. It communicates to other points in Arkansas and Oklahoma with high quality roads. Therefore, as a plus for any city that has this type of surface communication. However, even so, I believe the sentiment in our neighborhood is not to stand in the way of progress but it does seem that it would raise a question requiring some study when you sacrifice a strategic job area, employment center for a housing area. Each one of the bedrooms that you foresee here will account for a motor vehicle. What people in Arkansas do when they send their offspring to the University of Arkansas, they buy them a little red car, a cell phone and send them off to meet the real world. When they send them there they are sending them into what is already a traffic jam. I think that what you would do is you would take some time on this and you would study the access, you would study the other developments that are taking place that will also add to the congestion. You would probably look at some egress to the south to drain off part of the little red cars. My point • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 25 is to take some time and do it right. Estes: Thank you Mr. Campbell. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested rezoning, 01-25.00? Albert: My name is Dianna Baine Albert and I live at 1860 Pine Valley Drive. My property faces the property in question. What I am most concerned about is the Planning Commission was very helpful in providing this little map to us about the flood plain. Where the property that they are talking about rezoning, it faces directly behind me. There is a huge, big gully that runs through there and I've always been really concerned when it rains. There is a big ditch that actually floods my back yard. I'm extremely concemed about what we're going to do if they rezone to what it is going to do and how they are going to fix this. On this, it shows where there is a hundred year flood plain. Right exactly, I'm sure that you all have seen this, it shows exactly where there is a huge flood plain, the whole piece of property is. What kind of drainage would go in there, I live at the very end that faces exactly back towards it. There is a piece of property right directly beside me to the south that I wanted to purchase, just to have and they told us that nothing could ever be built there because it was a flood plain. They couldn't build another duplex there or anything. We've cleaned out a lot. Directly behind us they told us that even if they built a big factory they would have to do something, that was two years ago when we first purchased the property. That is a major concern to me about what they are going to do about that. Estes: Thank you Dianna. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment about RZN 01-25.00? Seeing none, 1,11 bring it back to the applicant for any comments or rebuttal. Al-Madoun: Mr. Chairman, I probably need to clarify a few things. My office did receive a request from Ms. Sue, she asked some questions wanting to know about the property. We did pass that to Mr. Fidel Bayarri. He unfortunately tried, in my presence twice, to contact Ms Sue and he wasn't successful. He instructed me to pass on his phone number for any concerned citizen to ask what he wants to do and he did direct me to share this with you that on this property that he is looking at 36 total lots, duplexes. It is going to be as part of the design, we will be taking into consideration the floodplain and all other requirements. This is one of the reasons we changed the zoning request from a higher density to a lower density, simply because we're going with 36 lots, although the zoning allows us to go almost up to 144 units, I'm sorry. We're only going only a % of that capacity. I will be more than happy to answer any questions for the citizens at any time. I will pass on my number and my client's number. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 26 Estes: Thank you. Any other public comment before I close the floor? The floor will be closed to public comment and I'll bring the item back to the Commission for discussion, questions or motions. Allen: I thought Tim, that it might be helpful for you to tell the neighbors the kinds of buildings that might be able to be allowed under right right now with the R-1. Conklin: Sure. Just to the north of this is I-1 and you can see what is developed there. Other uses allowed, ministorage, warehousing, car sales, pretty much most of the things that you see on commercial corridors like College Avenue would be allowed on this property. Rezoning it does allow us to control a little more of what goes on there. In I-1 if you do industrial uses, we don't have any design standards with the building materials. If you had a ministorage there you would potentially have metal buildings or that type of thing. The R-1.5, if it is rezoned and they bring a development through, I have given the park land dedication ordinance. I'm not sure whether that will be used to help preserve and keep out of areas that are in the floodplain, floodway. That is kind of what the developer did in Pine Valley and Pine Crest, that is why there is a park there. The city is trying to develop a greenway trail system and using part of that open space. With regard to the improvements, those will have to be considered at the time of development. If it stays I-1 when they come in the Planning Commission will have to deal with that and look at what the ordinances require and the studies that will be required to be performed to do this type of development, either commercial or residential. Estes: Any other discussion? Bunch: Yes, a couple of questions for staff. Even though this is zoned I-1, it is in the overlay district so wouldn't there still be some design standards or do they not apply in I-1? Conklin: If it is industrial uses, we haven't been allowed to apply those for the industrial areas. Bunch: Even in the overlay district? Conklin: Even in the overlay district, we're limited. Bunch: One other question, it is hard to tell from the maps that I have. Is there any access to the Pine Valley subdivision other than point west? Conklin: There is a stub out, River Ridge, that