Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-11 MinutesPlanning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 11, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN RZN 02-5.00: Rezoning (Bayyari, pp 363) Page 3 Tabled LSP 02-6.00 Lot Split (Farrell, pp 283 & 322) Page 7 Approved CUP 02-4.00: Conditional Use (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) Page 14 Approved LSD 02-2.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) Page 24 Approved ADM 02-5.00: Administrative Item (Tanglebrair/Applebury) Page 33 Not recommended ADM 01-47.00: Administrative Item (Revision of General Plan 2020) Page 41 Approved ADM 02-3.00: Administrative Item (Liquor Store) Page 46 Forwarded ADM 02-6.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) Page 48 Approved ADM 02-4.00: Administrative Item (Rough Proportionality) Page 55 Forwarded ADM 01-36: Administrative Item (Fee in Lieu of Construction of Sidewalk) Page 61 Forwarded Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Alice Church Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover Don Marr Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Hugh Earnest Estes: Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening February 11, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business will be the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford absent. Commissioner Hoffman arrived at 5:33 p.m. Estes: A quorum being present, the next item of business will be approval of the minutes from the January 28, 2002 meeting. Are there any additions, changes, comments or addendums to the minutes of the January 28, 2002 meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 3 RZN 02-5.00: Rezoning (Bayyari, pp 363) was submitted by Shawki Al-Madoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Fadil Bayyari for property located west of I-540 and south of Point West Phase I and east of Pine Valley Phase I. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 14.84 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Estes: The first item of business is a rezoning request submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. for property located west of I-540 and south of Porter Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 14.84 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings that are included as a part of your packet. Is the applicant present? If so, would you come forward and make the presentation that you would like to make would you please provide us with the benefit of your presentation? Al-Madoun: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Shawki Al-Madoun, Northstar Engineering. I am here on behalf of Mr. Fadil Bayyari, who is also present. I came before you about a month and a half ago on the twelve and a half acres, the same property for a rezoning to R-1.5. In this request we are adding the 2.2 acres which is to the southwest corner adjoining the same property so we are rezoning the whole 14.4 acres to R-1.5. The property, as you said earlier, is currently zoned industrial. About 2.2 acres is zoned R-2, to the north of the property is zoned Industrial, to the west is R-2, to the east will be the I-540 and of course duplexes on the other side. I will be more than happy to answer any questions if you have any at this time. Public Comment: Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant's representative at this time? Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will bring it back... Yes Ma'am, would you please come forward? Please state your name and address and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Jenson: Certainly, my name is Sue Jenson. I live at 1980 Caton Drive which is in Pine Valley which is adjacent to the area that we are looking at. As we have a neighborhood association and we are asking you to delay the zoning change until we can meet with the developer. That meeting is set for Thursday evening and we would like to be able to go over things with the developer before the time that these things are changed over. We Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 4 would appreciate the cooperation. The Developer is willing to meet with us and we look forward to that but right now we would like it stopped until we can ascertain what is going to be happening. Thank you very much. Estes: Ms. Jenson, is there a reason that that meeting was not scheduled before this evening? Jenson: By the time that we found out about it and the developer called it was three days before the meeting. We have asked our alderman to be part of it and he was not able to do it until this coming Thursday. Estes: Thank you Ms. Jenson. Is there any other member of the public that would like to comment on this rezoning request? Yes Ma'am, please come forward, state your name, address, and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Herron: Renee Herron, 1855 Pine Valley and I just wanted to reiterate what Sue Jenson has said in that we would like to meet with the developer first before you consider rezoning. Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant. Is there any rebuttal, any discussions of the issues raised during the public comment session? Bayyari: I am the owner of the property and the developer, my name is Fadil Bayyari. I contacted Mrs. Jenson Thursday, I tried to contact her earlier, two months ago when the first zoning went through. I wasn't able to. I think that if there is anything that needs to be discussed, we need to discuss it now. Although, I agreed earlier I will meet with them on Thursday. They asked for another delay, that is another thirty days, or two weeks from now. I don't think that is fair but if that is what it takes, I have nothing to hide. I am going to sit down with them and explain to them what we are doing and I think I am decent and will work with my neighbors, I always have in the past. I will try to address their concerns as much as I can but I just want to share my objection to that request. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Sir. Commissioners, is there any discussion or any comments or motions? Marr: Mr. Chair, if I could have Ms. Jenson come back up I have a couple of questions for her. I think in rereading through the notes for our meeting tonight again and our last meeting and having had a chance to speak with Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 5 her at a different meeting of Neighborhood Associations. I wanted to see what the neighborhood's objection, other than the development of the large scale would be. There are four findings of fact that we are supposed to look at tonight or at the point that it rezones. One of those is —Is it consistent with the land use plan? One of those is — Is it justified and needed at the time? The third is — Would it create or appreciatably increase traffic danger and congestion? The fourth is — Would it alter the density to increase undesirably a load on public utilities, etc. Of those four items, could you speak on what Pine Valley Associations' issues are on this Thursday meeting to be able to address that would help me to determine whether it meets a finding? Jenson: One of our concerns is the traffic. Regardless of what Mr. Bayyari intends to lay out we do know that the city is intent on having Shiloh go through between Porter Road and Wedington. We understand that Shiloh, that that particular area of it is on the Master Street Plan for 2004. We understand what the city is trying to do but in having lived there, know what a tremendous amount of traffic problems we are having at this point. We feel that we would like to know how the city intends to handle the mess of Porter Road and how they intend to feed it into Wedington. We realize that this was going to be going through the middle of whatever is developed there. That has become very important to us. We also would like to know what type of development is going to be along that particular corridor. We have an opportunity as a city, as a group, to have a particular piece of property that is in a high interest area, it is right on I540, it is easily viewed coming and going through town. It can set the tone for something that can be an asset to the city as opposed to something that could be less desirable. It is a highly visible area and it is going to make a great deal of difference how our whole area shapes up over the years because this is right on the freeway. Those are the two things especially that we are concerned about. Marr: Motion: Allen: Estes: Marr: Estes: Thank you. I think Ms. Jenson has a fair point and has the agreement of the developer to post pone so I will move to table RZN 2-5.00. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to table RZN 02-5.00 is there a second? I will second. We have a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any discussion? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 6 Ward: Allen: I would like to kind of offer my view point here about the development out there on this particular fourteen acres. According to our findings of fact if the developer was going to put in 178 units, which I don't think is going to be done out there, it would increase the traffic about 11 %. I have a feeling that compared to the Industrial, which it is already zoned. No matter what happens I think the idea of the R-1.5 is going to be a much better situation as far as visibility of duplexes or what not compared to industrial buildings like we have out there already. Both of those considerations to me aren't really legitimate concerns. Neither one of them, according to what staff put together, there would be normally 937 vehicles per day generated on an Industrial tract that this is already zoned, which means it is already set up to be able to do. I feel like there is actually going to be less traffic if the zoning is done the other way. Especially since it is down zoning from I-1 to R-1.5. The concern about what it is going to look like, I can tell you it can't do anything but to look better than what is going to be a bunch of industrial, even metal buildings out there on the interstate which is allowable at this point. I don't think that either one of those concerns is valid as far as I'm concerned. I am going to go ahead and vote to table this for two weeks but I think that is as far as I would go with it. I agree that your observations are valid. I just think that communication never hurts. If people can get together and feel a little bit more comfortable with each other then that is all the better. Estes: Is there any other discussion or comment? Hoffman: I would just like to say that in reading our materials too it looks to me like it was voluntarily withdrawn after the last Planning Commission approval so it seems to me that there was plenty of time for a meeting in the ensuing months. I will vote to table it. I don't like to delay the process anymore than necessary but I would like to see a constructive dialog between you guys so we appreciate that. Estes: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Marr to table RZN 02-5.00 is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-5.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 7 LSP 02-6.00: Lot Split (Farrell, pp 283 and 322) was submitted by Shawki Al- Madoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Earl and Carolyn Farrell for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and north and west of Holt Middle School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 182.22 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 143.03 acres and 39.19 acres. Estes: Conklin: Estes: The next item on the agenda is a lot split request. This is submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Earl and Carolyn Farrell for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and north and west of Holt Middle School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 183.