Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 9, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN CCP 06-1858: Concurrent Plat (REPLAT OF STONEWOOD S/D, 100) pp. 4 CCP 06-1857: Concurrent Plat (REPLAT OF PERSIMMON PLACE S/D, 437) pp. 4 CCP 05-1807: Concurrent Plat (HAYS/DOT TIPTON, 475) pp. 4 PPL 06-1870: Preliminary Plat (THE HAMPTONS (REVISED), 608) pp. 4 ADM 06-1899: Administrative Item (GYPSUM/RAVEN MSP AMENDMENT) pp. 6 LSD 05-1806: Large Scale Development (APPLEBY LANDING LOTS 2 & 3, 251) pp. 4 PPL 05-1749: Preliminary Plat (ST. JAMES PARK S/D, 321) pp. 10 R-PZD 05-1619: Planned Zoning District (WESTBROOK VILLAGE, 284) pp. 15 ANX 06-1853: (NOCK/BROYLES SALEM ROAD, 205/206) pp. 18 RZN 06-1854: (NOCK/BOYLES SALEM ROAD, 205/206) pp. 27 Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 2 RZN 06-1887: (HOGGATT, 638/639) pp. 31 ANX 06-1867: (WALES, 373) PP. 33 RZN 06-1868: (CHAMBERS, 485) pp. 35 CUP 06-1877: (CHAMBERS, 485) pp. 42 RZN 06-1852: (SCHOLAR'S INN APTS, 402) pp. 43 CUP 06-1869: Conditional Use Permit (1ST PENTACOSTAL CHURCH, 440) pp. 45 CUP 06-1875: Conditional Use Permit (SMITH 2 -WAY, 446) pp. 47 CUP 06-1861: Conditional Use Permit (HENRY JORDAN, 366) pp. 67 LSP 05-1777: Lot Split (JORDAN RENTALS, 366) pp. 67 CUP 06-1860: Conditional Use Permit (HENRY JORDAN, 366) pp. 67 Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Tabled Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Approved Approved Tabled R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District Denied (PADDOCK ROAD S/D, 526) pp. 72 ADM 06-1907: Administrative Item Forwarded to City Council (WALKER PARK SIGN) PP. 85 ADM 05-1893: Administrative Item Tabled (BY-LAW AMENDMENT) pp. 86 Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo James Graves Audi Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Brent O'Neal, Engineering CITY ATTORNEY David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Christian Vaught STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 4 Ostner: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the January 9, 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call Clark, Myres, Trumbo, Allen, Graves, Ostner and Lack were present. Ostner: First item on the agenda is the approval of the consent. There are several items on that consent agenda - I will read those tonight. It looks like six items. The first is a concurrent plat, CCP 06-1858 Plat REPLAT OF STONEWOOD S/D; the second is another concurrent plat, CCP 06-1857 REPLAT OF PERSIMMON PLACE S/D; the third item CCP 05-1807: Concurrent Plat HAYS/DOT TIPTON; fourth item is PPL 06-1870: Preliminary Plat (THE HAMPTONS (REVISED); the fifth item is ADM 06-1899: Administrative Item (GYPSUM/RAVEN MSP AMEND- MENT); the sixth item is Large Scale Development, LSD 05-1806 for APPLEBY LANDING, Lots 2 and 3. If anyone from the audience or any of the commissioners would like any of these items pulled from the consent, please speak now. Pate: Mr. Chair, if we could, please remove the Administrative Item of the (GYPSUM/RAVEN MSP AMENDMENT) from the agenda per our conversation at the Agenda Session. Zoning, conditional uses, other amendments to the master plans, I feel would be more appropriate to have in public meeting and any comment if there is any. Ostner: Okay, thank you Mr. Pate. So the Consent Agenda now has five items: the fifth item I read, ADM 06-1899: Administrative Item (GYPSUM/ RAVEN MSP AMENDMENT) is not on the Consent Agenda. It will be heard later tonight. Allen: Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the Consent Agenda taking item five off of that. Osmer: Thank you, I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there a second? Graves: I'll second. Ostner: Any discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Ostner: Before we begin, I want to make sure there aren't any minutes we need to be approving. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 5 Pate: Not at this time. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 6 ADM 06-1899: Administrative Item (GYPSUM/RAVEN MSP AMENDMENT): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES on behalf of Charlie Sloan requesting an amendment to the Master Street Plan to realign Gypsum Drive and Raven Lane (Collector Streets) north of their current configuration, as recommended by the City of Fayetteville Street Committee. Ostner: I believe our first item is ADM 06-1899: Administrative Item (GYPSUM/RAVEN MSP AMENDMENT) — item #5: Pate: This is a proposal for a Master Street Plan amendment. It has been before the Fayetteville Street Committee which consists of four members of the City Council. This property you have seen before in some fashion is within the vicinity of Crystal Springs Subdivision Phase I, which is a developed subdivision, and the Rockhaven Subdivision, which is an approved but undeveloped subdivision. The property was also recently annexed as the Zacccanti property, containing approximately 60 acres intended for development of single family residential dwelling units. The applicant recently requested the Street Committee hear a Master Street Plan amendment for the subject property, in response to neighborhood concerns. At issue essentially is that the constructed portion of Gypsum Road is shown as a collector street on the MSP, the constructed portion of Gypsum Road and Crystal Springs subdivision was actually constructed prior to that adoption of the current MSP; therefore, it has a more narrow right-of-way in that area. So fulfilling the full requirements of the MSP for 70' right-of-way would be at best difficult in this area. With annexation rezoning the property to the north in agreement with that property owner and developer. He has agreed to allow for the collector street to go through that subdivision; therefore, would decrease the amount of potential cut -through traffic east and west in this area but would still allow for the needed east -west connection that would connect through neighborhoods. The request is to downgrade Gypsum Drive through Crystal Springs S/D to a local street and realign the actual collector designation north to Rockhaven S/D thereby retaining the east -west connection. Additionally, an adjustment to the alignment of Raven Lane, which is a north -south connection was also shown to you at the time of the Rockhaven S/D. It is also shown in your plats. This would essentially move that sort of "S" curve area out of the Rockhaven S/D so that it would allow for a better connection. With that the Fayetteville Street Committee and Planning Staff recommend approval of this MSP resolution. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your proposal. Brackett: Good evening, Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. Like Jeremy explained it, Charlie Sloan is currently looking at developing the 60 acres Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 7 as the Zaccanti property, and after meeting with the Property Owners Association at the Crystal Springs S/D, they brought in their concerns concerning Gypsum being a Collector. We agreed that we would submit a change to the City as per their concerns and that is what we have done. So I'd be happy to answer questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Brackett. At this point I am going to call for any public comment. If you would please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Bailey: My name is Jeff Bailey and I live on Gypsum. I am the secretary of the Crystal Springs Homeowners Association and also represent the Association tonight. We have an HOA meeting tonight or we would have several more here, but we definitely support this amendment and the reasons are: if we go from eventually Rupple all the way to Deane Solomon — that is going to be a little more than a mile straight stretch; also, on the East side of where Raven and Gypsum would intersect, there is a possible future high school that will be built. It is probably unreasonable to expect 16-18 year olds to go 20 MPH down Gypsum, especially if we have a one -mile stretch, and if it does extend on over to Highway 112, it would be pretty long. We do have some safety concerns. There are a lot of children — Holcomb Elementary School is in that subdivision, and we do have a lot of children that do walk to school, so all the housing on the north side of Gypsum, if any of those children that did walk to school are going to have to cross this potentially dangerous area. If a "T" is put in there at Gypsum and Raven, we think it would encourage people to either go up Salem to Howard Nickell or to West Salem. We absolutely want connectivity between the subdivisions. We know there is more property being developed. We'd like for it to remain a pasture, but it's not going to happen, but we do want the neighborhoods to connect. We've got a really good, strong HOA, a really good neighborhood, and we'd like to see that preserved. That's another reason we are in favor of this amendment. We want to preserve the character of the neighborhoods. There are a lot of children that play outside, and walk down the sidewalks. We think this would cause some safety issues. The West side of Fayetteville is right now experiencing some tremendous growth and it is probably not going to go down any time in the near future. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Smith: My name is Michael Smith. I also live on Gypsum and am a member of the Crystal Springs POA. Just to add to what Jeff said, I also do support the amendment. We feel that the Sam's Club that is going in in West Fayetteville and also the apartments that Tracy Hoskins is proposing to build, that it would make Gypsum a very attractive cut -through for high volume of traffic and just to echo what Jeff said, I have four kids who do Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 8 play outside and my oldest does walk to school and I would be concerned without this amendment about what would happen with the traffic flow on our street. Thank for your time. Ostner: Thank you. If there is no further comment I'll close the public comment section, and bring the issue back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Allen: Seems to make good sense to me so I'm just going to move for approval of the ADM 06-1899. Clark: Second. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there any discussion? I believe these do go on to the City Council, if I'm correct. Whittaker: Yes, they do. Ostner: If anyone wants to share any comments for the Council, now is your time, or let your vote stand. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, the motion to approve ADM 06-1899 carried by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 9 PPL 05-1749: Preliminary Plat (ST. JAMES PARK S/D, 321): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at NE OF MT. COMFORT AND HUGHMOUNT ROADS. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 24.35 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 73 single family lots proposed. Morgan: The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 73 single family lots. The property is located north and east of Mount Comfort Road. It was recently annexed into the City and zoned RSF-4 and the proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding subdivisions, both adjacent to this property as well as south of this property. Most of the discussion with the review of this property was with regard to street connectivity both within the property and in relationship to the MSP. As you can see on page 13 of your packet, the existing collector street, named Morning Mist Drive, is located quite a bit further south than as located on the MSP due to the location of Clabber Creek and as properties have developed, this is the alignment that the street has taken. It currently stubs out to this property at the northeast corner and the applicant proposes to continue that street through this property. The first application or proposal that we reviewed can be seen on page 16 of your staff report. With Morning Mist the collector stubbing out to the west which would eventually go through an existing house just west of this property. In consideration in several meetings with the applicant, the staff is recommending a modification of the MSP to realign Morning Mist such that it will be directed south and is shown as Hyde Park on the subdivision plats that you have. It would continue south eventually with further development of the property to the east and create a four-way intersection with Bridgeport and Mt. Comfort. Staff feels that allowing this collector to align with this street would potentially create a controlled intersection with either signalization or signage. Other discussions we have had in general a western connection to Hughmount Road. Originally this applicant did propose that connection and then they have proposed on page 15, a potential western connection with the realignment of Hughmount and Wheeler that is going to occur with the development of Cherry Hills Subdivision to the north and this developer will also be a part of those improvements in the realigning of that infrastructure and intersection. Staff has reviewed that and Staff at this time does not find that the western connection would be appropriate in this area due to the location of the bridge as well as site distance and visibility concerns with those. We do find that Mt. Comfort is designed as a minor arterial and is more likely to be improved to carry a greater volume of traffic and therefore that will in essence be the east -west connection from this subdivision and other subdivisions in the area. As for street improvements, this applicant will be required to improve both Mt. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 10 Comfort and Hughmount Road adjacent to the subject property as well as improve the intersection which Cherry Hills S/D has already received approval for in their construction plans. We are recommending approval of this subdivision with a total 21 conditions, three of which require Planning Commission determination: first being a recommendation of the MSP amendment to realign Morning Mist, a collector street; second, Planning Commission determination of street improvements; and third, determination of connectivity. It was the Subdivision Committee's request that we re-evaluate a street connection to the west and within the Staff report are the two options presented for this street connections to the west, of which Staff is not in favor. Ostner: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. At this point, is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Clark: Good evening, I am Steve Clark, Clark Consulting, representing the property owners of this tract. I tend to agree with Staff that the connection to the west was poor at best when we started. It wouldn't have been as horrible if Hughmount Road was not being realigned, but when you realign Hughmount Road and have it enter further to the west on tying into Mt. Comfort Road, the site distance gets pretty dismal. Additionally, when you try to look down the hill to Hughmount Road, again, it would be a poor solution either way, so we concur with Staff on that. The best solution is not to have any connectivity directly to the west to Hughmount Road. Otherwise Staff presented things pretty well and I'd be prepared to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Clark. At this point I am going to call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this preliminary plat, please step forward. Sharlough: My name is Charles Sharlough and I own the property across from this on Mt. Comfort Road. I would simply urge the Planning Commission to take into consideration the present traffic on Mt. Comfort Road and the road itself, which is extremely narrow, as everybody knows. The developments along there so far have really put a tremendous burden on the road. I'm not sure I understood all the connections that the Staff and the proponent have mentioned, but to the extent you can take into consideration lessening the traffic on Mt. Comfort, with connections otherwise, I think would be very advisable and also take into consideration what Mt. Comfort and the infrastructure can handle when you consider the density that is being asked to be approved. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about this issue? I am going to close the public comment section and bring the issue back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 11 Lack: As a member of the Subdivision Committee that saw this, I think that we were looking at the western connection and struggling to find a good way to make the western connection an attempt to better the development. We really felt like the connection would be beneficial to the development and I see the lengths that you have gone to. I appreciate the extra sketches to help us to understand what that would look like with the realignment of Hughmount Road and with that and Staff's urging, I think that clears that up for me and I think that was the one item that I remember from Subdivision Committee that we had any heartburn about. The realignment of the MSP seemed to make sense with Morning Mist, the location that it would have come through the property and connected to Hughmount Road would have been right at the end of a bridge which was certainly not a good condition. The potential signalization of the road will certainly be the best condition here. Ostner: Thank you. Lack: I would like to make a motion that we approve preliminary plat PPL 05- 1749 (ST. JAMES PARK S/D) with the stated conditions of approval giving special consideration to the determination of Item 1): recommendation of MSP realignment to the City Council; 2) the determination of street improvements; and 3) the determination of connectivity. Ostner: We have a motion to approve as stated. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Allen: I felt that it would appropriate to hear comments regarding Mr. Sharlough's concerns of traffic in that area. It just becomes more and more of an outspoken elephant in the City out there in the growing in all directions and I am just interested in the thoughts of other commissioners instead of moving straight ahead with it, to maybe discuss a bit. Does anyone have anything that they want to say? Trumbo: Along the same lines, I had a question. Jeremy, what are we requiring exactly for the improvements along Mt. Comfort? Pate: As you'll note or remember in some subdivisions along Mt. Comfort, there are parts of Mt. Comfort Road that are in our Capital Improvement Program. Those are further east though near the intersection of Deane Solomon and in that area so we have taken assessments in those areas. With this particular location, it is actually at the edge of the City, west of Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 12 this is within our planning area. Staff is recommending improvements to be constructed and those would include coordinating with the developer of Cherry Hills S/D which is off of Hughmount Road to improve the intersection of Wheeler and Hughmount to make it a ninety degree intersection there as opposed to a "Y" intersection condition that it is. This would include curb, gutters, storm drains, and etc. on the east side along this property boundary. Additionally, improvements to Mt. Comfort Road adjacent to the property would include 18' from centerline, curb, gutters and storm drains, 6' sidewalks, so it would widen the road considerably in this area, especially around that curve, because that is something that the widening of the road is even more important for site visibility, in this particular area. So this is what Staff has recommended for street improvements for this subdivision. Ostner: I suppose for me on the issue of Mt. Comfort I was looking at this layout and it does allow more than one entry the entry on the northeast. If I were to move in here, I would try to make that work and avoid Mt. Comfort, and that's part of why I'm probably going to vote for this. If it only had one ingress -egress onto Mt. Comfort, I would probably vote no, because that's a guarantee that everyone immediately gets out there. Allen: Ostner: Clark: Aren't there actually two? Yes, there are two. I believe one is going to be in the future, though. I know that the connectivity is not filled in yet. It is not easy to take this future northeast connection and weave your way to most of the areas you want to go. But it is filling in slowly and I would hope that would alleviate Mt. Comfort. Mt. Comfort Road was one of my first concerns when I first started serving on the Planning Commission. It was my first tour. It is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous streets in Fayetteville. The only reason I will favor this development is because of the improvements it specifically is going to do on Mt. Comfort Road right on that curve which I think is incredibly dangerous. You have the Cherry Hills subdivision directly to the west which is going to throw a ton of traffic onto that horrible intersection, so the more work we can get in that area, the better. I'm glad that Staff is holding developers to improving that street because that is about the only way it's going to get done because the State isn't paying attention to it and the City can't accept it in this fashion. So I will be supporting this development for that very reason and hope that more developers pick up some more of Mt. Comfort and we'll see if we can't get it to be a little less dangerous and more habitable, because a bunch of folks are moving out there. I'll be supporting it. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 13 Lack: Allen: Ostner: As a motioner, I appreciate Commissioner Allen bringing that up because I had studied this and gotten comfortable with the conditions and the upgrade to the conditions, but I think it is appropriate that we address and fully explain those upgrades and those conditions to the public who live with those conditions and those ramifications of what we choose to do here. I think that there are two items that have been mentioned by other Commissioners that bring me to that conclusion and the northeastern connection out of this subdivision to a new collector street that is gaining ground across toward 112 is a big part of that. That we do have other access points in this subdivision is actually the development of part of that link Other subdivisions that we see will also connect in and offer alternative routes that might take some of the traffic off Mt. Comfort Road. That with the idea of upgrading that corner and improving both the sweeping corner at the southwest corner of this property and the connection to Hughmount and Mt. Comfort Road those are certainly considerations in favor of this development. I would like to thank my fellow commissioners for their remarks. I think it is very appropriate that clarification of improvements be made so that those neighbors who exist now, who have a bit of squatter's rights there, ought to be very clear as to what is going on around them. They were there first after all. I feel more comfortable about this and will support this. If there is no further discussion, will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve PPL 05-1749 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 14 R-PZD 05-1619: Planned Zoning District (WESTBROOK VILLAGE, 284): Submitted by NOCK INVESTMENTS for property located at TRACTS 1 & 2 ORIGINAL SALEM VILLAGE P.U.D. The property is zoned RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 7 single family lots proposed. Property Owner: Barber Group Fulcher: The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision within a unique R-PZD zoning district. This project was submitted under the original PZD ordinance and therefore does not look like or appear to be the PZD Master Development Plan format. The proposed use of the site is for a residential development consisting of seven single-family residential dwelling units. As you can see on the map on page 28 of 30 this is lots 1 & 2 that were created as part of the original Salem Village PUD for proposed future development. Most of Salem Village development has been constructed, however these two larger tracts located at the entrance are currently vacant and have retained the original RSF-4 zoning. Since the PUD process is no longer an option for developing the remaining lots, the developer has requested a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for similar lot sizes and configurations as those already developed in Salem Village. The proposed uses for this PZD are identical to RSF-4 zoning except for in the Conditional Uses, they omitted the conditional use for duplexes or two- family dwelling units. Other than that, it is the same permitted and conditional uses as the RSF-4 zoning district. The minimum lot width is consistent with what has been developed out there at a 40' lot width, with a minimum lot area of 4500 square feet. All the street improvements have been made with the original development of Salem Village PUD, although since that time, a new Master Street Plan was adopted which will require an additional 5' of right -a -way to be dedicated along these two lots. No trees other than within the right-of-way are located on this lot. A tree preservation plan waiver form was submitted and approval by the urban forester. Park Land dedication was donated with the original Salem Village PUD although this dedication does not account for the development of seven single-family lots on tracts 1 & 2; therefore, fees in lieu will be assessed for the seven single-family lots in the amount of $3,885 before sending in the final plat. Ultimately this could be developed with the RSF-4 zoning which would not be compatible with what is existing out there; therefore, the developer has requested this PZD to re- create what has been developed out there in the past. This has required a different process now that the ordinances have changed. With that Staff is recommending that PZD 05-1619 be forwarded to City Council with thirteen conditions of approval. Item 1, Planning Commission recommendation of favor of this submitted PZD, Item 4 as I discussed Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 15 additional 5' of right -away to be dedicated and Item 5 park fees to be paid in the amount of $3,885. If you have any additional questions, please ask. Ostner: Can we hear from the applicant, please. Duquesney: My name is Jorge Duquesney. I work with Project Design Consultants and I'm here to represent this project. I am in concurrence with everything the Staff has noted and if you have any questions, I am here to answer them. Ostner: At this point, I will call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this PZD 05-1619 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. As a courtesy, we remind the audience and the applicants that being short staffed here, there are only seven here out of nine, it does require five positive votes for all rezoning applications, which this is. Myres: I think that this is a perfectly reasonable request given the development immediately adjacent to these two parcels, and I would like to move to forward PZD 05-1619 for WESTBROOK VILLAGE to City Council with the conditions of approval. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there any discussion at all? Clark: I don't know if this is the Staff or the Developer, but as I was trying to find this this weekend, trying to find the red sign. I was trying to figure out where it was, but what does this do to the Green Space that currently exists in Westbrook Village? This is two big pieces of land right in front there is still a little thing in the middle of the median, but how does this diminish the Green Space overall? Pate: Those two lots were never attended to be Green Space. Clark: So they were never counted as that. Pate: The Green Space that was originally dedicated; there was quite a bit of dedicated Park Land in the wetland area and Clabber Creek Trail will eventually go along Clabber Creek. That's where all the Green Space for that specific subdivision was dedicated, so they have direct access to that Park Land. Clark: So these parcels were always intended to be developed? Pate: That's correct. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 16 Allen: Mr. Chair, I, too, tried to find this piece of property and couldn't find the infamous red sign, so I just wanted to make that same comment that when we aren't able to do the tour when we are working on the downtown master plan, it is really hard to find these spots sometimes when you are out by yourself looking around and can't find the signs. Clark: But I do appreciate staff much more that you do go out there and show them when we go on tour. Because I can't find them on my own. Pate: For the record, a sign was installed and it may have fallen down at some point, but we'll make sure it gets up before the City Council meeting. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Any other sign comments before we vote? Allen: I certainly expect Jeremy to stand out there all week holding the sign!! It just makes it hard when you are not certain about all that new area out there where things are without the signs, so they make a difference. Ostner: If there is no further discussion, will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve R-PZD 05-1619 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 17 ANX 06-1853: (NOCK/BROYLES SALEM ROAD, 205/206): Submitted by CRITICAL PATH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT for property located at N & E OF WEIR RD. AND HOWARD NICKELL ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 39.11 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Morgan: The subject property contains several parcels totaling approximately 39 acres. The request is for annexation and rezoning to RSF-4. It has been submitted by Nock Broyles Land Development LLC. The property is located within the Planning Area and is currently undeveloped, except for a few single family residences. One of the tracts, if you look on your maps on page 18-20, you can see that this approximately 40 acres consists of two larger rectangular 20 -acre tracts. The one to the southeast is adjacent to city property at the very southeast corner, and the second rectangular tract is adjacent to the first on the very northwest corner. It is legally adjacent to the City; therefore the applicant did request de - annexation from the County and has submitted an application to be reviewed by the City for annexation. With review of our annexation guiding policies, Staff finds the annexation of this property will create what is in essence two undesirable peninsulas of City property within the Planning Area. Most often any annexation will be some sort of peninsula. This in essence creates two large 20 acre tracts that are surrounded by the Planning Area on all sides. To develop these properties would require the extension of City services outside of our City limits and the Planning Area, as well as significant improvements to infrastructure, the streets surrounding this area. We find that annexation of this property would create an undesirable boundary and feel that if perhaps adjacent properties to the south were approached, and all requested annexation, that incorporation of this area in general is important and should be approached in a comprehensive plan. To go over other Staff comments: the Fire Department comments that response time is approximately 8.75 minutes to this property; the Police find that annexation of this property would not create a substantial alteration in the population density. I would like to review the rezoning request. The applicant bas requested rezoning to RSF-4. Staff finds that although this zoning district is comparable to the adjacent properties in the City that are developing, since these areas are surrounded by the Planning Areas on all sides, it would be in essence very incompatible with the surrounding very rural development in the area; therefore, Staff is recommending denial of both the annexation and rezoning at this time. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 18 Broyles: My name is Hank Broyles. I am one of the owners of this property. I know that the City does not want to create peninsulas or islands when it annexes, and that is a good guideline to follow when possible. In this case, we think that this property is an omelet. If you want an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, or in this case break a guideline. Half of this property is on Rupple Road on the east side; the other half is on the west of Rupple Road. We are approximately three blocks from Holcomb Elementary School. It is six blocks from Holt Middle School and three blocks west of the new property that the City Public Schools has purchased. This is very prime property. It is ready for development and it is going to be developed immediately. It can be County property with a drip system or it can be a City property with a sewer system. If it annexed into the City, the impact fees would be $216,000. The Parks and Mitigation would be another $67,000 and the City would have control over what is going to be planned and built on Rupple Road. This street is projected to a major thoroughfare for the City and it would be, in my opinion, best that what's built and developed on this would be under the control of the Planning Commission and not the County. In closing, John Nock and I have met with several different groups within the City, including the Mayor, Gary Dumas, and members of the City Council. We have gotten support indicated from everybody that this property should be in the City. I know that the Planning Department is reflecting the City policies that you have right now, but sometimes you have to go around those guidelines. That is what your decision is, if you decide that is what the City wants to do. We ask that you approve this property for annexation and rezoning. Are there any questions? Ostner: We will get back to you. At this point I will call for public comment for these two items. We are discussing the annexation and rezoning at the same time. If you could please introduce yourself. Mayes: I am Andrew Mayes. I just want to clarify that this in fact is indeed the property that I think it is. I received a notice as an adjacent property owner and there is a sign posted at the lot next to me, but the directions do not appear clear, at least the way I read them. It says it is north and east of Weir Road and Howard Nickell Road. How does that position, can someone illustrate that for me? (Illustrated). I guess even though I received notice and there is a sign posted, there are two developments by the same company within blocks of each other. So I'll come back and see you when it comes up. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to these issues? Seeing none, I am going to close the public comment section. We are talking about the annexation and rezoning of Nock/Broyle Salem Road. I am bringing it back to the Commission for discussion. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 19 Myres: I need to ask for some clarification from Staff. I, too, was out in my car in West Fayetteville over the weekend looking for some of these places and the closest came to identifying these particular properties was driving north on Salem and south on Salem and north again on Salem and turned left on to that diagonal Weir Road section. The sign for this is to the south of that section of Weir Road. Pate: That is what this citizen was just commenting as well. I believe there is another application in process for that area as well. Myres: Okay, but it had the same number: it was 06-1853. Pate: Correct. You can arrive at this property in about six ways. From Howard Nickell Road coming from the north, from Salem Road from the north. There is also a gravel road, or maybe paved now, Salem from the intersection of Salem and West Salem. You can also enter it from the south from Salem near Crystal Springs and Rockhaven Subdivision where the school is, as well as that diagonal area where Weir Road traverses through the property as well. So there are a number of ways to get to this property. Myres: So, the sign was apparently off of this particular section Pate: The same applicant does own property and there are projects in process on that property as well. I made a note to check that out as far as the number. Allen: I have a question for the applicant, please. I wanted to know if there were efforts made to talk with the adjoining property owners to bring all of this in in one parcel, if those other owners were interested in being a part of the City ? Broyles: We had gone through trying to ascertain who was and was not interested and it was somewhere around half of the people were interested in it and the other half were not. Visiting with the City, I spoke with Tim Conklin and that whole area is included in a package that is going to be presented to the City for annexation. I think that is about 20,000 acres. I don't know how long it is going take to get a package that size approved, but between our property and the City, there are a few other properties. We own some that are being annexed now that brings it up closer, but there would still be three houses between the new City line and this property. On the west side of Rupple Road there is probably almost a mile before you get to it, because sinks way in all along to Clabber Creek Village Phase II. There is another gentlemen who owns about 60 acres immediately north of that property which comes up to Weir Road and then you have John David Lindsey's property and then this one, the Western portion of our property that sits on the west side of Rupple Road. We Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 20 Nock: have gone through and talked to a lot of people that would like to get into the City, but they would like Fire and Police. But there are one or two that wouldn't give me more than thirty or forty seconds. They figured we were out to try and buy their property for some reason and didn't want to talk about City annexation. If I could add one thing to this. When we started this process back last summer, we started meetings with the City, at that point in time, if you will recall, there was a fairly loud discussion going on about the improvements to infrastructure and to streets and one of the main topics of conversation was the Rupple Road extension that would go all the way to the north. At that point in time, we assumed that conversation would stay on track and the sewer plant wouldn't become the main focus of what's on the agenda and had that happened, we probably wouldn't be here. You probably would have been asking us would we allow the property to be annexed, because this is going to bordered along that main road that is going to be put in, assuming it actually does get put in. We are probably six months premature from where ultimately the City will want all of that along Rupple Road. So our piece of land will sit inside of where that major improvement will be made, assuming that it will get approved from the voters. Graves: I have a question from the applicant and you may just answered it for me. It is for Mr. Broyles. It was my recollection that you came through recently with property just south of the eastern most tract of this application. Broyles: Correct. Graves: We are realigning Weir Road and making it straighter. I take it from what your comments were a minute ago, I couldn't remember who all owned those tracts. I take it that you don't own all of that property there that is shown in the County on our map. Broyles: Correct. Benton Development brought in and got annexed on the south side of Weir Road and then we bought that from them. We bought the 2.8 acres right next to it to fill that hole in where Gypsum is being extended. So we are on the south side. But on the north side there are four residences between Salem Road and West Salem Road. On the north side of Weir there are four houses and we spoke to three; one was willing, one didn't know, and the one on the very corner said she was not interested in annexation. Clark: I can't believe I am going to be in the position of saying this, because I've always been one on the Commission who didn't want to create peninsulas, but in this instance, I'm going to borrow from some of the rhetoric of my Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 21 fellow commissioners and say a guideline is just a guideline. It's just a suggestion. So, this time, and only because this weekend as I was wandering around that area, there are some beautiful homes going up in that western side that are all in the County. You are absolutely correct — this is going to develop and it is already developing. Because of that, I am going to support annexation of these two parcels, simply because if it is in the City, we can dictate how it develops. That does not mean I am going to support the rezoning request, however. I will support it coming in that I think that we have to be careful as it develops for a variety of reasons, some Mr. Nock just mentioned, that the west side wastewater treatment plant. Infrastructure in general on the west side of town, on all sides of town, is an issue right now. I'm not prepared to vote for this type of high density, until we have some of these problems resolved. And we will resolve them. And it will develop, and if it is in the City, we'll develop along our guidelines and ordinances. So, I will make the motion that we approve annexation 06-1853. I recommend approval. Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion to forward with the positive on the annexation proposal. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Allen: Fireman hat again. I continue to hope that we will be able to have the Fire Chief come to visit with us about these discrepancies - 8.7 minutes and it is gone. I just wanted to throw out that I hope we can have a little more clarity on that. Ostner: I believe I am going to go ahead and vote with the Staff recommendation. There are really good arguments that this should be annexed to the City. I would hope that the annexation project that Mr. Broyles referred to would be fast tracked. There are lots of areas of town that are developing at County standards with septic that I would like in the City; however, the piece meal approach is very problematic. This property, I'm not even sure the City of Fayetteville emergency responders would be able to access it from their own...I guess there is a piece of land, I'm not sure how big it is, but when first responders have to cross jurisdictions, things get really funny. People can call for fires, and the responders say, you are not in our area, because we have to drive through a different area to get there. Those things can be sorted out, but with a larger annexation request, that would not be a problem. That is fairly minor, I believe that those things can be worked out, but there are more and more problems like that. I would like to see this as part of the City; however, I am going to vote against it. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 22 Allen: I'd like to see this as part of the City, too. I wonder if maybe it is about six months premature and so I'd like to hear a little more thought from the motioner and the seconder as to their reasons why. I think it is appropriate to bring it in now. Clark: Sure. I don't think there is anything stopping this development company from walking up and starting this development under County standards. You can almost see the elementary school out there from the corner of this property — it is that close to City limits and a growing area in the City. I have strong reservations about some of the County developments with the septic systems they use. It is such a beautiful area out there, I would rather it be under the City. I'm not an alarmist when it comes to annexation; I'm an alarmist when it comes to rezoning of that annexation. He can sit for six more months and not develop until we have some of these problems worked out. I don't think we have the infrastructure right now to support a massive 40 -acre development in the west part of town with questions that are looming over wastewater treatment, over infrastructure, etc. It doesn't mean it can't sit there. You are not going to have any calls to the emergency services because it's just "raw" land. You're not going to have any pressure on the infrastructure if it just sits there without developing. But there is nothing that precludes these gentlemen from walking out of here tomorrow and starting construction under County standards and we will have no control of that whatsoever. I truly did wander around out there a good chunk of Sunday afternoon, seeing large, beautiful homes out there. I think that trend is just going to continue. Might as well bring it in and as far as I am concerned, let it sit there until we can zone it properly and have the infrastructure to support it. Myres: That was my thinking as well. I hate to be a copy cat. Trumbo: Question for Staff. I remember at one agenda meeting a few months ago, there was talk of a temporary solution possibly a lift station being built out west until the new wastewater treatment plant was ready. Is that still ongoing? Pate: It is and I believe that the Water and Sewer Committee was updated or going to updated this week from the RJN Report. I am not sure exactly what the status of that is. The Water and Sewer Committee then would forward its recommendation to the full City Council about what temporary fix, if any, there was. On all large scale developments and preliminary plats within these two basins, the Owl Creek Basin and the Hamestring Creek Basin, there are conditions of approval being placed on those projects, essentially stating that you have to comply with whatever the City Council deems appropriate for a temporary fix if necessary. If it is not necessary, obviously that would never be assessed. That is the approach we have currently. It's an approach that the City has taken Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 23 before when there were capacity concerns before we had updated studies to understand exactly what our capacity limits were. Trumbo: So that is still part of the plan — a possible temporary lift station. Pate: Yes. Trumbo: Are we at capacity now? Pate: No, sir. Trumbo: Are we close? Pate: That is a relative term. Are we closer than five years ago? Yes. But we do have capacity. The Health Department is still approving plans, it is my understanding, and we have to have the data there to back it up. Trumbo: Well, I have a different opinion. I am not in favor of annexing and not rezoning just for the fact that the property owner has rights as well, I believe. And to annex them so he can wait on us and his property just sits there. If he's ready to develop and it's legal within the County guidelines to do so, I believe he has the right to do that and I will not vote for an annexation if we are not going to rezone it, unless the applicant wants to do that. I will like to ask Mr. Broyles or Mr. Nock if you are not going to get the rezoning, do you want the property annexed? Nock: Ultimately whatever is approved on the PZD on this total development, you are going to see it anyway. Whether it is a PZD or just a zoning, we would rather have the zoning in place and know what we are going to do, but from experience you know anything that we are involved in, whether from the beginning or from the end, it is to do something that is a superior product, that has something that we are all going to be proud of, both the citizens and the developers. So whether we have a major say in that or a minor say, the idea would be that you would see it — the first step is annexation. We can't do the zoning unless we have the annexation. Would we rather have them both? Absolutely. Would we start in this step, and I can appreciate the comments made so far, and that would probably put us on the path to do that. Broyles: As far as rezoning, it would all come back through Planning Commission in the form of a PZD, so you'd be able to quantify what comes out. The rezoning to single family residential 4, we have never been able to develop a piece a property with more that three on it. By the time you put the City standards on it, that's just what it comes out. The maximum would probably would be in there 3 or 2.8 per acre which is conducive to the south side of it which has been as high as 5 or 6 density down south of Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 24 that. We have already met with the City and offered to donate two acres to the Fire Department if they would put a fire station in on the property up there, too, which might help alleviate some of that zone. We said we would donate it to them. We are concerned about that as well. We figured by the time we got it approved and got the lots and put some stuff in out there, it will be over a year from now. Allen: I appreciate that. Nock: I hope that answers your question, but if we need to go in a step by step process, we understand. We believe more that likely six months from now, this will be annexed any way, but we don't want to wait that six months. We can be doing our engineering, we can do our planning, work with our partners, and all the people involved in the process of how it is ultimately going to come about, but we have to start here to know that it is going to be judged by the guidelines of the City and not the County. Not that we have anything against the County, but there are adjoining developments for those that went out there. There is one that is directly to the north that is a septic, not a step system, but truly a septic neighborhood. And again, I'm not saying that is bad or good, it is just that it is one thing right next door. Then we have just literally to the south of us, the next neighborhood down, is City systems. The choice is really what we can do, what we should; and we are asking what we should do, not what we can do. Trumbo: I would agree with Commissioner Clark and a lot of things she said. I'd like to see this developed to City standards for the same reasons that she would and it sounds like the developers are okay with not getting the rezoning if that's the decision of the Commission. I will be voting for the annexation. Broyles: We have to have zoning; (inaudible) Ostner: I think we are fully understanding that if the annexation passes and the rezoning request fails, the applicant is fully prepared to stick with the RA zoning that is attached to an annexation and request a PZD in the future. Clark: Lack: At that point when you come through with a PZD as I'm understanding it, we can get some of these substantive answers. The RA zoning will not impede this development at all. I'm looking forward to seeing something come through because it's a beautiful piece of property. One of the main things that I see in the peninsula is City services. I see to the southeast of this property a small tract that was just recently approved — a preliminary plat — so I would assume that water and sewer is available at that location. I would like to ask engineering, is that where you would Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 25 O'Neal: Lack: O'Neal: Lack: see City services hit this property so basically, if this were annexed and went forward for development, City services could be brought across that corner where it does meet City property and continue across it and not have to cross County property? Well, if this map is correct, City sewer is just to the south within the Crystal Springs Subdivision. They would have to require easements and I don't know if it would be possible to cross into their property to serve it without crossing the County, not without having a detailed plan. Water is adjacent to the site; I believe there is a water line that runs down Salem Road and there may be some smaller lines that crisscross down these County roads as well; however, if I remember right, the one in Salem Road may be an 8", but as memory serves, it is a 6". And everywhere else it is either a 4" or a 2" which is not adequate for fire protection. There will have to be substantial upgrades not only to sewer, but to water to service this development. But within City property, likely? I guess sewer is the big question. Since we have water in the County that we serve many residences outside the City limits, it is really not that big of an issue, but City sewer outside the City limits has only been approved in one condition. I don't think we have ever seen or that I have ever seen a submittal that more directly was in violation of the one recommendation or one guideline, than this property that attaches just at the one corner, but on the other hand, there are other guidelines that this property fulfills in an equal manner. I think the proximity to the schools that are built in the neighborhood and the completion of this section of Rupple Road and the connections between Salem Road and Rupple Road that the City will benefit from this development, can bring me around to an acceptance of this annexation. I will support that. Graves: I tend to think that this particular proposal violates almost every guideline that we have on annexations. I have come to the same conclusion as Mr. Lack that because I do think that it from a long-range standpoint which is one of our guidelines (that we are supposed to look at long-range planning), this area is developing, it's primarily developing at RSF-4 and even higher as the applicant indicated earlier. We approved something at a slightly higher density than that just a few minutes ago just to the south of this piece of property. So we can't look at these in a vacuum and I'm the one who has used that rhetoric as my fellow Commissioner Clark commented a minute ago, that they are just guidelines and I think that when you look at the unique situation and where this particular piece of property is located and what is going on right around it and what's going Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 26 to continue to go on in that area, it should come into the City. It may be a little early, as the Chair has indicated it probably is, but we don't always have perfect timing on these things. I was also with the same inclination as Commissioner Trumbo that if we are just going to annex it and leave it agricultural, I wasn't really sure that that is an appropriate zoning given what's going on around this piece of property. With the comments made by the applicant and what they intend to do sometime in the future and bring it back as a PZD, I don't have as much of a problem with that. I will vote in favor of the annexation and probably will vote in favor of the rezoning request. I don't have as much of a problem approving one and disapproving the other given the discussion that has occurred. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Graves. Pate: I just want to clarify a couple of things about the street standards. Everyone please keep in mind that Fayetteville, that even though this is within the County and could be developed in the County tomorrow, Fayetteville City street standards are in effect including drainage, right-of- way dedication, sidewalks, street lights, and everything associated with the City development standards, so there would not be any additional higher quality development for the street standards, per se, due to our current development ordinances. Please keep that in mind when you are thinking about annexations in general and this one in particular. Ostner: Also on that note, if this were being brought forward tonight as a preliminary plat in the County, we would give cursory review to the septic, as we did with Cherry Hill, if they chose a step system. There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion. Will you call the roll please. This is on the annexation request. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve ANX 06-1853 was approved by a vote 6-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Ostner: Our tandem item is the rezoning request of the same piece of property, RZN 06-1853. We have heard a staff report and we have heard from the applicant. Would the applicant like to share anything. Nock: I just wanted to say one more time that we would do this PZD. We certainly have more than the two of us involved in this, in fact, my role is a fairly minor role in this. We somewhat run some risks here. I am an investment banker by profession and I always look at risk and sometimes you see it after you sit down. The challenges are that if we go with just an RA, you recognizing that we are now annexing to the City, you may not Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 27 have just one of our hands behind our back, but two.... That we could do nothing for some period of time, assuming a PZD could not get done. I'm a big believer in the PZD process. I can't think of a project, we in fact had R-2 zoned, RMF -24 zoned acreage that we came back and brought as PZD because we believe that it is the best option, not always the easiest option, for development. So, with that in mind, even though we assume that we will be using the PZD process, we certainly are not going to say that we wouldn't appreciate your affirmative vote for the zoning. This will certainly go to the Council level and we will state the same thing then. We certainly are not saying that we don't care about the zoning, but that is my only concern is the risk factor and it is also a risk for the rest of the community, because you could be in a situation where it just sits there and languishes. With the horizon line that I see today, I still request that if your vote was when you came tonight to vote for that, both the annexation and the rezoning, we would appreciate that. Upon the other hand, if you feel inclined to do otherwise because of some of the things we mentioned here, they certainly understand as well. Ostner: At this point I will reopen the public comment for this zoning request for the same piece of property, RZN 06-1854. Hunnicutt: I'm Clyde Hunnicutt. I believe I am an adjoining property owner of this plot. I live on the corner of Howard Nickell and West Salem, 3225 West Salem. I have not been contacted by any of these folks and are we part of this annexation or is this backing up to my property? Ostner: I'm not sure where your property is, but I don't believe you are included in this annexation, if fact, I am certain that this property is completely owned by these gentlemen and their associates. Hunnicutt: We got the notice that says that it is north and east of the intersection of Weir Road and Howard Nickell. I'm assuming they are talking about Howard Nickell that went through the new subdivision and comes around and joins what used to be County Rd. 894. County 894 makes a circle around there. Ostner: Is there a map that you could show him? Hunnicutt: So it is not the property directly south of me, it is the property directly west of me. Broyles: Right across the street from you. Ostner: Is there any further public comment on this item? Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 28 Mayes: Andy Mayes again. I'm back...I've got myself oriented now. This property is indeed in my neighborhood, it is not the property that had the sign for this hearing, thus the confusion. But I would like to point out that the properties to the north and west of this area, there is kind of a transition line there, where we are going from a higher density RSF-4 into the rural County development where most of these lots are two, three or four acres. I'd like for you to consider that as you think about this particular rezoning; or give us a little more time to consider how this will be rezoned if at all. So some of these other neighbors, who I have spoken to, would be able to give input. It is kind of a short time frame from when we saw the initial sign and the confusion with locations. We really haven't had time to get together and formulate a position. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Mayes. On that note, this is the first stop. The City Council is actually making the final decision. We are merely offering a recommendation, so I would encourage you to go to that meeting where the actual decision will be made, beyond this decision. Is there further public comment? I am closing the public comment section and bringing it back to the Commission for discussion. Pate: I would like to mention that Staff would not recommend retaining this as residential agricultural land. It does not do a whole lot for land use decisions when you zone property and just leave it agricultural typically, especially these larger tracts. We would recommend at least some sort of residential single family zoning designation. If you are not comfortable with 4 units per acre, there are several to choose from: RSF .5, RSF 1, RSF 2, and then RSF 4 of course which is the applicant's request. Each of those reference the density — units per acre allowed on that particular piece of property and each one would allow a single family development. Ostner: That is residential single family '/2 unit per acre, 1 unit per acre, and 2 units per acre, are the three choices that are less dense than the RSF 4? Pate: Correct. Clark: I would be perfectly happy with any of those other designations below RSF 4. I think it is a transitional area. RSF 2 I would find totally fine. I think RSF 4 is way too dense for where we are located and the other houses that surround it at a distance, because they are all on a lot of property. But I won't support 4. Allen: I would agree. I had written down the RSF 2 as Jeremy was speaking. It seemed an appropriate transition. A lot of those houses appear to be on an acre or more. Clark: I will make a motion that we approve rezoning RZN 06-1854 at RSF 2. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 29 Myres: Second Ostner: Is there any discussion? I will be voting against this item. This is closer to appropriate if the property is to be annexed by the Council, I believe this RSF 2 might be closer to appropriate; however, I do think there is a better way for this property to come into the City. I think it should come in with more property around it to avoid a piece meal approach to City services, not just emergency, but sewer. Sewer potentially could cross County land, maybe condemnation. There are strange things that could happen, if we ask someone to allow a sewer across their land, and then not in the City. Any further discussion? Trumbo: Question for Staff. If this is rezoned to RSF 2, the applicant would have the opportunity to come back to us with a PZD at a later time? Pate: Yes, that is correct. Graves: I will support the motion as well. As I stated earlier, agricultural is not appropriate for this area. RSF 2 seems appropriate in light of what's being brought in right now. It is right in the middle, it's bordered on the south and on the north, these two tracts of property, by things that are fairly sparsely densely populated out there. Ostner: Would you call the roll, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 06-1854 was approved by a vote 6-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 30 RZN 06-1887: Rezoning (Hoggatt, 638/639): Submitted by HALLEY AND CANDACE HOGGATT for property located at THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD AND GARLAND AVENUE. The property is ZONED I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre, in order to rebuild the burned structure. Garner: This property is located at the northeast of Cato Springs Road and Garland Avenue. It contains 0.3 acres. There has been a two family structure on the site since 1960, which was developed prior to zoning regulations. The site is currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and therefore the existing residential uses are non -conforming as an I-1 zoning district residential uses are only allowed as accessory uses. The structure on site was recently severely damaged due to a grease fire. The applicant wants to rebuild the property and in order to rebuild the property as a principal residential use, it has to be rezoned. So they are proposing to rezone the site I-1 to RMF -24 Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre. The surrounding land use consists of residential development with a variety of zonings as shown on Table 1 in your Staff report on page two of this item. The general plan designates this site as mixed use and Staff finds that the proposed RMF -24 zoning is compatible with the adjacent and nearby single-family and multi -family uses. We also find that this down zoning from I-1 to RMF -24 would theoretically result in less impact to public services than industrial uses. We are recommending approval of this rezoning and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Garner. Is the applicant present? H. Hoggatt: My name is Halley Hoggatt. I am a property owner. I think this is a pretty simple thing, but think I'm afraid if speak after the vote, it would be too late. I support everything he said with the exception that the property was not severely damaged; monetarily yes, because fire is always an expensive damage factor. The exterior of the building was all but unaffected except for some melting of the vinyl siding and the windows. There is no structure relocation. There is $125 allotted from the insurance company to repair the structure. I think that gives an idea as to how little of the structure was involved at all. We are primarily talking about dry wall. We just renovated the place because we are seeing a lot more of the residential area down along Cato Springs Road. It is the last of many that we own that we had spent money to renovate because it was slow to come, but had recently done that based upon the fact that the rest of the neighborhood was falling into that residential atmosphere. Unfortunately because siding, roofing and paint don't require permitting, we weren't aware of the zoning and certainly didn't have to apply for a permit to find that out. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 31 Ostner: I will call for any comment. If anyone would like to speak to this request, please step forward, RZN 06-1887. I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: Absolutely no problem with this whatsoever, it seems like it is making it come into compliance, so I make a motion that we recommend approval of rezoning of 06-1887. Allen: Second. Ostner: Would you call the roll, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 06-1887 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 32 ANX 06-1867: (WALES, 571): Submitted by JASON AND AMY WALES for property located at 2055 N. FOX HUNTER RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Fulcher: The subject property contains 1.42 acres and is located at 2055 N. Fox Hunter Rd., south of Highway 45. The property is adjacent to Barrington Park Subdivision to the west and Ridgemonte Estates to the east. The applicant proposes annexation of 1.42 acres into the City of Fayetteville. As stated, the property has frontage on Fox Hunter Road and Buckley Drive. Public water is adjacent to the site. There is a 6" water line on the west and east side of the property. Sanitary sewer is also adjacent to the site. An 8" sewer line is on the west and north sides of the property. The subject property is located approximately 2.1 miles from Fire Station #5, with the projected response time 5.5 minutes. When the proposed Fire Station #5 is put in service at Crossover and Old Wire Road, the response time will increase to 6 minutes. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create any appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the City. As you can see on page 9 of 20, the map on page 17 of 20, the property is surrounded on three sides by the City limits and the east side by Fox Hunter Road. Ultimately, this annexation would fill in a remaining gap in this area of the City. For those reasons, Staff is recommending forwarding this item to City Council with our recommendation of approval. Osmer: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Is the applicant present? J. Wales: I am Jason Wales and I am the property owner and agree with everything Mr. Fulcher said and ask for annexation. Ostner: Thank you sir. At this point, I will call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this annexation request, please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. My one question to Staff that the Fire Department report says the response time would go up — I am assuming we are moving the Fire Station further away...is that correct? Pate: Correct. Graves: I would like to note that as much as the last item probably stretched our guidelines to the breaking point, it seems like this one would knock us over the head if we didn't approve it, so I am going to move for approval for the requested annexation of ANX 06-1867. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 33 Allen: Ostner: Second. Would you call the roll, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve ANX 06-1867 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 34 RZN 06-1868: Rezoning (Chambers, 485): Submitted by JULIE AND MATTHEW CHAMBERS for property located at 347 N. WILLOW AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE FAMILY -4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE Fulcher: The subject property is located at 347 N. Willow Ave., south of Lafayette Street. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family and RPZD, Residential Planned Zoning District (being the renovated St. Joseph Lafayette Lofts). The 0.20 acre tract contains an existing nonconforming home and accessory structure that were constructed in the 1910's. The applicant has requested the rezoning to bring the property into compliance without utilizing the variance procedure. The RSF-8 zoning district was adopted by the City Council to allow for existing platted lots that are non -conforming in regards to lot width, lot area, building setbacks, etc. to become conforming, specifically for the historic residential platted areas of the City. This application fits this proposal appropriately. The property has frontage along Willow Avenue. The site is currently served by water and sewer. The subject property served by Engine #1 located on Center Street, .8 miles away from the station with an expected response time of 4 minutes. Police stated that the rezoning request will have a negligible impact on both the population density and the traffic congestion in the area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use plan objectives, principles and policies with land use and zoning plans. The RSF 8 zoning district was created as an alternative solution to variances for existing nonconforming lots within historic areas of the City. This lot when it came to us was short of the 70' requirement for frontage. The building was less than encroachment of the front building setbacks. The RSF-8 zoning district would fix both of those problems without the variance procedure. The rezoning would not allow for any additional dwelling units on the subject property; therefore the rezoning would create or increase traffic danger or congestion. Therefore, Staff is recommending this item be forwarded with a recommendation of approval. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Is the applicant present? Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. J. Chambers: My name is Julie Chambers. I am an architect here in Fayetteville. My husband and I bought this property approximately two years ago this last November. Since then we have renovating the property, painstakingly, mostly because we can't always afford to contract it out, so we are doing a lot by hand. As Mr. Fulcher said, the current structure is nonconforming. The issue at hand is to rezone to bring the current structure into conformance. There is a controversial issue within the neighborhood that we are proposing to put a detached dwelling unit above the garage Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 35 Ostner: Hunnicutt: Wilson: structure that we would like to rebuild. That is the reason that we would need to get the rezone. But the issue at hand at this point is the rezone and we'd like for our house to be in conformance. At this point, I will call for public comment. My name is Claudette Hunnicutt. I live 520 North Washington. I wasn't here to speak to this issue. I didn't even know this was on the agenda. I did not receive notice. This is in the historic district and my home is in the historic district and I'm very upset that I was not notified about this. I'm here to speak on the 2 -Way Radio issue, but since I read that this was on the agenda, I feel compelled to speak about it. I have lived in that neighborhood for twenty some odd years and I have served on the historic commission. When I served on the historic commission, we discussed the apartments in the area and it was our consensus then and I'm assuming it is still the consensus that there are many apartments in the neighborhood and they were grand fathered in. But no other apartments were to be built. When at all possible, the historic homes would be converted into single family residences. This proposal will change the whole character of the Washington Historic District. It's hard to believe, but maybe by approving the Catholic Church condominiums and the library condominiums, we have opened the door for this. But it is two separate issues...those were existing buildings and would have been empty buildings and would probably have gone into disarray. This is totally different and can not believe you all would even consider approving this. My name is Carrie Wilson and their property runs lengthwise and I would be looking at the back of this building, whatever they are going to build. I have one of the oldest homes in the historic district. According to historic records, I have the old of the oldest and I really think it is going to impact my property values, because I would no longer have any visual scenery but just be looking at a huge two-story building. Having the property where it is right now, I had a nice wooden fence and because the roof hit the fence, it rotted it out. So you have that impact, you have the impact of having enclosed on all sides and not having a back yard. It is going to impact, wind, and light, everything else if you build a two-story structure. Give a variance, it is going to fold. I asked the Staff, and Jesse said " I recommend the project, because there are already other variances. There are already other apartments." But the idea is yes, there are, but isn't there enough? I mirror Ms. Hunnicutt's comments, the question really is, does Fayetteville want a neighborhood community? And if you do, then you have to try to keep that community intact. The historic district at one time was considered fraternity/sorority row and lots of student apartments. That's why there are so many apartments. It's the oldest area in Fayetteville. So that's where the students lived. There has been a focus of turning those houses that were turned back into apartments back into Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 36 Reese: single family units. So if you set that precedent again, to start saying because it happened in the past, we can go ahead and do it in the future. I think there were a lot of people that were in opposition to St. Joseph for the fact that they were afraid that if St. Joseph was opened up into apartments and condos, it would happen to the rest of the neighborhood. So we are trying to keep our neighborhood intact and I'm trying to keep my property values intact, because I'm really afraid that if a large building is built behind my property, that is going to lessen it. And it is really sad because my house is an urban farm site and I think of it as a relic of the past. It's really incredible. I'd like to see the City use it sometime as a museum. I think it would impact that historic property. So I'm really concerned and I plea to you not to grant this zoning request. Thank you. I'm Karen Reese and I'm the President of the Washington -Willow Neighborhood Association and the policy of our neighborhood association concerning matters of rezoning and these matters that are brought before the Planning Commission is that first of all, we are usually notified when something like this takes place, and usually the Staff advises the applicant to contact the neighborhood association and discuss the issue. And this is what has happened and I am so grateful for that because I can post it on the List Serve, we have some discussion, sometimes people rally at the end and get upset about an issue, but generally this is a way the neighborhood has to weigh in on something like this. We were not notified by the applicant. Ms. Chambers contacted me a long time ago and asked what the neighborhood's position would be on constructing an apartment there above the garage. I thought it was something that needed to be discussed with her surrounding neighbors — that was the first step. Well, the woman who just spoke whose property abuts this and it will prevent light and air and her enjoyment of her property as she has it now. The other thing that I would like to say is that we weren't notified so we couldn't get this around to the neighbors and I know you post a sign there and everybody has a chance to see that, but sometimes people don't think about that or it doesn't register. I would like to say, that as far as our neighborhood is concerned, this is going to start an epidemic of this sort of thing and speaking on behalf of the Neighborhood Association would ask that you not grant this request. Lunsford: My name is Claudette Lunsford and I also live in the Historic District at 513 N. Washington Ave. I am also here to speak to another issue regarding the cell tower, but I have just found out about this issue by being here tonight. I also would like to urge you to remember the unique and singular place that the Historic District is in Fayetteville. It's an asset to our town and having apartments built in there amongst the old homes that are currently being redone, there are more and more people that are moving into the area that feel that there is value in these older homes and redo them and fix them up so they are pristine again. Having apartments Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 37 put into the area here, I think would be a really negative aspect of development in our neighborhood and so I would like to come out against that. Ostner: If I could stop you for just a second. This rezoning request does not allow apartments. Lunsford: So it's just for a higher density for over a quarter of an acre period. Ostner: It is entitled RSF-8 Residential Single Family 8 units per acre. Lunsford: Well, 8 units per acre are quite a bit. Ostner: We can talk about a lot of things, but if I could just check with Staff about that. Pate: This zoning district was created specifically in response to historic neighborhoods, because most historic neighborhoods are developed on lots smaller in width, smaller in size, than our standard RSF-4 zoning district. Therefore, if you have wanted to change your porch or add a new roof that extends any further, you have to go through the variance procedure. This applicant did go through the variance procedure a month ago. There was public comment at that time. Staff recommended that the applicant come back through this new rezoning application procedure, RSF-8, which again fits most of the lots in Wilson Park area, south of town, Mt. Sequoyah would fall into this designation. For the public's knowledge, it is a single family zoning district that allows the same exact uses as the RSF-4, it just allows for that smaller lot which this lot is already smaller in nature that what RSF-4 allows. Essentially it is bringing this lot into compliance with what already exists. The following application, which is requested to be tabled tonight, is a conditional use permit for a second dwelling, about which most of the comments have been tonight. Lunsford: So an RSF-8 means that 8 families are allowed to live there. Ostner: No, that means that if you have a one acre piece of property, let's imagine for whatever reason they were a vacant acre, eight single family units could be built on that acre. So if you take that same math, and work it out on a small lot, it lets this lot be in conformity. Most of our lots downtown and in this neighborhood don't conform to their current zoning requirement. Graves: That means if she has a quarter of an acre, she could only build one house on it and she actually has less than a quarter of an acre, which is why she is requesting the rezoning. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 38 Lunsford: I feel that anything that disrupts the other homes that are in the area, should be taken into consideration. If it has a negative impact on someone that has a valuable historic home, that should be considered by the Planning Commission. Ostner: ['ll answer a point of order. Audience: I thought the lady said she wanted to do a two apartment unit over the garage. Ostner: That might be part of her plan. This request is simply rezoning. The item following this is a conditional use request where she was going to request a second unit on her property, however, that has been tabled tonight. So this rezoning request that we are seeing now does not allow two units on this piece of property. Audience: But it is in the middle of the historic district and it would be rezoning that one piece of property. Ostner: Yes. I will answer points of order. Is there any further public comment? I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I think some clarification might be in order. This is simply a rezoning request for this piece of property at 347 N. Willow. It would not allow two families. It is a single family zoning district. It is simply residential single family — 8 units per acre. I'll read some of the things this zoning district allows. City wide uses by right use unit 1, use unit 8, single family dwellings. Those are the only use units allowed by right. Conditional uses are use units 2, 3, 4, 9, 24, 36 and that is where a two- family dwelling could be allowed with a conditional use approval. On density, 8 units or less per acre is by right. On the two family, if you were to get a conditional use, you can go up to 8 units per acre. The lot width minimum is a 50 foot minimum -width lot; for a townhouse which means no more than 2 attached units, there is a 25 foot lot width minimum allowance. Lot area minimums are smaller — they are 5,000 SF for single family or two family; 2,500 SF for the townhouse, no more than two attached. Single family land area per dwelling unit is the exact same, 5,000 SF and 2,500 SF for a townhouse. The setbacks are different. The front setback which is the distance of the right -away line to the front of the house is 15 feet, and the side setbacks for 5 feet, the rear setback if 5 feet. The height limit is 45 feet maximum. So those are the stipulations of this zoning district that is being discussed. Allen: I think probably that the thing that would be concerning the neighbors the most would not be the rezoning but the conditional use which has been tabled. I think that this is a real good example lack of communication and Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 39 how this could all been avoided with some interaction with the neighborhoods. I know that's not something that is required of an applicant, but I see time and time again where just some little conversation can make lessen the anxiety of folks. Neighborhoods can have apartments in them; they don't all have to look exactly the same. But any neighborhood deserves to have a better understanding of what is going on, after all they live there. That's where they are every single day, so I will strongly again suggest that applicants give more consideration to talking to neighborhoods so that this kind of situation isn't a problem in the future. Graves: I just have a point of information or a question for the Staff — it can be treated either way for further clarification for the public and the neighbors. These are bundled together only in the sense that they both were on the agenda tonight and one of them is being tabled; but the rezoning isn't necessary for the conditional use of the apartment. The rezoning is just something they are asking for to bring their property into compliance with what it already is right now. Pate: That is correct. The conditional use can be, and typically is requested in the RSF-4 zoning district and that is the zoning district. Graves: So this rezoning doesn't advance the ball one way or other as far as getting the conditional use that they might request later in order to try to build an apartment. This rezoning doesn't help them do that one way or another. Pate: That is correct. Ostner: One thing it does do is change the allowances for the building that is on their lot, bringing the setbacks into compliance for one thing. The building is already built, so instead of getting variances for any building permits, they quite possibly would be in compliance. I haven't seen the site. Lack: I would like to state for the record that Ms. Chambers is an associate in my office so I would like to get that on the record in case anyone wondered. I do see the rezoning as a separate issue and the issue before us. With that, we would like to support that. Clark: We assume that there are a lot of existing homes in this that could be rezoned in this exact category just to come into compliance. Pate: Yes, we have been petitioned by at least one neighborhood and we are discussing with another, that the whole neighborhood be rezoned to this RSF-8. It was actually requested of Staff by a neighborhood in Mt Sequoyah South Neighborhood Association to create the zoning district. A lot of them were zoned muti-family but they were all developed as Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 40 Clark: single family small lot subdivisions in a manner that was more utilized in the early 1900s. And this is a good zoning tool to preserve single family homes in historic districts that have houses that are typically placed on smaller lots. This is a wise move and possible other neighborhoods in the historic district will look at this as well. The conditional use for the apartment, however, we are not going hear tonight. It is tabled, but if it does come back, I would hope that there is communication between the neighborhood association, the neighbors and the applicant. I am going to be interested in the question Ms. Hunnicutt brought up — Why do we have condos at St. Joseph, but you don't want any more apartments in that area. That is going to be one of my questions. But for this evening, I move that we forward RZN 06-1868 with a favorable finding to the Council. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there any other discussion? Allen: I would like to make another request of Ms. Chambers to talk with the Neighborhood Association, prior to bringing the conditional use off the table. Ostner: Also, before we vote, I would like to clarify our methods of notification. There is a sign placed on the piece of property and a legal ad is run in the paper that meets the City regulations, at least fourteen days in advance. And that is the method of notification. Anything beyond that is considered friendly. We would like to have more and we are working on it. But those are the limits of our laws that we work under. Pate: There are some specific applications which require further notification, but in general that is correct. Those are the two methods utilized on all applications - some other applications require certified mail, planned zoning districts, things of that nature. Ostner: Would you call the roll, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 06-1868 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 41 CUP 06-1877: Conditional Use Permit (CHAMBERS, 485): Ostner: I believe we would need to vote to table this item. Clark: I move we table CUP 06-1877 until the January 23`d meeting of the Planning Commission. Trumbo: Second. Osmer: Would the Council think a public comment would be important at this point, since we are motioning to table. Whitaker: In as much as you have made a motion to a date certain you can abate a discussion among the membership is certainly in order, but not required, particularly since you are going to be visiting it next time, and certainly will get an opportunity to be heard fully at the next meeting. But because it is a table to a date certain, it would certainly be in order if any commissioners had comments they would like to make about the item or about the concept of tabling the item. Ostner: Is there any discussion about this item, before we vote to table it. Allen: I did wonder if the applicant would be prepared to bring the item to us by the next meeting. I guess she left. I'll take that as a yes. Ostner: The motion is to revisit this item at the January 23, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting. Ostner: Would you call the roll, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve CUP 06-1877 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 42 RZN 06-1852: (SCHOLAR'S INN APTS., 402): Submitted by RICHARD A. & DEBRA R. FLYNT for property located at 1125, 1137, 1153, 1189 N. WEST END AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.74 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from RSF-4 to RMF -24 to bring an existing non -conforming use into compliance. Morgan: The subject property is located on Wedington Drive and West Inn Drive. This property is currently developed at approximately 29 units per acre. It is zoned RSF-4 and the applicant requests rezoning of this property to RMF -24 in order to bring the existing development more into compliance such that if moderate repairs need to be done or if any happens and those structures are destroyed by more than 50% of their replacement costs, that they can replace those structures. Staff finds that a multi -family zoning in this particular area is consistent with the future Land Use map as well as the existing zoning and density to the west and north of this property. It will be zoned RMF -24 which is compatible with the RMF -24 to the west. To the north property is current vacant, but is zoned RMF -12. Property to the immediately east is zoned RMF -4 and developed for single family use. We find that maintaining this area of multi -family adjacent to a principal arterial street also in close proximity to means of public transportation, grocery store and other commercial services, is consistent with the General Plan 20-20 and we find that because this property has already been developed and is currently being utilized for multi -family development, there will not be an increase of traffic or population in this area. We find therefore, this is an appropriate zoning district and recommend approval. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your comments. R. Flynt: My name is Rick Flynt and I agree with what she is saying. I am the owner of this property; it has been in my family for thirty years. It is all rental property around it. I also own the property east of it. I would like to have it zoned for what it actually is. It was built before it was zoned. Ostner: At this point, I will call for public comment If anyone would like to speak to this zoning (RZN 06-1852), please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the committee. Clark: Seems to me this is another move to bring something into compliance. Unless somebody sees something else that I don't, I move to approve RZN 06-1852. Lack: Second. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 43 Ostner: Is there any further discussion? We have one member on break. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 06-1852 was approved by a vote 6-0-0. (Myres on break) Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 44 CUP 06-1869: (IST PENTACOSTAL CHURCH, 440): Submitted by GREG BROCKMAN for property located at 3701 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE, EAST OF RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 7.61 acres. The request is for the existing non -conforming church use to be allowed to continue in its existing location in the R -A zoning district, and to construct improvements to the church. Garner: The subject property is located at 3701 Wedington Drive in west Fayetteville, approximately 800 feet east of Rupple Road. The site was developed prior to the property being in the City of Fayetteville. The site contains an approximately 4,500 SF church building, an approximately 5,400 SF metal building (Quonset hut), and a 43 space parking lot. The site is surrounded by office and agricultural land uses with the Ozark Electric facilities located immediately east of this site (for your reference). The actual project site has over 7 1/2 acres. The applicant proposes 1200 SF addition to the existing church building and also proposes to landscape the non -conforming parking lot and provide an additional 17 parking spaces for a total of 60 spaces. Church is allowed only by conditional use and R -A zoning district and the proposed improvements to the church would require conditional use permit. Staff finds that the church has been established in this community since before it was even in the City, and we find that it is compatible with the existing surrounding area and the proposed additions to the church and improvements to the parking lot and the landscaping would be compatible with the surrounding area. We are recommending in favor on this conditional use permit with conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination of compatibility with adjacent properties (as mentioned, Staff is recommending in favor of that) and 8) the existing non -conforming parking lot shall be improved to meet City of Fayetteville parking lot requirements. (when this property is developed, it would be required to be improved as required by code in proportion to the amount of development on the property). I will answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Is the applicant present. If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Brockman: I'm Bill Brockman. I'm a consultant, the church asked me to present its conditional use. Andrew explained it exactly the way we would like to present it and would like to make a small remodel — an addition - and improve this property. Ostner: I will call for any public comment on CUP 06-1869. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 45 Trumbo: Question for the applicant. Are you all in agreement with the conditions of approval? Brockman: Yes. Trumbo: To me this is pretty simple. It is already there and is going to get better. I am going to make a motion for approval of CUP 06-1869, finding with Staff's recommendation on all conditions. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve CUP 06-1869 was approved by a vote 7-0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 46 CUP 06-1875: (CELL TOWER/SMITH 2 -WAY, 446): Submitted by MICHAEL SMITH/GARY COCHRAN SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO for property located at 520 COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to approve a cell tower at the rear of the subject property. Garner: This property is located at 520 College Avenue, the site has approximately one half acre. The applicant is proposing to remove two existing shorter wireless communication towers and replace them with a single taller tower. The existing towers are one, a 65' guyed tower with a 20' antenna extending above the tower, and two, a wooden utility type monopole and extension bracket that supports antennas up to 62 feet above the ground. We have received several public comments the last several days. There was a petition signed by several of the neighbors in opposition to this. I received a call from one property owner in particular that wasn't allowed to be here, wanted me to state her name in opposition. Her name is Claudette Honeycutt. We received a couple of other phone calls as well in opposition to the project. The applicant has included a lot of their written comments in your packets and we have the signed petition if you want to see that. We also have a letter from the representative from the Washington -Willow Historic District as well. It was passed out before this meeting. Smith 2 -Way radio states there are capacity issues that need to be resolved with the existing towers in that the coverage in tower -to - tower hand-off issues due to the distance and barriers between the existing towers creating a deficiency in the wireless communication service. They also stated that due to the growth of the tree line in the area, the applicant cannot maintain a line of sight signal path to the closest tower which is located on Mount Sequoyah. To improve the call handling capacity cellular coverage and tower -to -tower handoff, they propose to remove these two existing towers and replace them with one tower that is a maximum of 100 feet in height. The applicant is proposing to landscape the site and remove the existing barbwire and chain link fence and replace it with a 10 foot wood type privacy fencing around the site. They are proposing to use a slim line T -mount antenna and transitional paint scheme to camouflage the pole similar to what was approved on a previous project. Staff's opinion finds that wireless coverage can be provided at this location that will not detract from the scenic quality and character of the area. We find that the proposal would actually improve the visual quality of the area by removing the existing outdated towers and replacing it with one tower that would be 20 feet taller than what is currently there, but would be a slimmer, lower profile type tower and would be camouflaged. We feel that with the addition of a wood privacy fence around the site and removing the barbwire and chain link fence and landscaping the site would be compatible and do find approval for this conditional use request. I wanted to call your attention to a couple of the Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 47 conditions: 1) the applicant is required to comply with all Federal regulations, 6) utility equipment at the base of the proposed tower would be required to be surrounded by a wood security fence of sufficient height to screen any utility equipment. The existing barbwire and chain link fence would be removed; 7) landscaping shall be added to the site — we would have to see a site plan prior to development; the other conditions are relatively similar to ones we have seen on other wireless communication towers. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Is the applicant present. If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Reynolds: My name is Dave Reynolds and I am representing Smith 2 -Way Radio. I live here in Fayetteville on 1519 Center Street. With this application on this, and public comment by folks....some of the comments we have heard back are from people that were afraid that they weren't notified in proper manner. I wanted to go through this with Staff while we are here. All the proper notifications were sent, certified letters to all the appropriate houses. We spent hours today checking and double checking addresses and mailing receipts and postage, and dates to make sure all of that was done. That is done. So everyone that was supposed to be notified was notified. Then past that, we worked with the West Lafayette Historic District, with the Washington Willow Historic District, and anyone else we could think of in the community. Until Thursday, we had received two comments from the notification process that some folks were a little bit upset with this. One from Jim Boyd and one from Aim Thomas. Other than that, we had sent out 43 notices, we received 15 back, which in our experience with this, quite a number of receipts back. Eighty percent of the property owners that responded were in favor of this. Twelve in favor, three against. I wanted to point that out, we worked with everyone we could find, talk to, call or knock on the door. Comments that are coming up now, I would appreciate the time to address them or go through this. There are a couple of other things with this that I want to bring up with this application. This application is brought forward by Smith 2 -Way Radio. The towers that are in the rear of our facility have been there for 35 years. We've been in that building since 1952, started Smith Radio in 1929 right down the street on the square. We've been in Fayetteville a long time. We don't build something ugly; we don't want to mess up historic areas. I wanted to point that out. With these towers we use, we use them for monitoring and maintenance on area systems, such as Arkansas State Police, City of Fayetteville, Ozark Electric, Washington County — the list goes on. We have over 500 customers. We monitor and listen to these areas from these towers. This is our workshop. The towers being 35 years old — when we put them up there, the trees weren't quite that tall. With this, we have to maintain a line of sight connection for Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 48 some of our maintenance work, for data signals now. We need a line of sight connection to Mount Sequoyah. We don't make it any more. We have to bounce it off the top of the Radisson and do some other things, some fancy work to get there and it is not as reliable as we'd like. That's one thing with this. In doing this, taking down the two existing towers, we can take out a lot of the outdated equipment, modernize it, reduce it, move ourselves up and still have room to provide co -location for a cellular carrier or two. It's a financial bonus for us if that happens, but it's not the only reason. It's not going to be just a cell tower; it is a facility for our use at our business. I just wanted to make that clear. In the information I've seen, it says it is a cell tower. It can and probably will be used for that purpose, but there are also other purposes for it in with that. You've had the packages there and as you can tell, this tower is only 100 feet tall. The two towers there top out at about 65' and 82' at the antenna height; so we're taking those down and putting up one that would be 20 feet higher. Our proposal is to build a new tower; we've worked with Staff to see if we can do this under an administrative process to take down the two, and put up one; under administrative review, replacing an existing tower. We can do that, but