was required as part of Pine Valley. However, that • stub out wasn't actually built. That would be something that would have to be discussed • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 27 and be required of the developer to make that connection. This property has many issues with regard to future street connections and offsite improvements and I've not sat down with our City Engineer and reviewed any development proposal because right now we're looking at the rezoning phase In the past when we've worked with developers with preapplication meetings we have had discussion with regard to extension of Shiloh to the south and future connections across Hamstring Creek. Bunch: One of the things that seem to be a concern here is the traffic. Eventually, if all of this builds out Shiloh and Sycamore will both be connected to something and will be altemate routes but as it stands right now, even this point west road is not a good situation because we have a subdivision that only has one way in and out that doesn't have connections to anything else until other subdivisions go in next to it and provide those connections. I was just wondering, itis hard to tell if there is anything to the west on Marigold Drive if there is any connection to anything there. Conklin: There is a stub out back to the north but there is vacant property to the north. Bunch: Ok, so this is a subdivision that is going to be dependent upon other developments around it to have multiple access. I'm talking about the Pine Valley Subdivision, the one that is already in existence. Conklin: Yes... Bunch: Until other developments develop around it and put in the needed infrastructure to spread the traffic out. Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: I would like to address some of the neighborhood's concerns about the type of zoning. Mr. Bayarri has provided us with the trip generation calculations for both an industrial park and 146 dwelling units and residential in town house construction and 1 would like to go ahead and ask the applicant to come backup and explain these numbers and talk with staff the impact on the proposed Sycamore Street after we talk about the trip volume numbers. I don't know if the neighborhood association has gotten a hold of this but it looks to me as though you've compared the industrial development with the residential development and could you explain the differences please? Conklin: Actually those are trip generation rates from our software, we ran those. • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 28 Hoffman: Ok, can you explain them then please? Warrick: In order to determine a difference in the existing zoning and the proposed zoning I ran, using the ITE trip generation software, a summary report of 12.22 acres developed industrially that generated a traffic volume, weekday two way volume of 771 vehicles and then I utilized the R-1.5 zoning on 12.22 acres at the maximum density, which is twelve units per acre, which would be 146 dwelling units and generated a traffic volume based on that information which came up to 856 vehicles per day, there is about a 10% increase in the residential if it is developed at its maximum density which would be 12 units per acre. Hoffman: Now I realize, I know we don't have any bills of assurance or anything like that but they're discussing 72 units per acre. Warrick: Which is about 1/2 of what this was calculated at. Hoffman: Right, so then we would see a net decrease in the amount of traffic based on what we've been told. Thanks Dawn, I wanted to make sure I was reading that right. The second thing I wanted to bring up is that anytime we look at a residential development connectivity is a big thing. I'm not sure how this would work with regard to connecting to River Ridge if it hasn't been built out, how close is it to this property line? Conklin. It is one lot deep. Hoffman: Is it that floodway deal, does it need a bridge or something? Conklin: No, just for some reason it wasn't built. I haven't been able to determine why it wasn't built. Hoffman: Is that something that would fall to the city to do should this rezoning be approved and the development go forward to get to connectivity between this development and I'm assuming the future Sycamore Street which is shown on the south edge of the property. Conklin: The city probably wouldn't do that, the developer would be required to do that. Hoffman: Ok. Conklin. We require that of developers as an access issue. Hoffman: I wonder if we can address the drainage questions more specifically, I know Ron is gone. Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 29 Conklin: Sure, at the time of development application we do have a floodplain ordinance and a grading ordinance and a storm water ordinance. All three of those ordinances will have to be followed with regard to the floodway and the floodplain. There are specific regulations with regard to what you can and can't do within those areas and if you do zone to those areas you have to engineer it so it doesn't cause potential increase in flooding m a floodway area. The storm water ordinances require that predevelopment and postdevelopment flows during the peak storm be either detained in a detention pond or they are shown to be better released in a stream up front before a flood occurs. The grading ordinance requires erosion control and other items to make sure that we don't cause future problems down stream. All of that would have to be engineered, that is done through preliminary grading drainage plan as part of the submittal for preliminary large scale development. Hoffman: Right, I Just wanted to touch all of those points. I'm going to support this and actually make a motion for approval but to let the concerned neighborhood know that there are plenty of protecting ordinances to address your concerns and that there will be additional opportunity for public input and I'm sure that it sounds like you have been playing phone tag with the developer. You can get together prior to the next public meeting, which will be City Council. With that being said, I'm going to make a motion for approval of RZN 01-25 with the specific findings in agreement with the findings of the staff for R-1.5 residential zoning. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve RZN 01-25, is there a second? Ward: Pll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Ward, is there any discussion? Conklin: I just want to make sure that you did receive that letter from Conway Therapy Services from Greg Wren. He states in his letter "My property is not within the 300', therefore I did not receive any notification of the rezoning but this rezoning will affect my property. Another property owner notified me as you will see in another letter from the other property owners, there are some concerns that need to be answered before this request is granted. I would hope that the Planning Commission, City Council, Mr. Bayyari and Northstar Engineering would address these concerns before making a final determination, even if it delays the decision for another month." Just to respond to the 300', our ordinances in Fayetteville require that adjoining property owners be notified, not the 300' requirement. • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 30 Estes: Thankyou Tim. Allen: I didn't want to be presumptuous enough to presume to know what the property owners might feel since I don't live in that area but I didn't know whether they all realized that the property already has the divine right of being apotential College Avenue without any of these protective ordinances that you would have if we do the downzoning so that it does come back through us and we can have some control over what is and how it is designed and what it looks like so that your neighborhood won't have metal buildings and carwashes and storage units in that area. Marr: I think I will support this motion but I want to make you clear that I think that the Pine Valley Neighborhood Association has brought some very legitimate issues that are more and most appropriately addressed at large scale development. For me certainly I just want to make sure that it is clear to the developer that it is important to work with this group and address those issues prior to coming here. It will save all of us a lot f time because I certainly have the same issues, not relative to zoning, but to ingress and egress from this site which is a big concern of mine on how we do that. Looking at this information in front of me I will support the rezoning but there is going to be a lot of information, at least from my perspective, that I want to see relative to these individual's concerns when it comes back through. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Marr, any other discussion? Ward: Staff might briefly touch on the extension of Shiloh and putting a bridge in there south of this property, that is in our Master Street Plan and I'm sure the developer is going to have to partake in paying for part of that right? Conklin: Yes, we have had this conversation probably two or three times already and preapplication meetings with other developers who are looking at developing this property, heavy commercial, light industrial. That is something that we will definitely have to consider. We required the developer of Pine Crest, I'm not sure if Pine Valley participated in the money for a bridge for Salem Road also so it is not uncommon that we look at that. Probably one reason why this road is not constructed is the city has been waiting for a developer to develop this piece of property, extend the road and participate in some type of project to cross Hamstring Creek. It has sat there for some time. That is something that we will definitely have to take a look at and work out in the way of a rational nexus formula. Ward: Thanks Tim. Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 31 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01-25.00, is there any further discussion? Hoffman: I want to clarify for the neighborhood association.]ust how many meetings there are. As it goes through it will go to City Council, you'll have opportunity for input then. If it is approved, it has to go through the Technical Plat Review with the city staff and the Subdivision Committee before it ever comes back to the Planning Commission. There will be lots of opportunity for input on your questions and I think everybody's sentiments that these items do need to be addressed. That is all I had to say. Estes: Any further discussion? Yes Sir. Neighbor: I didn't know if there was any discussion regarding the rental values and how this new subdivision would affect the rental values. I think all of us as property owners, not only the ingress and egress and the amount of traffic that is going to be produced from that subdivision but Mr. Bayarri and the development company plans on building out there regarding these rental rates if they are duplexes, triplexes or whatever. There is a medium out there that we need to be careful with. If a bunch of triplexes go in there and they rent for $200 to $300 less per month than we're getting right now then that is going to be a tremendous detriment to our property values. Not only the physical aspects, draining aspects and everything else that is involved in this thing and I hope you and City Council and everyone else will consider that the property values be addressed. When I go get an appraisal made on my property value, they have to look at the rental rates around us so if the rental values of this new subdivision are going to be $100, $200, anything less than what we get now, then it is going to be a detriment to us and definitely a shortfall from what our values are now so I hope the Commission and the Council will consider that as well. Estes: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffrnan and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01-25.00, any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-25.00 and to forward it to City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion to approve RZN 01-25.00 passes by a unanimous vote, this is advisory only to the City Council, it now goes forward to the City Council for a determination. The first reading will appear on the December 18, 2001 meeting of the Fayetteville City Council. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 32 RZN 01-26.