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 145.88 acres and 39.19 acres. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Are there signed conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? No there are not. Condition 1) A 70' right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city pursuant to the Master Street Plan for Double Tree Road. The requirement is for the right-of-way to be dedicated through both tracts at this time. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this right-of-way requirement. There is a letter in your packet from the applicant. Staff is recommending that the right-of-way be dedicated through tract A as a condition of this lot split and is in support of a waiver of the requirement for tract B until further development occurs. City Council must approve this waiver. Condition 2) A 30' sewer easement shall be dedicated for future construction of a sewer line along Clabber Creek. 3) Payment of Park fees in the amount of $470 for one additional R-1 parcel. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the park fees until further development. The expectation is that land will be dedicated with a future subdivision. You have a letter in your packet, from the applicant, requesting this waiver. Condition 4) Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable), for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. Is the applicant present? Bender: I am Mike Bender with Northstar Engineering. I am representing Mr. Farrell for the split of this property. I will briefly address the conditions of approval. The 70' right-of-way for Double Tree will need to be relocated due to this proposed route, a large majority of it is within the floodway of Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 8 Estes: Clabber Creek so we will need to relocate the road. In doing so, we feel if we push the road to the south it is not an ideal location because Clabber Creek flows to the south and we are getting in real close proximity with Mount Comfort Road. Also, if we go to the north of Clabber Creek, the thoroughfare is really not there due to development to the east. We do have another collector, Lierly, at the north end of the property. We just feel at this time that we are taking this to City Council. We feel that at this time that platting the right-of-way would be real limiting to the property. Also, on the 30' easement, we are showing a 30' easement for the sanitary sewer. The parks fees, we are requesting a waiver at this time. Mr. Farrell and the Parks Department are working together on a large park corridor along Clabber Creek. The Plat Review and Subdivision comments have been addressed. The utility comments at this time, they reserve their comments until the development. I will obtain letters to that effect for city files and then staff approval of final details, we will submit detailed plans with each development coming through. The 39 acres on the southeast part of the property is where the first subdivision will go in. Right now there is no development planned for the rest of the property. I would be glad to answer any of your questions at this time. Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested lot split? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, questions of the applicant or motions. Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I would like you to refer to page 3.8 and that shows the location of the Master Street Plan and the proposed collector street. You will note on that page the proposed collector street for Double Tree Road, which is what is at issue this evening. The applicant and the dedication of this right-of-way, it is south of Salem Village P.U.D., south of Clabber Creek. Previously when Serenity Place subdivision was considered and approved as a preliminary plat south of Salem Village, Double Tree Road connected over to Salem Road which would provide access between the middle school and the elementary school. I believe that the best location for that road is south of Clabber Creek in this location and not north. Regardless, the city ordinance, the Unified Development Ordinance, requires that in order to waive the preliminary and final plat requirements and not treat this as a subdivision that right-of-way must be dedicated. I just wanted to bring that to your attention this evening, thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Is there any other discussion or any questions? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 9 Hoffman. I have a procedural question. Is the waiver of the Master Street Plan something that the Planning Commission normally recommends to City Council or is that something that requires Council action only? Conklin: The ordinance reads, and I have included it in your staff report under 156 Variances and Development, page 3.1, dedication of right-of-way... I will just read it. "The City Planner shall not waive the preliminary and final plat requirements of this chapter for a proposed subdivision until the subdivider dedicates sufficient right-of-way to bring those streets, which the Master Street Plan shows to abut or intersect the proposed subdivision and to conformance with the right-of-way requirements of the Master Street Plan where it says streets. Provided that the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Such a lesser dedication shall be subject to approval by the City Council." You may approve a lesser dedication if you believe there is undue hardship or practical difficulties and that is subject to approval by the City Council. Hoffman. Thanks