what we've got here is we want to make it a little better than that. To make these changes that we went to do, it has to come before this Commission and through the process as a new application. So we want to do it a little better that what we could do. We want to do the landscaping, the fencing, the screening, remove a lot of the stored material that is an eyesore. I'm sure the people that live behind, they don't like to look out their back window and see this. We are going to move that, screen that so you can't see it, and what we are going to replace it with the tower won't be any different or worse than what they see now. The trees in that area (I've got some slides) top out at between 65 and 75 feet. So we are only 30 feet above the tree line with a 100 feet of tower. Right now we are below the tree line with our towers. With the existing tree line, homes and the angles this will be seen from, it won't make it any worse. We have talked to many people in the neighborhood and they didn't even know the towers were there to start with. You have had a chance to look at the coverage book and the pamphlet that we submitted. I've got examples in slides that will probably answer most of your questions when they come up. Ostner: If you could hold off on the slides until we have questions. That sounds good. At this point, I will open it up to public comment. Please state your name and share your comments with us. Wilson: My name is Carrie Wilson. I do Section 106 compliance for cell tower review for the Paw Paw Tribe of Oklahoma. One of the things we look at under cell tower review, section 106, the National Historic Preservation Act. So any time for the Paw Paw Tribe that cell towers come in, they always ask the Tribe if they have anything of religious or cultural Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 49 significance; they require an archeological survey, and quite a lot of stuff. This doesn't necessarily pertain to here because this is already been impacted. But also, the construction of a cell tower is a Federal undertaking because it has to through FCC licensing. So as a Federal undertaking, it has certain Federal requirements it has to fulfill. One of those requirements is, does this impact historical properties? It will get signed off by the State Historic Preservation Office. There are citizens within the Washington Historic District that are concerned about the impact. And it is a visual impact, too. It's not just the physical impact, but the visual integrity, the visual impact of the site, and one of the things that can be done (not necessarily in this case), but gives you an alternative that it doesn't have to be a guyed wire pole or a monopole. They can be disguised as church steeples, flag poles or a number of things that can be incorporated into cell towers. So you don't have to look at a cell tower with this big thing on it. I would get as many as 25 requests in a week, certified mail, so there are tons and tons of them going up. I think sometimes, it is good to see cell tower construction going outside the box and trying to disguise them in different ways to it doesn't impact the community as much. This will have to be signed off by the State Historic Preservation Office and it does have to take into account that aspect before it can be constructed. Hunnicutt: I'm Claudette Hunnicutt; I live at 520 N. Washington Ave. My house faces so that I would see his towers from my front windows and my front door. It is on the back of some properties, but the whole front of my house would be facing this. Landscaping would be fine, but that is around the ground. How tall is the fence? A ten foot fence? We're talking about 100 foot tower, are we not. I don't think he is going to build a 100 foot fence to conceal that tower. It will have an impact on the Historic District and it will have an impact on the property values around it. It is my understanding that the City wants to beautify College Avenue. Do we want a cell tower right there? A 100 foot tall on College Avenue. And while I'm on the subject, there is an alleyway that goes between the Lunsford property and goes into Smith Radio. That is the only alley that is still in operation from College Avenue into the Historic District. My property had an alley that extended— we closed it fifteen to twenty years ago. There is no reason that that alley should be there, because it was constructed to collect trash and garbage. City trucks do not use that. Smith Radio is using it as a back entrance to their store. Now, to me that in itself is impacting on the Historic District and I think that alleyway should be closed, but that is not before the Commission right now. I do think that this tower will be an eyesore, I don't think it should be constructed there. I was informed that it was coming up; I did receive a letter from you all. I went out of town, so I didn't mail my response back. But I did call this morning and I'm here tonight. This is just not an enhancement to the Historic District, and when we start chipping away at Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 50 our Historic District like this, we are going to destroy it. And that is one of the assets of the Fayetteville community, our historic districts. And ordinances have been passed so that we can build garages so we could get our cars off the street, not to build apartments, but to build garages to make Washington Avenue a prettier street. We do not need a 100 feet cell tower right at the borderline with the Historic District. He said he received a lot letters in reply. I would like to know how many of those were homeowners in the area and how many were business owners. Business owners would sign off on it; it is not going to affect them one way or another. I would like to know how many of those letters would like to have 100 feet cell tower sitting in their back yard. Lunsford: Claudette Lunsford. Our property is not directly behind where this tower would be, it is just slightly caddy corner. We did not receive the certified letter; I understand today there was notification. I don't know why our mailman did not give it to us. But for whatever reason, we did not receive notice that this was happening until about a week ago when we got the letter from the Planning Department. I went around and started speaking with quite a few of my neighbors and we were not the only people that didn't know this was going on until just in the last few days. I don't know if in the Christmas season, people get busy and don't pay attention, I don't know what all the reasons might be. But there has been some rather late notification from everyone that lives in the neighborhood. I did want to make sure that there were thirty plus households that signed a petition that objected to having this placed in the Historic District. I think that the fact that our area is so close to a commercial zone, we feel a lot of pressure from all the traffic and noise from College, the cut through traffic. Having something that's this close to our neighborhood seems like it is more commercialism encroaching upon a fairly unique area that doesn't belong there. I don't think that seeing the cell tower from my back yard would be something I would look forward to, and also agreeing with Claudette Hunnicutt that being able to look at it while you are driving up and down College Avenue isn't something people would expect in that area of town. I think it is inappropriate for that neighborhood. I think there are other places that could possibly be looked at if we need cell coverage in that area of town. Maybe some other avenues need to be checked out to see if there is an alternative before you just put a cell tower in the middle of the Historic District. That's all I need to say. I would like you to think about preserving the nature of our neighborhood and its uniqueness and try to keep that in mind. Laller: I am Nan Laller and this doesn't really affect me directly so this is genuine public comment. I am curious as to whether you have ever requiring cell towers to be disguised, like Carrie Wilson said. They can be disguised. My husband and I went West last fall and we saw a number of them disguised as trees. The first one we saw was a great tall pine tree coming Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 51 out of the California desert; that is weird. So you kind of notice that something is wrong here, what is this? So as we got closer, we could see the little crown on top and realized it was a cell tower. So we started looking for them. And as a matter of fact, when they are among other trees, it is a pretty good disguise. So I assume California or at least some counties in California are requiring them to be disguised. Fayetteville is supposed to be at the forefront of everything, so I'm wondering if you have ever considered asking for them to be disguised? Thank you. Ostner: And yes, Ma'am, we have. That is part of our ordinance. We will go into that in a little bit. S. Lunsford I'm Scott Lunsford and I live at 513 N. Washington. I know that the "Not In My Backyard Argument" is not a really strong argument for this kind of service, but I do question that it is not just my backyard, but we are looking at a ten -story structure in the 500 block of Washington Willow Historic District. I'm just wondering if that location is really the most serviceable location for what they are trying to achieve as far as cellular coverage. I think that the issue is really the Wilson Park Basin. I am thinking that this tower should be closer to Wilson Park Basin. I'm not an expert in cell technology. I know a little about it and I'm a little bit concerned about being shown some slides later and not being able to come back and comment on those. Will we open to respond to any further presentation by the applicant? Ostner: Probably not. We will go ahead and hear the public comment now and the slide show will simply illustrate what we already have in our packets. S. Lunsford: Of course these are items that we have not seen, and not being able to comment on them or to take them and study them, kind of puts us at a pretty serious disadvantage. Allen: I just wanted to mention to you, Mr. Lunsford that we have had this debate recently because the applicant usually has the final, middle and first word. There would be circumstances that we would allow if the Commission as a group would permit it, we will sometimes allow public to speak again. S. Lunsford: Thank you. If cell service is the main drive here or is that part of the enhancement or part of the package that they'd like you to believe is necessary or certainly a fruitful result of this conditional use. I have to say I have not personally experienced any Cingular cell problems in my area and I understand that there are probably more cell phones that cell towers, but I'm still not sold that that tower has to be at that location to enhance that service. I'm quite certain that the monopole tower does not contribute to the character of the Historic District. Please, please don't approve this conditional use. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 52 Reese: I'm Karen Reese and I'm president of the Washington Willow Historic District. I must say that Dave Reynolds did contact the neighborhood association early on in this process. He contacted us in November. He asked to meet with citizens. I feel like I must disclose this in spite of what has happened in the last few days. He did contact me by phone, he did send an e-mail and he did ask to meet. I posted on the Washington Willow Neighborhood Association List Serve and asked everyone who was interested in this project to join me. He had already sent out the letter and at that time I think he had fifteen responses that said they were favorable and he had one at the time that said that he was opposed. I posted it on List Serve, no one showed up, I went by myself and met with Dave, we toured the property, looked at everything and he told me their plan. I came back and reported my findings on the List Serve to the Neighborhood Association, and said I invite your comments on this. I showed up today, no one showed up with me, but I invite your comments. Nothing happened. I heard nothing except for one respondent that said I think they are handling this in a responsible way. That's all I heard from the neighborhood List Serve. . I got back from vacation on Wednesday and on Thursday I had a call from Dave who said would you please write a letter saying what the Neighborhood Association feels about this and I said I would over the weekend. Then I just got a call from some of the neighbors on Friday who said they had not been notified, so even if it is just a friendly thing to do to notify the neighbors, Mr. Reynolds told me that he had notified the neighbors in a 500 foot radius by certified letter. I guess that some of the neighbors did not receive that which made me not to be able to sign on to send him a letter that said that the neighborhood felt this was okay. I had to write him a letter that said that some people who are really worried about this project now. So I'm just trying to give you the background of what has been going on in the Neighborhood Association. I went over and looked at it and did not find what they were doing didn't seem that awful to me, but it's not directly in my back yard. The people who are here tonight, it is in their back yard. Ostner: Is there any further public comment? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Myres: It seems as though if the commenting public had some of the visual images that we have in our packet, that they might be a little bit better informed about exactly what this looks like from where.... Would it be appropriate to share my packet with them, or not. Ostner: It would. I believe the applicant has a presentation, if we want to go ahead and do that. I believe it reflects exactly what is in our packets. You want to go ahead. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 53 Reynolds: I have some additional photos that we took today from some of the locations that are in the petition. Just so I can show you those specific locations and those houses. Presentation: This is a checklist that we worked from, many times that is given by the Planning Commission, including flood maps, drawings, contacts, notifications we have to send out to neighborhood people. This is a standard form. This is the geographical area that this would serve, not only in the Smith 2 -Way, but if it was used for cellular coverage. It shows some of the area from top of hill of North Street, across from the old WRMC, up to about Dickson Street by the Courthouse; in that basin and a little bit toward Wilson Park. These are the existing and planned facilities that around there right now. The center one there with orange is the location questioned. There are two locations on top of Mount Sequoyah, one at the AWG Tower, one at the Methodist grounds and Water Tower. Also, at the Water Tower at the VA Hospital. There are also cellular facilities at all those particular Cingular locations there, as well as anyone else that can possibly fit on those: Alltel, Verizon, Sprint. The surrounding area is definitely full. This is one of the diagrams requested showing the single family residences within '/2 mile radius. As you will notice, we are located in the C-2. There are lots of single family residences 4 per acre located behind us. This is the existing towers that are within that mile — the two at Mount Sequoyah, the one at the VA, the fourth one is the top of the Highland Towers, I believe, and there are a couple at the University Stadium and a couple more at the University. The site plan that we submitted — you are all familiar with the fence and the way it runs there behind our building now. We purchased the facility next door to us. We are going to move everything down into that back open lot that's down there behind the engineering company now and fence it up, scoot it back and landscape it on all four sides. We have worked with the City on the landscaping plan and some of the things they want to see there to meet the ordinances. We are working on the drainage — we are going to fix that up, close it up, put it in pipe and get rid of it. A copy of the warranty deed. This is a close-up of the location. We would set our sheds back down further into the tree line and plant some more trees and shrubs and all kinds of stuff there. This is the area of land use. We are in C-2, a commercial thoroughfare is where we are located. There is a 100 foot radius of the tower, so if for some reason, it did happen to fall over, which they are engineered not to do, there won't be anything there left to hit. It does not touch or intrude on any residences. Signage. These are some of the opportunities for other cellular companies. Right now we doing Cingular Wireless, but there are several other carriers in this market. Our goal is to get them all on our tower, so we try to build them in a place that everyone needs them, not just where we can build them. This looks like a good location. This outlines that we will take down the two towers, removing the chain link fence and so on with that. We will only be protruding above the existing trees twenty to thirty feet. There is no Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 54 Clark: lighting. The A/Cs will be commercial A/Cs, no loud noises or smells. This is part of the coverage map. Red is better: red, pink, yellow, green. This map was furnished by Cingular Wireless and this is what it would be when we get it in there. It will still fill up the sides of Mount Sequoyah, through that Basin, start into the Wilson Park area, and help out in the hilltop on North Street. That's just in the coverage area. A lot of the other issues that we have talked about before are capacity issues. If you look around Fayetteville, and this will please you guys, we've got about all the hilltop sites we need. They're there. We've come before you several times now. We are always asking for the low land. That's because that's where we need it. What happens is that this tower, built several years ago, with any wireless companies came as true cellular. The technology has improved and has gotten better. The population of Fayetteville has exploded, we'd all agree. And it is also the population of cell phones of among the people of Fayetteville has grown. It takes the site that used to be on top of the VA Water Tower and Mount Sequoyah and Highland Terrace, you would have X number of phones calls and you would never exceed X. But now in the last five years, we have doubled the number of cell phones in Fayetteville so it's X plus 500 at any given time. So then you get all circuits are busy. I'm sure everybody who has a cell phone that has ever tried to make a cell call during the football game, even if you aren't at the football game, gets all circuits busy. There is not enough capacity to accommodate all the calls. I hate to interrupt this fascinating presentation, but I would really like to focus on what the views of the towers themselves are and not go through the packet one page at a time. I'm most interested in what the visual representations of the cell towers are. And to let the neighbors know what they literally would be looking at. Ostner: Are the other Commissioners in agreement — Yes. Reynolds: This is a typical monopole type of structure, that is NOT what we are going to do. What we are going to do is on the other side, except short and small. More compact than even that. You won't see this. That's part of the conditions. We have one at Zion and 265 that we built that was recently approved. I'm showing the difference between the painted and unpainted. The tower that we are proposing will be painted in this scheme, with the green transitioning to the blue. Ostner: But it will have the T on it like the others. Reynolds: It will have a small T on it. Here's what we are looking for. These are photo simulations we did that are required by the City for this. This is standing next to IGA on College Street. You see the little cross — that's what the tower will look like from that location. This is not a large tower Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 55 and it is only this wide at the top. This is from the opposite direction, standing behind Curry's next to University Auto. This is what it will look like coming from the other direction.. The structure right here seen above the tower is a crane that we rented for the day. We raised the ball up to 100 feet and hang it over to where we need to be, the exact location of the tower. That's how these site lines are represented. The scale is forced. Myres: Can I ask you what the structure immediately to the left of that is? Reynolds: That is a small antenna that is stuck up here on the side of University Auto. It is 15 feet from the photograph point. The tall one that looks like it is a mirror to the other one is actually is right in the foreground—kind of a forced perspective. If you look here, you can see the existing tower that I have marked and if you look in the center, there is another small tower. It's kind of fuzzy in this picture. Those will be the towers that will be removed. Here it is from the little motel right across the street from us on College. This is in their parking lot. This is what it would look like from that direction. Twin Arch Motel. You can see the existing tower is located in the tree line. This is it from right in front of your house, ma'am. That is how tall would be in actuality. That is the view you would see through a tree — it is behind the trees. This is the 100 foot line at College and North St., the top of the old WRMC lot. It is there, but you can't really see it, it is a distance away. This is it from the top of Washington School coming on Maple St. — on the corner. Here it is from Mount Sequoyah. You would be looking down on it into the City, if you could see it at all. This is some structural information. Ostner: 1 think that is plenty. Allen: I'd like to first broach the tree idea that we have discussed one other time. We also talked about a clock and other objects. I wanted the neighbors to hear about that. Reynolds: On several other occasions we have talked about camouflaging as a tree and things like that. Technically, would this work as a tree? Yes. This would work as a tree. We would rather not build it that way; the reason is, it would be the tallest 100 foot tree in the neighborhood; it will triple the cost. We have to do something to get our line of sight back. We can build within administrative review on top of what we have to eighty feet and that will get our line of sight back. But, to do what we want to do and use this and the revenue it generates as a cell tower, to pay for these improvements and pay for itself, to add another $120,000 on top of the project, which would more that double the cost of the project, it never pays back as an economic model. I'm not saying we wouldn't do it, but if we did it, but as the applicant, we would ask for a taller tree!! If you look around Fayetteville and the ones we have built, I'll be the first to admit I Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 56 Allen: poopooed the transitional paint scheme, but it works. I would have done anything to keep those poles gray. The transitional paint seems to work. You can look at the one on 265 and Zion. The commissioners have seen it and it works. Just for your information and for the public, tomorrow morning the last tower that we have talked about at Deane Solomon Rd. - we will be standing it up, if any of you are interested. And it will also be the same transitional paint scheme. The flag pole with the antennas that we want for our personal use and for monitoring, some of those are 18-20 long, some VHF and low band antennas that will go lower on the tower. They won't work. The tree situation, we could make that work. The questions about alternative sites. When NIMBY comes up, I think that this is a slightly different situation because if we are going to have historical areas in our City, they are all of our back yards. I feel like this impacts the entire community, because this is something that we are focusing on and are talking about in our Downtown Master Plan and areas that we have in our City that are appealing. I wondered if you could discuss alternative sites. Reynolds: Alternative sites for this tower? We have looked around. Of course we own the land, so we wouldn't have to buy another piece of land on College, since we have already bought one. As far as the RF coverage - wise, it could move 500 feet, a quarter mile maybe and not be affected. If we move it that small of a distance, in any direction, it still is in the back yard. We are willing to put it in our back yard and take down some of the mess that is there and fix it. If we move it somewhere else, that doesn't help Smith 2 -Way's problem with the line of sight issue. There would be no secondary benefits for the City or for us. Allen: I don't know if the other commissioners would consider it appropriate, to open it up again to neighbors. I'd like a little bit clearer feeling as to why they, if the area is to be cleared and landscaped and fenced, why that additional footage is that large of a concern. Ostner: Let's go ahead. I'm going to put stipulations. We are not going to repeat the same issues, we are not going to repeat the same comments. If you have something new to say, we would be glad to hear it. Allen: The question was for that much additional footage to be added, considering that they are going to clear up the area, and landscape and fence, why would that particular amount be objectionable. S. Lunsford: I guess there are three things here: 1) cleaning up the mess that is there; I don't think that should be tied to adding a ten -story antenna in our back year. I think a good neighbor would clean that up anyway. I don't think the cleanup is necessary to get the tower; 2) the additional twenty feet Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 57 looking at the extreme distance that those photographs were taken, and I can promise you that at 1,500 — 2,000 feet away from an object that this thick at the top, it is going to disappear in this image. Did we see anything ten feet, twenty feet away, next to the tower? No, we didn't. All those images were from a great distance, so the closest we got was 250 feet, and at street level, and not at the second story level which many of these houses have, and 3) I keep hearing that it is only twenty more feet. If you look at these towers that are existing now, yes there is a twenty foot piece of antenna on top of a 65 foot tower, so it's a little bit misleading to say that they are only adding twenty feet — they are almost doubling the height. I think all you have to think of is ten stories Think of what ten stories looks like twenty feet away. That is the scale we are talking about. Ostner: The overall maximum height will be a 100 feet, which is 18 feet taller than what is there now. It is not doubling. S. Lunsford: What I'm saying is that composition of what is there now — the last twenty feet of that 80 feet is this big around, not this big around. So it's a structural difference — it is a visual difference. I know it is easy to look at those photographs and say that this doesn't look bad, but you are thousands of feet away from it. Ostner: Do other commissioners feel we should have more public comment. Myres: Maybe people who haven't spoken before? Hunnicutt: One of the differences is the towers now are below tree level, so even in winter with the leaves off, there are concealed somewhat. Now they are going above the tree level. So anywhere on Washington Street you are going to see this thing sticking up. On his tapes, I was concerned about the service area he is talking about. It's just from Mount Sequoyah to Wilson Park. That's not a whole big area to disrupt the Historic District to service that one little area. He said revenue -wise, it wasn't worth it for revenues. Revenue is their bottom line, they don't care how they impact the District. Ostner: That is sufficient; we are going to go ahead and close the public comment section for good and we are going to discuss it among ourselves. Myres: Can I ask for a point of clarification? Probably from the applicant. Back in the beginning of your presentation, that the primary service that you provide to the City, the State, the Highway Patrol, for signal bridging. Reynolds: We monitor and maintain and administer all the communications for the State, City, and local County fire departments. We use that in the repair of Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 58 Myres: their systems, so that we can stay at our location and monitor the signals at those locations. So the primary purpose of improving the service at this location is to make it possible for the police and the fire and the highway patrol to communicate with each other in a way that allows for consistent quality of transmission? Reynolds: I don't want to say that. It is a little bit overstated. What is used for in those systems, they operate independently of ours. What we use it for is if they call and something breaks, we have people on staff right there with all the equipment to monitor and diagnose that. So we tune into their frequency with those antennas and see what is wrong. Myres: So it is a repair service. Reynolds: It is a repair service at that point. That's how it helps to maintain those systems, but it is not an "integral" part of their system. I don't want to mislead you on that. But it is very, very important to us. And it is important to them when it breaks. Ostner: I have a question for Staff. There is building permit, a red sign up, just north of here on College that used to be some sort of entertainment venue. How tall is that building going to be? Do you know off chance? Pate: It is at least two stories and I'm not sure if they are going to increase the height of that structure at all. They are retaining the two stories there. Ostner: I was just recalling at the agenda session we were talking about building height and the new County Courthouse has a sort of hiding story that is hard to see. I know our ordinance requests them to look into other locations. I was just thinking outside the box. Graves: I might have a little more heartburn about this if there weren't already two towers there. I understand Staff's recommendation for that reason. If we were bringing a tower to the Historic District for the first time and there wasn't already a tower there, I probably would not support that or it would have to be a lot different set of circumstances and conditions than what we see here. There are already two towers there. I haven't see the two towers, but it sounds like they aren't very visually appealing towers and maybe a larger around tower is at least a part of them than what this monopole being proposed would be. So from the standpoint of the visual aspect of it, it sounds like discounting how high we might vote to let them go, whether we go 100 feet or something different than that, just looking at the tower itself and the paint scheme or what we decide would potentially be less impactful on the Historic District than what is there Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 59 now. Also, looking what is in the public interest, even if it is only a five minute breakdown in emergency services, this tower would help bridge or repair, that is more important in the big scheme of things than intrusion visually into the Historic District. I think that most people would agree with that. Also, it is in the public interest. This is not just a cell tower, it is the public interest to try to modernize equipment and to make sure our communications facilities in the City are in good repair and highest quality that we can have. And the co -location of not just more that one cell phone company but also these other services that this tower can provide, is also an important aspect on this one single tower. There is not church sitting on this piece of property and obviously anybody would prefer not to go out and buy another piece of property just to try to cover the area that is involved and whether it is small or large, it is subjective. If there is poor cell phone coverage for some or all customers, and poor coverage for other purposes, it affects the people in that hole and it may be a pretty important to them, even if it isn't important to anyone else. So from that standpoint, I think it is clearly in the public interest to have some type of improvement to what's there now, if they are having to do all kinds of crazy bouncing of signals to try to get things to work properly. Looking at the height and what it ought to look like, I think that is the bigger issue and bigger debate. To me it's not whether it ought to be there, I would prefer to see them tear down the old towers and put in the newer high quality, high tech, slim model of a tower. This tower that they are proposing at 100 feet is 18 feet higher than the height that extended by the taller of the two towers. I would be open to something less than that. Can I understand from previous submissions by this applicant that in order to co -locate two or three companies on there, there has to be enough height to give space to the different cell phone companies on that tower? So I understand that it can't be a great deal less than 100 feet, but 90 or 95 feet may be better than 100 feet to these neighbors. It might be something that you could do what you needed to do and get your sight line back and still have room to cash flow things and pay for it, than 100 feet. Then we are only talking about 8 feet higher than what is there or 20-30 feet higher if you don't count the antenna. I would probably be more interested in seeing something along the lines of 90-95 feet and would throw that out to the other commissioners to see what they think about that. The other thing is that we have never really explored what the cost would be making it look like a tree or is that is something the other commissioners are interested in. We talked about it at one time about six months ago on one of the proposals (Zion Road) and in that case, the tree line was only 30-40 feet so it was going to look ludicrous to have 100 foot clock, flag pole or tree out there. It wasn't going to fit in or match — it was going to look crazy. Here it sounds like the tree line is quite a bit higher and making it a tree might be something that works a little bit better here because it is not as out of place. I would throw out those two things — maybe something less that 100 feet and still allows the applicant to do what they need to do Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 60 and possibly discussing a different design, although the paint has worked pretty well. I think anyone that has seen that, it does blend in pretty well. But on the issue of whether this ought to be there and whether the conditional use ought to be there, it is already there in one form and I would support allowing them to tear down these two towers and put in another tower. Trumbo: A couple of questions for the applicant. Will there be a light on top of this tower? Reynolds: No lights, no wires, no sounds. One of the towers that exists there, the taller one, is a guyed tower now. It would be a smaller version of the Zion tower. Trumbo: When I see these on the agenda, it is probably the worst thing to have to deal with up here, because nobody wants them, but we all need them. No one wants them in their back yard. I certainly understand the neighbors' concerns and feel for them. When we did the Zion pole, I had reservations about it and especially about the paint. But after it went up and taking a look at it, it worked. It is a tower, but it doesn't draw your eye, in my opinion. Some of the photos I saw, especially I believe in front of Ms. Hunnicutt's house had trees in front of it, so it looks like most of the pole would be blocked. I don't think it would be offensive as the neighbors believe it would be at this time. I would probably in favor of allowing the tower in the conditional use. What's there is a mess and needs to be cleaned up and I agree that a good neighbor needed to do that a while ago. I want to hear from other commissioners. But I don't have as much angst about it as I used to. Ostner: If I could ask our City Attorney to give any comments about our stipulations. How far can we go. We have been advised in the past that these conditional uses are little bit different because there is a Federal body that is asking cities to provide infrastructure. Whitaker: Exactly, there are actually quite extensive sections of the Telecommun- ications Reform Act of 1996 that deal with local regulation cell towers. Now, our ordinance which is section 163.14 in which all your decisions are based on and the criteria that the Staff sets forth in their report, was composed with the provisions of the 1996 Act in mind. So what is in there, if you comply with the ordinance, you are complying with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Written in here are things that you would not consider in another conditional use. Ostner: Thank you. That helps. I have a question for Staff. On page 13 of 22 of our packet, the section 163.14 B2, it says towers or alternative tower Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 61 structures are permitted to a maximum of 150 feet. Am I understanding that if the applicant wished, he could simply, he could be proposing a 150 foot tower tonight? Pate: Yes, he could propose that. It would not have to be approved. Ostner: On page 6 of 22, our conditional use guidelines basically require us to scrutinize the general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Staff has answered that well, but it is a judgment call. I am agreeing with Mr. Graves and Mr. Trumbo, that this does not present a huge threat, but I am still not in favor of it in this location. I don't think it is compatible. I think there is another place nearby that this cell service could be found. I think the impact is too much here. I understand that there is another tower here and there is only a net gain of 18 feet. As with our Downtown Master Plan discussions, sometimes you make rules or you could make rules to phase out the old, and not simply allow it to continue. I think the fact that it already exists there doesn't necessarily mean that we need to allow it to continue if an improvement or an increase in height or conditional use request is passed to us. I'm separating those two things in my mind, and just looking at it as a conditional use. I'm not sure I can see it. Graves: I have a question for Staff. There has been an allusion made a couple of times that some administrative process that they could have gone through and still increased the height of this tower, that they could have torn down these two existing towers and put up a new tower without even coming before us. I was curious what that is all about. Pate: That is an alternative in the ordinance and it has already been submitted to the Office as sort of a back up in case this doesn't go forward. The applicant always has a right to increase the height of a tower by a maximum of twenty feet from the original tower structure, but a determination would be made on the original tower structure and administratively the height of that tower could be extended by no more than twenty feet with an additional antenna. It would not allow for a replacement or a new tower, or even a monopole tower that would comply with City ordinances at the same height but only twenty feet taller. It specifically references the same tower, it even speaks about the width, if it is a guyed tower, you can't go more than 36" more that what it was, so there are allowances written into our code that do allow for the existence of existing towers that are nonconforming and expansion of those administratively without a conditional use process. Graves: So they could have the old wide, less attractive version of the tower and add to it so it is an 85 foot tower with an antenna on that. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 62 Pate: Twenty feet taller than the existing tower structure, whatever that may be. Ostner: It is 82 feet right now on page 6 of 22. So that would be 102 feet that he could do without conditional use. Graves: I think the 82 included the antenna. I think if was 65 feet, but whatever it is, they could add twenty feet to that and then have an antenna on top of that, so it would get to about 100 feet tall. Trumbo: To your point that it could be relocated, you are right, but we'd be having the same discussion as soon as they picked out another place along 71 or wherever. Those neighbors are going to be in here as well. Their back yard. Ostner: I'm still not so certain that there aren't serious camouflaging opportunities — on top of a building that is so wide that you can not simply see until you go to another town and look down. I'm just not sold that this monopole in this location is the only way for them to go. Graves: I have one follow up question that you made me think of. Would they be required to put any type of camouflage on it if they went through this administrative process? Pate: I don't believe so. I think it states that you just have to..."the addition or modification to the extent possible should be designed to minimize visibility." It does not fall under the section of specifically being required to camouflage or utilize monopole technology. Graves: To me this is back to the Commission, we are confronted with a choice where we can tum down this application and they simply go through the administrative process and have an 85 foot tower that is not camouflaged at all and that is built in the old manner and then with an antenna extending about 100 feet, or we can try to work with this application in such a way that we get something that everyone is as comfortable as possible through this process. Allen: Back to the "not in my back yard argument" as I stated previously, I think there are some places in Fayetteville that we have deemed unique and special, places like the Square, Old Main, the Washington Willow Neighborhood, Mt. Nord, the Post Office, all over town. And those are all in our back yards, not just these particular people. I think that does make a difference. It concerns me that there be that kind of an eye sore in an area that we as a City either through time or choice have created something that we consider to be unique. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 63 Lack: Question for the applicant for clarification. I had understood from your presentation that the services with regard to maintenance for the police, dispatching that you supply, that these would have to be at your location and would not be as flexible as the cell tower. Reynolds: No, we can't move or relocate any of that for any reason. Lack: So with that understanding, my understanding is that we are going to look at an upgrade of this tower one way or another and then if we looked at a different location, we would looking for a location for your cell tower in a remote or otherwise chose location and the upgrade and extension of the radio signal towers. Reynolds: Yes, our location for our purposes, we have to upgrade that tower. That's basically the inquiries into the administrative review process, Plan B if you will. As far as the other part, if it is not approved there, I'm sure it will be back at some other time somewhere else. Lack: With that, I see this as an opportunity to co -locate those functions, clean up and make better a condition that exists now and bring about a more attractive tower than what is there currently, in agreement with Staff's findings. I would support that. Clark: Exactly how much taller than the existing structure are we talking about? Pate: The application states that it is a 65 foot guyed tower with a 20 foot antenna, extending above that tower to 82 feet. (that would be an 18 foot extension) taller than what is existing. Then there is an existing wooden utility type monopole (page 19.) Clark: I'm struggling with the difference that 18 feet makes. I drove by the facility today and it is one of my favorite alleys that is left in Fayetteville and it is ugly. The whole facility around those towers is terrible, especially as it reflects on what I consider to be a beautiful and unique neighborhood. So I am truly torn over taking that eyesore out of the picture for a better, safer facility, a better looking facility. And shame of you for not cleaning it up on your own any way. I'm assuming that you can't see the tower now because I've lived here my whole life and I didn't notice the darn thing until I was looking for it. If the trees continue to grow, if the Neighborhood Association continues to fight those tree pruning measures and they stay healthy, eventually they will grow to camouflage this 18 feet as well. So I'm struggling between the difference: tearing existing structures that have been there forever and a day, landowners right by use. This is their property. And going back with 18 more feet. Right now I am at the point of cleaning up the mess and making it a better and more functional space. They have to improve it Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 64 Allen: anyway. And do they go up, do they do an administrative tactic that doesn't require some of this stuff? That is entirely possible if this does not pass tonight. I am inclined to support this conditional use simply to clean it up and make utilitarian use of the property. I do think a neighborhood might be more supportive of what you are doing if the place had been cleaned up to begin with. It might make them look more favorably upon your proposal. Shame on you again. Graves: I am going to move for approval of conditional use CUP 06-1875 with stated conditions of approval but amending condition four to 90 feet. Trumbo: Question for the applicant. If we amend this to 90 feet, is it going to accomplish what we need to accomplish here for you all? Reynolds: At 90 feet, that would technically work for us for the Smith 2 -Way portion of it. It would limit or decrease the ability to co -locate cellular on that tower. At 100 feet, we might be able to fit two on there. At 90 feet, it would be one, at best, ever. Clark: Second. Ostner: So we have a motion for approval changing condition number four to read the tower shall be no taller than 90 feet including all antennas, arrays, or other appurtenances. A second from Commissioner Clark. Is there any further discussion. Allen: So now to the math. Graves: It would be a 25 taller tower but 8 feet taller if you count the antenna. Allen: So this would clean up the area and would add 8 feet of tower. Graves: It would add 25 feet of tower, but only 8 feet gross height. Trumbo: I would be in favor of the 100 foot tower based on the needs of the applicant, however, with the 90 foot alternative, if that's the best we can get, I will go ahead support that. But I would also support the 100 foot tower. Reynolds: We can build this to 90 feet. What we would like to do then or offer a compromise if we can, in that we can build the tower now at 90 feet and if the need arises later, that we could put a flange plate on the top of the tower and extend it at a later time, and extend it another 20 feet if we had to. Right now we have one carrier that wants to go on. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 65 Graves: Would this expandable joint add any height to the tower. Reynolds: One inch. Ostner: You would still have to come back here. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, CUP 06-1875 carries by a vote of 5- 2-0 (Allen and Ostner voting no) Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 66 CUP 06-1861: Conditional Use Permit (HENRY JORDAN, 366 Submitted by WILLY BERCHTOLD for property located at 2150 N. LEVERETT AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 7.67 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. LSP 05-1777: Lot Split (JORDAN RENTALS, 366): Submitted by BRIAN SCOTT GEOMATIC CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 2100 LEVERETT AVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 7.67 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 2 tracts of 0.93 and 6.74 acres. CUP 06-1860: Conditional Use Permit (HENRY JORDAN, 366 Submitted by WILLY BERCHTOLD for property located at 2150 N. LEVERETT AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.93 ACRES. The request is for a detached dwelling (existing) on the subject property. Morgan: This property is located east of Leverett Avenue and extends north to the terminus of the adjacent street. To the west of this property is Leverett which is a collector street and to the north is a planned collector street on the Master Street Plan. There is an easement for access to the north of this property. It is currently developed for Multi Family Use. There are apartment buildings on this property at this time. This applicant has three requests submitted before you, the first if the conditional use; there is a lot split request to create a 0.93 acre tract which will not have frontage on a public right-of-way and therefore is a tandem lot; and there is a conditional use request to erect a detached dwelling unit on this property. These three items are being treated separately with separate recommendations; however, they do tie in together in concept. Staff recommends approval of the lot split with the approval of condition requiring a conditional use to approve the tandem lot. This property will contain a single family dwelling only. There are currently two structures on the property — one of which will be utilized for the single family dwelling; the second is currently a storage area. It used to be a laundry facility for the apartment complex. With regard to the conditional use request for the tandem lot, which is item 18 on your agenda, Staff finds that a tandem lot in this area is not an inappropriate use of the property, and recommends approval of this conditional use with all conditions of approval listed in the staff report. This action does create a non- conforming structure; however, the building setbacks for a tandem are twenty feet on each side, where not adjacent to a right-of-way. The existing structures on this property are the existing single family dwelling unit which is closer than twenty feet to that side setback. Any redevelopment or reconstruction of that structure would have to comply with that non -conforming requirements of non -conforming structures or they would need to see the Board of Adjustment for a variance of that setback. The second conditional use request is to erect a second dwelling unit on the property, not necessarily erect that second dwelling unit, but do modify the existing storage unit to a second dwelling unit. While a second Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 67 Ostner: Berchtold: Ostner: Pate: dwelling unit or even multiple dwelling units on this property are compatible with the surrounding developments which are multi family in nature, Staff finds that this request does not meet the criteria established in the Unified Development Code. With specific reference to the use of a tandem lot for anything other than a single family dwelling unit. Based on this criteria and the interpretation of the tandem lot development, Chapter 163.13, Staff finds that the proposal is not in compliance with Unified Development Code and therefore recommends denial of this request. Given the circumstances, the applicant has suggested in the submittal letter and Staff has discussed with the applicant that should this proposed tandem lot ever become conforming, should the collector street to the north ever be constructed, they would become eligible to further develop this property, as it would become a conforming multi family lot. Is the applicant present? I am Willy Berchtold. I represent the owner of the property and will be the future owner of the single family part of this lot split, if it passes here tonight. All we'd like to achieve is this lot split to separate the single family home from the apartment complex. The access will be through an easement on the existing paved private drive. There are no changes planned on the buildings, outside, besides the small remodeling of the smaller building. We also will construct a City water line along the east side of Tract B, and have direct water access to Tract A, also requested by the City. The owner agreed to dedicate additional five feet of right-of- way on the west side of Tract B for Leverett Ave. also requested by the City. The second building conditional use permit, it will be for the existing smaller building. There will be no building on the outside of any kind. All the requirements for this second building unit are met, setback, size, look, access, parking spaces and lot coverage. I will read under Chapter 163.13 for the tandem lot. It says the tandem lot development shall be permitted for single family dwellings only; it doesn't specially say just for one single family home, just single family dwellings. Basically, we don't change to normal usage of this lot like it would be in a single residential area. It is a RMF -24 property with almost an acre of land so we would basically scale it down from 24 units to two units. It is surrounded by more than 200 apartments. I will call for public comment . I believe we are going to talk about several of them at once. CUP 06-1861, LSP 05-177 and CUP 06-1860. We will vote independently but we are talking about them all together. There is no public comment, so I will bring it back to the Commission. This is a lot split and a tandem lot request - Staff supported both of those requests; however, it has long standing been our interpretation in the Unified Development Code that a tandem lot is for a single family Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 68 dwelling unit. The application that was tabled tonight allowed a RSF-8 zoning district to have a second family dwelling family unit on the property, a granny unit. It is our interpretation that with a tandem lot that is not an application that an applicant could process as a conditional use to the Planning Commission. It probably shouldn't even be before you. In my opinion, it would be unlawful for the Planning Commission to approve said conditional use unless there is an interpretation overruled by the Board of Adjustment. That is the only Board that can overrule a zoning development administrator interpretation of specific components of the Unified Development Code. Again, I don't think that it is a compatibility issue; obviously there are multi family dwelling units in the vicinity. If this had appropriate frontage, this would not be an issue whatsoever. But because it just has a right-of-way to the north or an access easement, and not an actual street, Staff finds that the interpretation should hold as per years of interpretation. I have been in consultation with Tim Conklin who used to have this position before me and that is how it was interpreted then as well. It has not been challenged by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant does reserve the right to do that; however, I feel that it would be a bad precedent to allow second dwelling units in tandem lots, specifically when we feel that it was the intent of the tandem lot development which again, tandem lot is a lot that is behind another that does not have adequate frontage. If it has zero frontage onto a street, one driveway accessing that lot is the only access point for that structure. I don't think it is a compatibility issue at all. If this were frontage we would be supportive of that, but as far as that conditional use request is concerned, we are recommending denial or the applicant could request it to be tabled. Ostner: To be clear, you are recommending denial on #20, the second conditional use 1860. So Staff is recommending yes to the first two and no to the third one. Graves: I have a question for the City Attorney. If there is an item that's on our agenda, that the zoning administrator has interpreted and it is only appropriate for the Board of Adjustment to overrule him, should be even take a vote on it even if it is a vote to deny it? Whitaker: I think you have hit the nail on the head. Since any ability to move forward on item #20 would be contingent on the Board of Adjustments overruling the zoning and development administrator's current interpretation of that section, any action you made would be inconsequential until it happened any way. My recommendation would be to table item #20 and advising the applicant to challenge the interpretation before the Board of Adjustment. Not only is that the proper procedure under our development ordinance, but by State law, it is the second lesser duty of the Board of Adjustment to hear appeals on the interpretation of zoning administrator. And this is clearly what this is. The applicant's Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 69 Clark: reading it one way and saying he believes that the administrator is wrong. It is appropriate to go to the Board of Adjustment first on that item. Having heard that explanation, agreeing 100 percent, I make the motion to table CUP 06-1860 until which time the applicant goes to the Board of Adjustment and gets a rule. Ostner: I'm not going to accept motions on 20 when we are on 18. Graves: Well, I asked the question because I'm not sure it should be on our agenda to table. My purpose to see if Staff wants to remove it from the agenda completely. Pate: I think it could be tabled, because if the interpretation is overruled, then it would come before you to make sure it is compatible and meet all the other ordinance criteria. I think it is a good idea to table that and see if the applicant wants to appeal it. Then it would come back to you as old business. Myres: I would like to make a motion on CUP 06-1861 to approve that application subject to the five conditions of approval that I assume that the Petitioner has already agreed to. Graves: Second. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, CUP 06-1861 carries by a vote of 7- 0-0. Berchtold: I have a question, if I would decide to go to the Board of Adjustments and they would approve it, I would have to come back to the Commission? Ostner: Yes, because that specific item is not going to be heard tonight. Berchtold: The BOA would make the rule, the regulation on what it is? Ostner: They would clear the way that we could hear it and overrule his interpretation. On LSP 05-1777 - We have heard the Staff report. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, I will close that section and bring it back to the commission. It is splitting the property we just allowed a Conditional Use tandem lot for. Graves: I will move for approval of LSP 05-1777 for reasons stated by Staff in their report and stated conditions of approval Trumbo: Second. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 70 Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, LSP 05-1777 carries by a vote of 7-0- 0. Osmer: The next item is CUP 06-1860. Graves: I have one more question for Staff: if the BOA upholds the zoning administrator, what happens on this item, since we have tabled it indefinitely, would it just disappear? Pate: It would just be on the table. Ostner: We have heard the Staff report. Is there any public comment? We have a motion to table CUP 06-1860. Graves: Second Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, CUP 06-1860 carries by a vote of 7- 0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 71 R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District (PADDOCK ROAD S/D, 526): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at SW CORNER PADDOCK LANE AND HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is for 58 dwelling lots of which 33 are detached and 25 are attached townhomes. Morgan: This property is located just west of Happy Hollow Road and south of Paddock Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and is undeveloped with the exception of one single family dwelling at the very northeast corner of the property. The applicant requests an approval for a residential planned zoning district. This is a detailed PZD. They have submitted drawings for a preliminary plat approval so with the approval of the PZD, and City Council approval of the PZD, the applicant can submit construction plans and begin construction of this subdivision. This subdivision includes 58 units, 58 Tots, 33 of which will have detached single family dwellings and 25 lots will be for attached townhomes. The density overall will be 5.91 units per acre. The existing density allows for four units per acre. Staff finds that the proposed density is appropriate. The property is near a collector street and just north of a principle arterial, Huntsville Road. It is adjacent to a park to the north, and an elementary school. There is a multi -family development just to the northeast of this property and to the east of the property is a development called Timber Trails which is currently under construction. It is a PZD which combines both single family detached and two family attached townhomes. We find that it does provide a good transition between these areas and would allow for density which can utilize the services located in that area. As for the bulk and area criteria, it is located both on the plat and in the booklet. It is different and unique compared to standard RSF-4 zoning districts, to allow for greater areas of true preservation and unique character in this area. As for water and sewer utilities, they will be extended to the property. Right- of-way, streets and traffic have been evaluated. This is near a collector and arterial. The applicant will be doing improvements on the adjacent collector street. No traffic study was requested for this development. It is just under six units per acre and Staff did not find that there was significant impact on this collector or the surrounding streets to necessitate a traffic study. Waivers have been requested for many of the street requirements. Those are listed in conditions of approval and can be found on 1 through 4. The applicant is developing this property on a slope and constructing several streets which the grades higher or greater in slope than required by ordinance. Staff has worked with the applicant considerably in regard to this and finds that these are necessary in order to reduce the amount of impact on these slopes. Street right-of-way and alleys will be utilized. Several of the homes and especially the attached townhomes will be utilizing access easements and alleyways. They will be accessing from the rear of these alleys. There are six lots in the northwest corner that will actually be accessing on an access easement, Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 72 which will have no frontage on a right-of-way. Homes on Happy Hollow will access from the interior street and will face Happy Hollow Road to give a street presence and that has been given as a condition of approval in your Staff report. With regard to condition #4, the applicant is proposing a main street within that subdivision that runs east -west, islands within street right-of-way and Staff had made a comment and condition of approval #4 that 20 feet of street width needed to be maintained on either side of those islands. Staff has discussed with the applicant and finds there should be at least one side of the street that needs to maintain that 20 feet. The applicant has stated that they will work with the Fire Department to maintain necessary access to the property. Condition #5 addresses determination of appropriate street alignment. Staff recommends that the stub -out to the west be realigned either to the north or south, such that is does not terminate adjacent to two properties owned by two separate land owners. This creates difficulty when one or the other of the property owners wishes to develop in order for them continue that street and they would negotiate with the adjacent property owner to get access and right-of-way from that property. The improvements that the applicant will be making are adjacent to Happy Hollow to match the improvements across the street at Timber Trails S/D to include 14 feet from center line, curb, gutter line and standard improvements and sidewalk. Something unique that this property owner will be doing is providing spaces for the parks property to the north. They will be providing 15 parking spaces with a landscape island to the north of that property. That will greatly improve the usability of the park property to the north. There is, however, a waiver that would need to be granted to allow that parking to be constructed in that manner. There is a requirement that no vehicles back out onto a public street, which they would have to do in this parking lot configuration. Therefore, there is a request for a waiver for that requirement in condition #6. As for tree preservation, the applicant is proposing to maintain a minimum of thirty percent tree canopy on the property. They will do so by dedication of specific lots or planning areas (planning area 8) as well as preserving easements by covenant to preserve canopy within the property. This can be found within the center of the property as well as on the southern and western property lines. Parks Review Board has reviewed this application and the applicant will be given money in lieu of dedication. They will also be constructing those 15 parking spaces. There are a total of 30 conditions of approval. I would like to mention that condition #22 addresses additional modifications to the booklet. There were several modifications/items that did not correspond between the site plan and the project booklet, that weren't sufficiently addressed between Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission and Staff with work with the applicant this week to make those necessary modifications for City Council. We are recommending approval. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 73 Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and make your presentation. Earnest: Hugh Earnest representing the developer. I want to commend the Staff for an excellent presentation. We spent an awful lot of time on working on this. It is no secret that this is a difficult site. Without the use of the PZD, and there was a conscious decision on our part, we would have been unable to develop the site to this level. We used as you may note, nine separate planning areas, to ensure an excellent housing mix, as Suzanne very carefully pointed out and very correctly pointed out. We are using different types of ingress and egress to minimize the pressure on the streets. We are the ones that suggested to the Parks staff that we would provide parking to service Mount Sequoyah Park. We will obviously work very carefully with the Park staff and someone here from the Planning Staff. We will work very carefully to ensure that we accommodate the existing kiosk that is in that corner. That's about all we have to say. Obviously we have no problems with any of the conditions and we will meet of all those as required. There needs to be some discussion obviously about the #5, the access on the west side of the property. Ostner: Public Comment; please step forward and give us your name Lawler: I'm Nan Lawler. I really hate this way of public comment because when you start discussing things, there have been many times when I have been sitting back there and dying because I couldn't answer your discussion because public comment period was over. I will try to foresee everything that might come up. Our property adjoins this property on the west, almost all of it is adjoining our property except for a small amount which adjoins some property owned by Dan Coody. We were not enthusiastic about it because think it is too dense, however, the one bright spot for us was that road being stubbed out on our property line. We now have no public access to our property. That was fine when we were in the middle of the woods, but development is closing in and thus far our neighbors have been wonderful. But it's not as quiet as it used to be and I figure that sooner or later, our living situation is not going to be as pleasant as we would like it to be. Without public road access we are very much limited as to what we can do with our property, and although we have never tried to sell it, we have never put it on the market, I have a hunch it would be harder to sell without public road access. So we saw that public road access as at least a bright spot in this development. And then we went to the Subdivision Committee meeting last week and low and behold, the public road access had been moved. And after all this talk about preservation of trees, it had been moved from the power line easement, where you would not have had to cut down any trees, all the way as far south as it could go (there is a ravine there) into a very heavily wooded Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 74 area and it got all but a couple of feet off of our property. And we couldn't help but feel that maybe there was some pressure put on somebody to move that road. Ostner: Ma'am, if you are dissatisfied with the layout, we can talk about that. We aren't going to have insinuations. That is a rule, not an accident, to straddle property lines and it is dead even — the street is stubbing out dead center to the property line. Half of it goes your way, half of it goes the property owner to the south. We do that all over town to be fair. We don't give stub outs to one property owner and the other gets turned down. So that's what is going on there. Lawler: Isn't this kind of an idiotic way of doing it though? It really doesn't make sense. At the meeting, it was not half and half. It was as far onto the Mayor's side of the property line as far as it can go without getting into the ravine. The reason given for this was the appearance of following the easement up and fear that people would start suggesting, why not just take this over the mountain, and we all know we don't want to open that can of worms. However, there are several arguments to that: one is that this has been suggested for at least twenty years that I know of, before there was any road there. People are suggesting following that electric easement over the mountain. If the first place, it doesn't go over the mountain, it goes a little bit west of our house and then goes south. In the second place, since it was first suggested, some twenty years ago, there have been not one, but two developments of big, expensive houses between that easement and any kind over the mountain. It wasn't feasible to begin with because of the terrain. It is even less feasible now so I don't think this is a legitimate reason not to put that road up that easement and stub it out right there. I would like to mention that the parking spaces for the Mt. Sequoyah Park are very nice, but you do realize that by any stretch of the imagination that they will be sufficient. We drove by the trailhead for East Mudd Trail last Saturday and I counted fourteen cars there. There is official parking for about eight or nine. There were up the road and into the adjoining property. The fifteen spaces are obviously not going to do it. Covey: My name is Richard Covey. I am part owner of that property on the west of the development. I would like to request that the property access be moved to the north so that we have complete access to the road going out, the stub out. Brown: I'm Steve Brown. I live out on Fifth Street. I know development is going to happen; it looks really nice on the preliminary plat, parking spaces are good for the Sequoyah Trail. My only concern is that they are going to do improvements on the one across the street behind the Cliffs, there are going to improve on this side of the road, but what about the part on the other side of Fifth Street, from Fifth Street up to where these are going to Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 75 start. It is really skinny, there are no sidewalks, there are kids walking back and forth to school, and they go about 45-50 MPH down through there now. I've complained, but it doesn't do any good to complain. I know that they say the traffic density is not going to be worse, but it is going to be a lot more with the other one and this one. Osmer: We are talking about Happy Hollow south of this development? Staff: Yes. Brown: That is my only concern. It is going to get really hairy. There is barely enough room for cars to pass on that street. You cannot walk down through there. It's nice to have trail over at the Cliffs, but you can't get from my street to the Cliffs safely. Osmer: It's perfectly appropriate for you to speak by the way. Is there any further public comment? I am going to close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Pate: I'd like to respond to a couple of the comments at least and to refer you to the page #20, the next to the last map that you have in your booklet. I think the applicant did a good job of showing the land use table and how the single family vs. multi family vs. dedicated park, tree preservation and green space area works. The land use table keynotes a total of 58 dwelling units, 67% single family and 21% multi -family, 10% dedicated park, tree preservation and green space that does not include a lot of the area that included within interior lots, that is green space which I believe is between 30-34%. Initially Staff had concerns with the development proposal and we have worked through a whole bunch of those over the past couple of months. Not necessarily density, it is around 6 units per acre, right next to a school, next to a collector and adjacent to a collector street which leads to a principal arterial, which will be improved in the very near future. That wasn't a concern as much as the topography on the site and how we could look at an atypical development with higher tree preservation standards and I think this has gone a long way to accomplish that. A lot of the concerns also with hillside developments are the streets that directly go up the hillsides. There have been several efforts including for instance, there is a large power line easement that goes into this property and that's their primary entrance. It's the second entrance down. It lines up with the Cliffside to the east. There is a large power line easement so they are utilizing that for some of their street section. You notice that they have discontinued that area and included a green space so it starts to break up the street. The same thing has happened on the street to the south. They have put in a community green space, tree preservation area, to actually screen the view of the street for the most part from Happy Hollow Road, so the street doesn't just become a straight stretch going directly up the Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 76 hillside. It is also curved. The first submittal was a very tight, rigid grid, and on this hillside, just did not work as well as it could have. In response to the stub out, Staff would gladly recommend, I don't think the applicant has a problem moving the stub out to the north. If you look on that same page, the topography is more conducive to a street connection if you move it further north. While it has been practice to try to straddle those lines, it can also be difficult when a property owner next door tries to develop because half the street is on one side and half is not, so you can't connect with that until some unknown time in the future. We had to address those issues with subdivisions in the very recent past. So in keeping with that flipping that lot and moving that street to the north would be appropriate with our revisions to City Council. Staff would not have a problem recommending that particular connection in response to concerns of the neighbors and how that street lays out with the topography. Ostner: When you say north do you mean basically shifting it 25 feet. — keeping it generally where it is but shifting a little bit. Pate: Either that or shilling up a whole lot depth. I think we could work that out between now and City Council as long as the determination is made by the Planning Commission. Clark: Jeremy, on that same page, to the north of this access we are talking about, are those single family lots? Pate: Those three lots; yes, I believe so. Clark: And where this stub out is now located on this map straddling the line, doesn't the tree density lessen as you go north? Pate: That area is pretty much covered. I'm not sure that it really drastically alters that situation. Ostner: If I could ask for a Subdivision report from the Committee members that were there? Lack: The main points of discussion were the access to the west and the medians in the power line easement and what those did both for and against proper street construction and visibility. The access point to the west was a suggestion of Subdivision Committee Commissioner Anthes who thought it might be an equitable solution in that both property owners would have access to their property without regard to future development. They would both have public street access to the edge of their property. With the medians, the former version that we saw had a much more severe curvature to the northern section of the road which engineering felt and the members of the Subdivision concurred seemed to be a less than desirable Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 77 condition. The medians do provide the service of breaking up the road and keeping down the visibility of the road that goes straight over the hill, that you see across town, where the road can jog, that does maintain some hiding for that. We were in favor of moving that access point and not continuing that directly up the side of the hill to the property line. The presentation at Subdivision Committee, the plan that we started with did have the access points slightly more to the south, fully on the property line of the southern most adjoining neighbor. The use units seemed appropriate. There was some concern with Section 4, the single family at the northwest corner. There was some discussion about those in that they are accessed by easement and those are individual structures which do not have direct street frontage. They front onto a park setting so you walk the sidewalk to the house along the park. The are accessed with an easement to the rear. Trumbo: Question for Staff. Currently where the stub out is to the west, you are saying, if we leave it like that straddling the two property lines, that neither property owner will be able to develop to that stub out without the approval of the other one? Pate: That is correct. It is much like the situation when you have a point of a cul de sac that touches a property, that is literally the only point that touches the property and that sliver is under control of two different property owners which becomes extremely problematic. Trumbo: And originally, if I understand Mr. Lack, originally we were further north with this stub out. Pate: Originally, yes, in one of the submittals. Lack: Pate: I had understood that an original presentation was that it was to the north and connected through at the power line easement. The plan that we started with at Subdivision Committee that we saw presented there had the access fully onto the land owner to the south. I might mention that it might be of benefit and again we could work out the details with the applicant, to slightly move that street to the north and not an entire lot width, just in an effort to allow for there to be a potential adjacency of right-of-way should the street continue further west at some point, there would be an adjacent right-of-way to which the property owner to the south could connect. That is another option as well. I think there are a number of alternatives here, the point being that the connection to the west is advisable and the Staff would recommend it. We would rather see it on one property or another. Osmer: How big is that right-of-way section, that stub out? It is fifty, sixty? Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 78 Pate: I believe it is smaller, maybe a thirty-two foot right-of-way with a twenty- four foot wide street. Ostner: If we move it sixteen feet to the north, it will be completely on this person's property. Does that sound amenable? McDonald: Mike McDonald of Hometown Development. If the developer is going to move the stub out to one side, we'd like to make sure we don't lose lot #19 — we'd like to continue to work with City Staff. Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: I don't know what we can do about this, it is a question for Staff. Happy Hollow accessing — the comments made by the young lady; how wide is Happy Hollow at it's most narrow and what recourse to we have? I don't think that the assumption that the last two RPZDs we approved in this area would give her a path. Happy Hollow is at the end of the road. Now more development is coming in and of course they have to make improvements around their immediate vicinity, but that certainly belies the entrance to these nice subdivision, but it does not help getting the kids to school, and having access and having parents fighting their way like salmon going up stream to get them there. What recourse, if any, do we have in terms of making improvements further off site. If the Planning Commission feels there is roughly proportional impact to that infrastructure based upon the 58 units proposed, we can look at the potential for, I couldn't say a substantial impact just because of the number of lots, the shape/width of this property is relatively square. The frontage is pretty long in width. That is what we look for, especially when looking at offsite improvements when you a property that doesn't have a lot of frontage. There is obviously more of an impact on the infrastructure than what that development has. Maybe just generating a discussion among the City Council members might be sufficient. It seems to that the developer services well to have an adequate access into something they are trying to make look as amenable and pretty as possible. A tandem benefit would be the patrons of that school and their families, because that is pretty dangerous. I have picked kids up from there before and it is narrow and there are no sidewalks in most places. Just so the Commission knows, there is a exit and entrance to the north, which is a ready access to Highway 265 through Happy Hollow and Cliffs Blvd. Additionally, the subdivision under the construction to the east, Cliffside, they are providing another street connection to the school, sidewalks close to that school, if not connecting. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 79 Clark: That's my point, all around in the new stuff is great, but that's a real slight to the existing stuff. I don't know that we have the power to do anything about it, but it seems that it is terrible inequitable. Maybe it is something the Council can talk about. Pate: We would be happy to at least evaluate it so the Council has more information if they wish to discuss that as well. Clark: I'm not suggesting that the developer improve everything, so please Mr. Earnest, don't flinch on me there. Lack: I would like to look at page 26 of 36 and say that I am elated that we are looking at a rezone that is within fire response times. It seems to be a rarity and it seems to be indicative of the more infill type of development that we are looking at here, which I appreciate. I would like to make a motion that we forward with an affirmative R-PZD 05-1735 with it's thirty conditions of approval with a consideration on #5, the alignment of streets, that the southern most border of the right-of-way be located at the adjoining property line, or with other modifications deemed necessary by Staff to make the proposal work. Myres: Second Clark: But you want it all on one property owner's area. Ostner: The southern line of the right-of-way and the southern edge of the property is to be contiguous. Lack: That is correct. Graves: A point of order for the motioner and seconder. There were determina- tions to be made on items #1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well that weren't addressed by the motion. I would invite the motioner to address those as well. Lack: Yes, I didn't want to read each one of them. Graves: If they are in line with Staff's recommendations. Lack: I do agree with Staff on findings and facts, specifically with items #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, which call for Planning Commission determination. Ostner: We have a motion to forward, changing the western stub out by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commission Myres. I have a little bit more problem with this. This is a welcome infill development. However, in my short tenure on some of the subcommittees going around, Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 80 land use on steep areas concerns me. I just think it is too dense for the site. The number one way to keep this kind of land in a state that makes people happy is less density. This is only 5.91 density units per acre overall, but I just can't see that. I think the development is going to be too intense. I would love to see a layout with a third less units. Bring it down to about three, three and a half, or four, I would love it. You have a great layout, I like the flow. There are great measures that you have taken with the curvature. I think it is too dense for the piece of property. Commissioner Allen is suggesting that I make that an amendment to lessen the density. I think that is pretty severe change. I think I would feel more secure not forwarding it, until there was a different density. But density is something that we all struggle with and talk about and it is a judgment call. This is a great place to develop, we need to develop here, it is infill, but just because it is infill, I don't think we need to sacrifice our other principles. I am leaning that way. Other principles being good civic design and responsibility towards the rest of the town that this impacts. I am not in favor of the density and I will probably vote against this. Clark: I have a question for Staff. The other RPZD across the street, what is its density? Pate: I think it is between 6-7 units per acre, if I remember correctly, Single family and two family. Clark: And what is the average slope on this piece of property. Pate: About 12%. Clark: Really? That's pretty steep. I know this to be a pretty wooded area, a pretty area and I had made some comments to myself when I looked at the waiver requests for the streets, a lot of waivers. And if the density could be diminished, reduced some, maybe not a full third, I would probably be more in favor of this. I am particularly concerned about the density to the north with the townhomes. So much multi family has me concerned as well. I'd like to hear comments from my fellow commissioners before I make my final decision. Moving the access to the west, I am absolutely in favor of if this passes, it has to go that way. Trumbo: I have a question for Staff. On the Hillside Task Force, we talk about clustered development and I haven't seen these on this site. Are we clustering with this project? Is it a smart layout with the land? Pate: Staff feels so. If you look at the drawings, you will see that a lot of the homes are planned to work their way up the hill, utilizing slope as opposed to a mass grade to create one level surface and large retaining walls. Of course any development on this property will require stem walls but the Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 81 plan and the drawings they presented indicated that they are ready and willing to work up the slope. The utilization of the multi family and more attached dwelling units primarily along the street to allow for interior tree preservation is something that I think is a good effort. Specifically the multi family is primarily utilized along Happy Hollow. On the collector street directly adjacent to a collector street, we often times discourage lots having direct access onto a collector street. They have provided another means of access, a rear street or alley system, which would allow for no curb cuts directly onto Happy Hollow which is another step in the right direction. Again, as you mentioned, it is zoned four units per acre. You could have four, this is 5.9, and so it is two units an acre more. I will reference the land use table there. Within each planning area, it shows how many lots and acreages located within that, so they have looked at specific areas on the property to establish — some are higher, some are lowered with very large setbacks in planning area nine, for instance. I believe they have clustered their units. Ostner: As I recall and I respect that Mr. Pate, but as I recall clustering on our task force, on hillsides, I recall other towns basically getting more dense in the easy areas and nothing in the difficult areas. This is being developed tip to stern; there is a pretty big PA8 community green space which is a ravine and a very pretty area. For hillside clustering, this doesn't really fall into the way I understand those clusters. Clark: Lack: And where this is going to be developed RSF-4, there will be only 39 units on this development, so I think the density — I am concerned about it. As you know I am definitely a proponent of larger lots on hillsides. That is one thing we should talk about more and more with the Hillside Ordinance when it goes into effect. The thing that I see about the density in this project that makes me comfortable with it is that we do have the clustering. We do have the higher density areas and we do have protected green space in protective areas, in site line protective areas and in drainage and engineering protective areas. That is the key to me to see the additional density in a good central location where I would hope to see density. We are even within at 12% less than hillside, less than what we regulated. But the common green spaces that are provided with the clustering, makes the density more palatable to me as opposed to the four units per acre that the developer could provide on this lot by right, that could be single family without the additional green space, with the wider streets, and everything that would go into the traditional single family four units per acre lots could destroy a lot more of this hillside than what the developer has provided with this proposed plan. That is to just give clarification on my feeling and as I am a strong proponent of larger lots on hillside, that is where I get more comfortable with this development. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 82 Ostner: I would like to politely disagree. I think the larger lots would be a perfect fit here and I think when the marketing strategy changed from this strategy to a single family large lot strategy, I think we would see another good design. I don't think with that marketing strategy they would hit the minimums. I think with that marketing strategy you would see more preservation than usual. You might not get any more than you have now, but I think it would be significant and look very different. But it would require a complete shift. They are marketing this right now but I'm talking about what you are referring to is a shift in their business plan. That is not for me to say. The way the land lies, I believe it would be more fair and proper to the City as a land use issue for this density to not be developed. On restating the obvious, the 5.91 density units they have proposed per acre, two thirds of that comes just about comes to four, which is what there is by right. By looking at it and throwing out a third, I think four units per acre would be better. We just can go ahead and vote. We have a motion to forward this with a positive. Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, R-PZD 05-1735 failed by a vote of 4-3-0. Pate: Whitaker: Pate: Ostner: Mr. Attorney: Would there need to be a motion to deny currently the motion to forward with recommendation for this particular project has failed. Is it still before the Planning Commission? The motion simply fails. I'm not certain what the question is? Is the project still before the Planning Commission? In my experience, no. Five are required to forward it and four were achieved, so the motion fails. The vote was 4-3 to forward. Whitaker: Forward with a recommendation to approve was the motion, right? That failed. You could certainly forward with a recommendation to deny, if someone wanted to make that motion. But as it stands now, it has simply failed. You couldn't get the five votes that your bylaws require and the law requires for zoning changes. Graves: Can we just move to forward it? Ostner: I think we just did and I think that is what failed. Graves: I think we forwarded it with a recommendation of approval and that is what failed. Can we forward it to the City Council with it in the record that we didn't recommend it? Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 83 Ostner: I believe the vote would be the same. It's almost automatic, their appeal to the City Council will keep them on the docket. Whitaker: It will go in a different fashion. Had it gone forward with the recommendation for approval vs. an appeal of your adverse decision. Ostner: So, that is that agenda item. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 84 ADM 06-1907: Administrative Item, (Walker Park Sign): Submitted by Parks Department staff requesting a variance of Chapter 166.18 Master Street Plan Setbacks in order to construct the Walker Park entry signage. Pate: This is a request submitted by the Parks Department Staff for a variance of Chapter 166.18 Master Street Plan Setbacks in order to construct Walker Park entry signage. The property is Walker Park, a public park located in the northwest corner of South College Avenue and 15th Street. The sign proposal is located at this corner, but it is within the Master Street right-of- way for 15th Street which is a principal arterial requiring a minimum of 55 feet from centerline right-of-way setbacks. As indicated by the Parks Department in an effort to create a landmark for South Fayetteville and Walker Park, Parks and Recreation has designed an entrance sign that anchors the edge of the park as well as to inform citizens and visitors of the recreational opportunities within. When completed, the entry feature will include a native stone wall with park signage and a planting area. It will spotlight a trailhead and will compliment the newly resurfaced tennis and basketball courts. [tape blank] The project was bid, resulting in Resolution 205-105 from the October 18, 2005 City Council. Construc- tion began in November to include a rock wall with raised lettering, landscaped berm and irrigation. In an effort to accommodate the wall and berm between the existing trail south of the basketball court and sidewalk along 15`h Street, the wall was planned outside of the existing right-of- way. However, the Master Street Plan dictates a 55 foot from centerline right-of-way in this location. Fifteenth Street is currently a four -lane street diminishing to two lanes from east of South College Avenue. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request finding the application proposal is not injurious or otherwise detrimental to the public or surround neighborhoods. It will be a capable and positive improvement to the area, identifying Walker Park area on 15th Street to citizens and visitors. With that Staff recommends this item be forward to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. Osmer: Is there any public comment? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Committee. Clark: It is a pretty sign. I recommend that we approve ADM 06-1907 to be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval Allen: Second. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, ADM 06-1907 carries by a vote of 7- 0-0. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 85 ADM 05-1839: Administrative Item (Amendment to Planning Commission By-laws, Article III) Submitted by Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, proposing an amendment to the time allowed for presentation of comment by the public. Pate: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, per your request at the December 12th Planning Commission meeting, I did take some time over vacation, to look online for several different Planning Commission jurisdictions to look at what type of time limits are held for planning commissions. In all honesty, they vary from none to Juneau, AK has a sixteen item explanation of what you do from signing in fifteen days prior with all your written comments, all you can do is read your written comments, etc. I've included those in your packet. I also was requested to investigate Fort Smith. Fort Smith does have a timeframe as well, I will pass this up to you. For your information, Fort Smith, AR item #5 asks: "Planning Commission will typically ask questions of those speaking. If several individuals express a desire to speak either for or against an issue, Chairman may request only those persons with new information to speak in order to avoid repeat and redundant statements in interest of time." There is also a very brief overview: Brunswick, MD discusses that presentation may be requested in writing 15 days in advance of the meeting; Douglas County, CO which I worked in, they have a three- minute time limit and you also have to sign up before the meeting to speak and line up when that item is called; Juneau, AL the chair may set a time limit for public testimony and once it is set shall be uniform for all speakers and strictly enforced; Escanaba, MI restricts the petitioner and aggrieved party as defined with those who can prove or justify that they are aggrieved by the action before them, potentially an adjacent property owner, to fifteen minutes unless amended by the Chairperson, and general public comment shall be restricted to two minutes; Mt. Holly, VT — no time limits; Fairfax County, VA — they actually begin a meeting and if you are not to the last item, whatever the item you are on at 10:00, you are done. The items go to the next meeting. A light on the podium will illuminate green at the beginning of each speaker's testimony and a buzzer will sound and the red light will indicate that your allotted time has expired. If you have more to say, your entire presentation will be entered as part of the public record. Three minutes, five minutes, ten minutes — there are a lot of different options. Since it is 10:30, if the Planning Commission wishes, we can take this up at the next agenda. It will be shorter. There are less items on the next two agendas. It is your call if you want to discuss this at this time. I provided you with the information for you to look over and discuss at will. Ostner: I will call for any public. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 86 Myres: Due the lateness of the hour, I would really appreciate doing this at the next available time. Ostner: Sounds like a motion to table. Myres: I would like to make a motion to table this until the next Planning Commission meeting. Ostner: I will second your motion to table. We could of course talk about it and be really mad at the person. Okay you can be mad at me. Fort Smith, AR is not a time limit. It is simply a parameter — these are good things to do if you come talk to them. And this is on their website and it goes into their packets that everyone gets when they walk in the door that night. Wouldn't that be nice. Because we don't really have parameters. We just say don't be mean. Clark: They just divide it up. Ostner: But this is all laid out a little more clearly. All those in favor of a motion to table, say "I". Opposed? — Allen opposed. Allen: I am just sick of it lingering. I didn't even get to say why. This is an issue that seems to be festering with people, and I just want to get it done. Trumbo: Have we moved on from this issue. Ostner: Yes. Trumbo: I am on the Sidewalk and Trails Committee. I have been on it for six or seven months. I would like to offer that seat, it requires a Planning Commissioner to attend the meetings, and I have been lax in my duty to do that due to circumstances beyond my control. I would like to offer that seat to anyone else who might have an interest in the Sidewalk and Trails Committee. They do great work. Allen: I was on it for four years before offering it up to you. I was going to lobby for it. Trumbo: They did request ask for Ms. Allen. Clark: If we had our system that we currently have, that we are using at Subdivision as a standing procedure, I would be more than inclined to want to get on other committees, because that has truly reduced our personal time. You don't have to dedicate six months to Subdivision. You do it just once every month and a half or so. So it we talk about making that as a permanent change, I'd be delighted to serve on any other Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 87 City committee, especially that committee because they do a lot of great stuff. If we go back to our Subdivision standard of you have it for six months, three commissioners are automatically going to say absolutely not, and rightfully so. Trumbo: Let's leave it out there. Ostner: Lets try to pick that up and the tandem item that she is proposing is a good idea. It seems to be a fair workload, because Subdivision is brutal lately. Pate: Two quick announcements. At the end of March, we have three positions coming up and if you have anyone who is interested in public service, volunteer public service in the Planning Commission, Subdivision Committee, maybe Sidewalk and Trails. Planning Commission applications are being taken now. Of course some of the Commissioners may choose to reapply as well. They are all technically open. Also, I did pass out a draft of changes for downtown zoning code that you should have. I hope that those have all the changes that the Planning Commission decided on at the last few meetings. If not, please redline them and let Leif or Tim or myself know and we will be happy to make those changes. That is also available also for those members of the public watching. We will have that at the Planning Division, if you'd like to pick that up. Allen: And thank you, Jeremy, for doing that so expeditiously. Ostner: Any more announcements. MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:27 P.M.