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf ofTom & Louise Sager and Paul & Bernice Guisinger for property located at west of Shiloh Drive and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 12.08 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Estes: The next item on our agenda is RZN 01-26.00 submitted on behalf of Tom and Louise Sager and Paul and Bernice Guisinger for property located west of Shiloh Drive and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 12.08 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as apart of this report. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen on behalf of the Sagers and Guisingers. I'm here to answer questions and represent them and see if we can get this taken care of. Estes: Ward: Thank you Mr. Jorgensen. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request, 01-26? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments or motions. The staff recommends approval and it meets all of our 2020 plans and I would go ahead and recommend that we approve RZN 01-26 for rezoning of this property from A-1 to C-2, thoroughfare commercial. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01-26.00, is there a second? Hoffman: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any discussion? Hoffman: I would like to make a comment along with that, both of these rezonings, if ultimately approved, are really going to add a lot of traffic to this Porter Road intersection, Mount Comfort, Porter Road Tim, when do we start contacting, is that a state highway, Mount Comfort? Conklin: That is a city road. Hoffman: Can we get the Traffic Department, if this is ultimately approved, doing a study on stop lights or something like that? That is a difficult intersection to negotiate now. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 33 Conklin: Hoffman: Estes: Sure, I can contact our Traffic Division and have them look at that. Ok, thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve RZN 01-26.00, is there any discussion? Dawn, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-26.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration, with the first reading being on December 18, 2001. • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 34 RZN 01-28.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Tom & Louise Sager and Paul & Bernice Guisinger for property located at west of Shiloh Drive and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 11.68 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Estes: The next and last remaining item of business is a companion rezoning request, 01-28.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Tom and Louise Sager and Paul and Bernice Guisinger for property located west of Shiloh Drive and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned A -I, Agricultural and contains approximately 11.68 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here to represent the owners on this property and answer questions and point out that this is affected by the overlay district. Estes: Thank you Mr. Jorgensen. Does any member of the audience wish to provide public comment on this requested rezoning, 01-28.00? Would you please come forward and say your name and where you live and give us the benefit of your comments? Herrin: I'm Renee Herrin, I live on Pine Valley Road in the subdivision and I Just want to reiterate that this is also going to have an affect on all ofthe decisions to come for the other Bayarri, Shawki land. Ijust want to make that known, I'm sure that you realize that but there are two or three things here that are all affecting one. Thank you. Estes: Does anyone else wish to comment on the requested RZN 01-28.00? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions or comments. Commissioners? Ward: Tim, in rezoning this to R-2, when do we start putting lighter units, like six or twelve units per acre, when do we start putting that on R-2? Conklin: Those are individual zoning districts so we still have the R-2 also which is 24 units per acre. Ward: If we didn't want to put 24 units per acre on this particular area.. . Conklin: Then you would recomchend something different. Ward: Then you would recommend a different type of zoning besides R-2? • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 35 Conklin: That is correct, you can always modify requests, change it to 18 or 12 or 6. Ward: Ok, I understand that the applicant is always going to usually apply for the most which is R-2, without designating 18 or 12 or something like that and without me looking at the property or all of us really evaluating it how do we come to the conclusion that this maybe shouldn't be a 24 unit development? Marr: If I could add on, because I think it is appropriate to the question that Commissioner Ward asked is that the findings that we have to look at is the justification or need of that and when we just approved another development in what 1 would consider to be a very similar service area in reference to the lady's comment just a minute ago. Again, how would that be taken into consideration on whether there is justified need if you have 12 per acre and 24 per acre and X amount when you look at answering that finding. Conklin: What we have done is to work with the applicants and also recognize what is surrounding and the vicinity and in those cases where it is more appropriate because there are duplexes there already and that a certain density we've made these recommendations. That is how we have used those zoning districts. I don't think there is anything wrong with R-2, the 24 units per acre but I've gone backwards and used the three new zoning districts to provide compatibility for the adjoining developments. That is kind of how we use those three zoning districts. Hoffman: One of the things, I too am concerned about the density. One of the things that I've seen in both of these developments is that they are giving us opportunities to upgrade thmgs that are either nonexistent like Sycamore or Porter Road, this A-1 actually touches Porter Road or Mount Comfort, I'm not sure what you call it at that point. Along with our study of the traffic, the