Tim. I still don't understand where the alternate location for the road that you said is not on this plat. Conklin: It is not shown on the plat. The Master Street Plan does show up on page 3.7 and 3.8. Bender: At this time we don't have an alternate for the 70' corridor for Double Tree or for a collector street. That would come with the future development. Hoffman: You're saying that it would be south of Clabber Creek, not Hamstring Creek? Conklin: I apologize, I did use the wrong creek name, it is Clabber Creek. The idea, at one time, was that children on school buses all go on the same bus no matter if it is middle school or elementary and that at one time the bus wouldn't have to go all the way down to Mount Comfort, there would be connectivity and access within these areas. I think it is important that we look at where that future collector street is located because of the school and future development. This engineer is working with the applicant on a preliminary plat south of Clabber Creek. Just as we saw in Bridgeport Subdivision, they can incorporate those Master Street Plan streets within their subdivisions. Especially a collector street, which is a two lane street. That is why I am making that recommendation that this engineer before you this evening is working on a preliminary plat that could incorporate the Master Street Plan street within that subdivision and plan it. I will let the engineer answer any questions of why that can't be done or if he wants Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 10 to express his comments to you about why that can't be done. It is just that he has been working with staff on where those streets need to go. Motion: Hoffman: Now that it is crystal clear to me that it is Clabber Creek and not Hamstring, I would like to move for approval of LSP 02-6.00, the lot split with the variance for which requires the 70' of right-of-way with the understanding that an alternate method is being proposed. Estes: Hoffman: Conklin: Commissioner Hoffman, does your motion include the requirement of the right-of-way dedication through both tracts at this time? I am going to need some help from Tim on that. Is that what they are standing on? Staff made a recommendation that the right-of-way be dedicated for the smaller acreage that is being split out and to wait until the rest of the remaining tract is developed to determine where that right-of-way is. Hoffman: Is that going to be 70' or is it going to be a lesser amount? Conklin: It would be 70'. Hoffman: Ok, I think that my motion should be just as itis that the alternate location be... Conklin: I would like some direction. They have asked two things, they have asked to completely waive any right-of-way from being dedicated, that is what the applicant is requesting. Hoffman: On tract B? Conklin: On both. Bender: Everything. Right now basically we've got a collector on the north end of the property, Lierly Lane. We've got the arterial, Mount Comfort on the south. Due to the location and direction of Clabber Creek itself and the floodplain and floodway associated with it we would like to waive the Double Tree requirement especially since very little of Double Tree exists now. Hoffman: I understand that but we are very big on connectivity and from what Mr. Conklin was saying it does sound to me like it would be a better idea to use one of your subdivision streets to carry the school bus children from Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 11 one side of the tract to the other. My motion would then include a 70' right-of-way requirement and I guess that was going to be south of Clabber Creek at some location to be determined during preliminary plat. Bender: At this time, if there is a requirement, we would prefer it to be north. That is our request. Hoffman: Since I am not looking at a very clear map here I am having trouble crafting this motion now. Ward: Tim, why would that Double Tree Road on the north boundary line of this property, the 100+ acres on Alley Road or something would that not be a better location for that road? Along the north line of most of this property? Conklin - Ward: Conklin: Estes: That is an alley that was platted as part of the Salem Village Planned Unit Development. There is no direct access through that. Well, putting it down through Clabber Creek doesn't make sense, that is all floodway. That would require a bridge across there. Thank you for making that statement because I did not clarify what staff was looking at. We are looking at keeping the street on the south side of Clabber Creek. However, we would be willing to work with the developers/applicant to minimize the creek crossings and bring that out over to Mount Comfort/Wheeler Road at some point. We are not asking to go down the center of the creek as it is currently shown. There is some flexibility with our Master Street Plan. I do think it is important that as we go further back to the east through what used to be Serenity Place, that that is the preferred location of that collector street. Mr. Conklin, do I understand correctly that staff recommends, as the first condition of approval, that there be a 70' right-of-way dedicated pursuant to the Master Street Plan for Double Tree and that we are not considering siting Double Tree at this time but that the only matter before us is the 70' right-of-way dedication? Conklin: That is correct. Staff would work with the applicant and his engineer to get the exact location avoiding going through the center of Clabber Creek and being south of Clabber Creek at some point. Hoffman: Ok, the engineer was pointing out on his map that if you needed to put the road at some point that it might better suit the layout of the lot to put it on the north side of Clabber Creek. Have you looked at that possibility? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 12 Conklin- It currently lines up as a Master Street Plan, if you will look at page 3.7, through Crystal Springs. It would change the entire dynamics, the function of that street if you move it to the north. We have a softball complex there, a playground, and this collector street would not be able to continue further to the east. Yes, we have looked at that and I think it is important in this location. Bender: With Double Tree, the portion east of Salem Road is not a very large portion. If we went just north of the Salem Village from Salem Road to the west along the northern portion of this property, that is the location that we would prefer. Motion: Hoffman: I will give this a try again. I would like to recommend approval of LSP 02-6.00 subject to all conditions of approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSP 02-6.00 subject to the conditions of approval, is there a second? Marr: I will second. Bunch: Just one little housekeeping note. On our drawings showing 35.19 acres, then in our packet it says 39.19, is there any reason that there is a four acre discrepancy? Bender: There was an error in the acreage on the tract split. The correct is 182.22 acres, splitting it into 143.03 and 39.19 acres. Bunch: Ok, so the drawing should show 39.19 acres? Bender: Yes, and we have corrected that also. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSP 02-6.00 subject to all conditions of approval. Is there any further discussion? Ward: On the payment of this park fee, the $470, would they get a credit for that when they bring in the subdivision? Conklin: We discussed this internally on how to deal with this issue. The ordinance reads that any new lot created that is zoned R-1 needs to pay additional parks fee. That is something that we would like to consider is when they do bring a subdivision in to give them credit for that $470. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 13 Hoffman. I can specifically say that on the preliminary plat that either the $470 per lot be paid or that a park land dedication be accepted. Item number four would then read "The payment of parks fees in the amount of $470 for one additional R-1 parcel..." or at the end of the last sentence "or that park land dedication be accepted as shown on the preliminary plat." Estes: Mr. Marr, does the second accept the amendment? Marr: Yes. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSP 02-6.00 is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 02-6.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 14 CUP 02-4.00: Conditional Use (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting, PA on behalf of Superior Federal Bank for property located at the southwest corner of Hwy. 62 West and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to allow 16 more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance. Estes: The next item on the agenda is a conditional use request submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Superior Federal Bank for property located at the southwest corner of Hwy. 62 West and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to allow sixteen more parking spaces than allowed by ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to two conditions of approval. 1) Compliance with all requirements of the accompanying large scale development and lot split request. 2) Compliance with § 172.01 (c)(4) illumination of parking areas. Is the applicant or applicant's representative present? Carter: I am Glenn Carter with Carter Consulting. Estes: Mr. Carter, do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Carter: I have no presentation at this time. Public Comment: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested conditional use? Yes Ma'am, would you please come forward, state your name, give us your address, and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Moorman: My name Barbara Moorman, I live on Finger Road. My comments are really questions I think, or at least they start out that way. My first question has to be is it appropriate for me to talk about the lot split, are you putting them both together or do you just want to talk about the conditional use at this point? Estes: Barbara, the item that is before us now is the conditional use. The lot split and large scale development come as the next item on the agenda. Moorman: Will I have a chance to say something? Estes: Yes Ma'am. Do you want to talk to us about the request for the sixteen more parking spaces? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 15 Moorman: Estes: Conklin - Estes: Moorman: I can do that. It all kind of ties together for me. I think with respect to that I just want you to realize that this property was rezoned in 1987 as an 83 acre piece. At that time that represented a change in thinking I believe because the property was in four separate parcels which it still is as far as the county is concerned. For the city to think of it in terms of 83 acres to me means that the city is thinking in terms of a development of 83 acres. That leads me to think in terms of the development of 83 acres. I have a couple of comments to make about that. I am wondering what the overall plans for that 83 acres if anyone can tell me that. Also, I would like to know where the developer is at at this time. I am an adjoining land owner by the way if we talk about 83 acres. I think it is about 1,800 feet that I have in common with that acreage. I would also wonder what the time table might be for the development. I don't know, is that something that could be answered now? Well, lets try. Mr. Conklin, can you respond to any of Barbara's questions? With regard to the remaining acreage, we have been talking with the applicant's realtor with regard to future plans. We have had a lot of discussion on the next item on the agenda with regard to access into the entire property. At this time, they have not indicated that they have any future plans for this property. It is currently for sale. It is zoned C-2, R -O, R-1, and R-2, there are multiple zonings on the entire tract. At this time there are no future plans on the property. Ok, thank you Mr. Conklin. Ok, the second category of comment. I hope that you are aware since a concession is being requested, or a variance or conditional use, however it should be properly termed, I hope that you are aware that between the rezoning of the property in 1987 and the present time when more work is being done officially on this project, the trees disappeared along Hwy. 62. That, actually, probably, if you get very technical about it was quite legal because it happened outside that magic window of opportunity of five years. I think that is I haven't really figured it out mathematically. In 1987 the property was rezoned. In 1993 there was fill that was taken from the Wal-Mart Supercenter site, they cut down maybe 1/5 of Washington Mountain there to put in that super store. Some of that fill and fill from I don't know where else was taken and it was dumped on this property and that was flattened out. Wal-Mart was on a wetland. This area, I don't know whether it is strictly speaking wetland or not but there were trees on it and all the trees died. It took a few years for them to die but you could see them going. The very last one actually was an old post oak that people used to think, at least this is my theory, that Finger Road had something to Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 16 do with Finger Park and they saw that big old oak tree there and there were people that would pull their trucks up and picnic under that big old oak tree. I think that some people may have thought that that was Finger Park. There is some confusion. Anyway, that tree died. It was cut very recently, I think last year. Anyway, the trees themselves didn't all disappear until 1997 when the remainder of them were piled up and there was a sign that said Free Fire Wood. At that time, I wrote a letter to Mayor Hanna pointing out to him what the situation was. Prior to that in 1994 my husband and I had an attorney write a letter to the city to Jerry Rose. That was pointing out what had happened, that the fill had been dumped on this site, probably about 15 acres or so without any permit for doing any earth moving or excavating. We had in place, at that time, both a tree ordinance and an ordinance on excavating and moving earth. Estes: Barbara, if I may direct your attention to the item that is before us. It is a conditional use request for sixteen more parking spaces. Moorman: Ok, my question is that in view of the fact that I think the city regulations were treated less than seriously or I would say seriously but lightly by the developer, this very same owner. I find it very hard to understand why you would grant them a concession without at least public reference to what happened in the past. My second point about more parking spaces is that I seriously question whether that area needs anymore impermeable surface. The Wal-Mart parking lot was called, by an architect from California who has connections here locally, one of the ugliest things he has ever seen. That is because it is all asphalt. There is nothing to break it up. Yes, they did leave the gum trees along the highway. Thank heaven for that but coming from the other side it is simply appalling. I don't really see that, while the development feels it needs those parking spaces, the neighborhood will suffer even from such a small addition as that in the way of impermeable surface. That was wetland. There were crawfish, all manners of wetland vegetation plants living there. I think there could be even some kind of repercussion just structurally from an engineering point of view with adding more asphalt. That is all I will say for right now. Thank you very much for listening. Estes: Thank you Barbara. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, motions or questions of the applicant. Conklin: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I did provide you this evening a study that we did on banks in Fayetteville. That occurred in 1999. It is a spreadsheet. I did not have the ability to find out how many employees and all the square footage of each bank. However, it does Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 17 show some banks how many parking spaces are occupied at certain times. I can just give you an idea of some higher numbers. Community Bank on Joyce at 2:30 in the afternoon in 1999 had 25 people in their parking lot. Mcllroy Bank on Joyce Street had 34 people parked in their parking lot. They have 40 spaces. The square footage of Mcllroy Bank is about 5,250 sq.ft. so it is considerably larger. The rest are fairly low numbers. Some of the banks that I did indicate to you that they did have the higher numbers. I think it is a matter of competition and how many people go to that bank. It is pretty much all across the board when you start looking at these numbers and how many people are going to these banks. Just looking around town, some banks are much more utilized or have more customers than others. If you have any questions about this table I would be more than happy to try to answer them. Hoffman: I do have a question. We recently had a bank, I don't remember which one, but did we grant a variance for additional parking? Conklin: We did grant a conditional use for additional parking. There was some controversy with that. The spaces did go in paved ahead of time and the Planning Commission did grant that with the condition that they be semi- permeable soil pavers. Those were installed. Hoffman: They were finally