developer many times is required to pay for offsite improvements and upgrade existing road conditions based on the impact that they are going to be putting on these roads and with the C-1 development adjacent to Shiloh, that is not going to actually be going onto Porter but whatever density development will, in addition to Deane Soloman. Deane Soloman does go north and intersect with 112 but I see an opportunity here for improvement to that intersection that is sorely needed by the approval of some sort of this rezoning. I would be receptive to hearing if you have an idea ofa lesser number of units although 24 units could be any number of bedrooms. Conklin: Twenty-four units per acre, dwelling units. Keep in mind too, the density issue also relates to how many people you put on one piece of property or per acre. Just because we only allow six dwelling units per acre doesn't mean that people are not going to move to Northwest Arkansas, we're just going to consume more land and build more units. I don't Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 36 think because we build dwelling units people move here. I just want to bring that point up so when we start looking at density and infill and smart growth and sprawl, where we put people and how many people we put per acre and how efficient we are with our land use I think is gomg to impact all ofNorthwest Arkansas. We can either spread everybody out or we can try to create higher densities which allows more opportunities for mass transit and more efficiency with infrastructure and not having to maintain as many miles of street and water line and there are a lot of issues with regard to density but I would just like to bring that point out that density is not always bad. You can't have mass transit typically if you don't have higher densities in a community. Hoffman: I can actually see a scenario, since we do have this part adjoining Mount Comfort for a turn out lane and for possibly a stop light at that intersection or something, I'm not sure. The way the street is designed isnot ideal at all because of its proximity to the freeway and the curb, the blind turn but at least something. I don't know if it would create a bottle neck to have a stop light but we might be able to widen the street out and put in left turn lanes and right turn lanes and things like that that would help. I pretty much agree with Tim, I just don't know about the density. Ward: I agree with Tim about the R-2, I think it is zoned since it is sitting right next to C-2 that we just rezoned and basically in the overlay district on I540, I have no problem with R-2 personally at this particular site. I just was trying to ask Tim when do we consider more units or what not? What type of sites are we looking for to limit the number of units per acre? In order to get this thing going I would like to recommend that we approve RZN 01-28.00 for changing it from A-1 to R-2 and this is on 11.68 acres just off 1540. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01-28.00, is there a second? Church: I'll second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Church. Is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01-28 and a second by Commissioner Church. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-28.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion to approve RZN 01-28.00 passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero and will be forwarded to the Fayetteville City Council for its determination and consideration The first reading will be on December 18, 2001. Tim, are there any announcements before • • • Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 37 we adjourn? Conklin: Yes, I would like to make you aware ofthe Planning Commission retreat, that is scheduled for December 13th at 5:30 at the Donald W. Reynolds Center for Enterprise Development seminar room "A". We will spend the first forty minutes as a part of the Planning Commission Retreat to kind of go over the roll of the responsibilities of Planning Commission. We will present to you at that time the reorganized general plan. From there we want to review the 2002 work program. We haven't done this before with the commission but I think it is important. There are many items and issues, ordinances that we are currently working on and staff also would like to bnng forward other implementation ordinances. A work program is implemented in our general plan 2020, our vision for the community. We have divided this work program into five categories, administration, ordinances, planning, smart growth initiative and participation. We would like you to review each of those categories if you have any other suggestions of things you think we need to work on in any of those areas please provide those and write those under the other category. We are asking that each Commissioner prioritize the tasks within each of those categories so we're asking you as a Commission to help planning staff and the Urban Development Department to prioritize what we work on for next year. If you can bring those suggestions back to us by Friday, December 7th we will be able to organize those for the December 13th retreat. This is a very important activity that we're undertaking here. We need your support. There are probably some things that are within the work program that have been on my list for a couple of years. There are some new things that we've added to that work program and this is something that we want to bring forward with you as a Commission so that we can set our agenda for next year. The only other thing I have is that on December 4th we will have Duncan & Associates here with regard to the Impact Fee Study. We have scheduled a special information session with the Planning Commission at 5:30 and you should have received information on that. That information session will go over our water, waste water and our preliminary discussions on road impact fees so it will be happening December 4th. That is all I have. Estes: Thank you Tim. Any other announcements? Ho an: I think there is a Sidewalk Fee Committee meeting on Wednesday at noon. Estes: We'll stand adjourned until our next regularly scheduled meeting.