installed? Conklin: Yes, they were installed. Hoffman: Ok, that is what I was getting at. If we did even consider a conditional use for additional parking for a bank I would very much want that kind of paving to be installed. Then, I have heard that the various paving systems available for that over a period of years just pack down that the grass doesn't grow in them and that it is just a bumpy parking lot with dirt and no grass. Can you comment on that? Conklin: Well, the grass doesn't really grow in areas that are going to be utilized every day. It has to be parking that is used on a non -occurring everyday basis. What we used at Simmons Bank on Joyce were brick pavers within that. With regard to do they pack down into the soil, I really don't have information on that. That bank was approved with 24 total parking spaces. Hoffman: Does our ordinance, I realize it does not with regard to restaurants, but in terms of banks and the number of needed parking spaces, does our ordinance stack up against other ordinances in other cities, is it similar? Conklin: I haven't done a lot of research. The research that I've done is in Fayetteville. It seems like we are blessed with many banks in Fayetteville. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 18 Marr: Carter: I'm not quite sure, every time I am driving around I look at things. I have been looking at bank parking lots as I've been out. Some have a lot of cars in them and some don't have any cars. Once again, I think it depends on the bank and the number of customers and how successful they are in Fayetteville. It is very difficult for me to tell if it is working or if it is not working. I assume that all of the banks would love their parking lots full constantly but that is not what we found in 1999 when we did this survey. We found some banks hardly had anybody, three or four customers, on a Friday. I have a question for the applicant. You provided for us a list of branch parking comparisons. Locations start with Baseline and end with Van Buren. Could you tell me the length of time that those banks have been in operation? I have a new chart here. It gives you the length of time that the banks have been in business. Baseline, for instance, has been in operation for 2 and a half years. Conklin: That is page 4.9. In the bracket is the number of months that it has been opened. Carter: Ok, also we have the traffic count that we did on an off day, Friday, January 25`h. It wasn't even the first or the end of the month. We show the parking spaces provided and we show some nearly at capacity. Marr: Carter: I have a second question for you and thank you for pointing that out. If this wasn't approved, I'm looking at the plan. I am not making an assumption of it is or it isn't. I am trying to determine what sixteen spaces would be eliminated if they weren't approved because the plan is drawn allowing for all of the spaces that you have requested. Have you thought about an alternative plan if it is something less than the additional sixteen that you are asking for? I don't know that the bank would build this branch if they can't have that. To be land locked on this small of a lot and have no future potential for growth is not a really good situation for convenience banking like this. They have a long track record of having this many spaces or more. That is the caviat of their business, I believe it would be detrimental to the operation. That is the reason that we haven't drawn any other plans. We had some with less in the beginning but our analysis indicated that we didn't have enough parking, we were just too limited. Allen: Are you talking about a total of 34 parking spaces all together? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 19 Carter: Yes Ma'am. Allen: Carter: Peden: Allen: Peden: I wondered what data you used to come up with that particular number. Is that just the number that you always request for your branch banks? What data did you use to determine the number you needed? It is the number that has normally been used for these types of branch banks and it has been found to work the best. I have here with me Charles Peden from Superior Federal. I am Charles Peden, I live at 10612 Crestdale Lane in Little Rock. Your question is appropriate. What we have tried to do in the past is measure parking pads to a square feet, just like you do. We have a 3,000 sq.ft. building and we started off with 30 pads. Through the last few years, even the last thirty days, we've had to go back and add parking where we could. We are a heavy retail bank. We are not commercial, retail. Our transactions are high, our traffic is high and that is the reason we need the spaces. I think that if this information that was requested by Tim and Dawn, I think that points out to where we are. We've got a land lock. We have got some high ratios and that is what we've used in the past. We are going to have to increase those. Just an example, Poteau, OK, I built a 4,000sq.ft. building, which is not on here, we don't have a track record. Except, we built 4,000 sq.ft., 40 pads. I am in the process of adding 15 more pads right now. We are just high traffic. Just one more question about that. It appears to me that without being in the branch banking business that there is less banking at the bank. Does data not hold that to be true? In some situations. Again, it depends on the market. It depends on your customer base. Yes, we are familiar with e -banking. We have that. We deal with a middle market, so to speak. It is heavy traffic, it is larger vehicles, it is unusual vehicles and that is the reason we've requested these spaces. Have I answered your question? Allen: I didn't understand that about the middle market. Peden: Middle market is high traffic. Hoffman: My question is for you Sir. You have seven drive through lanes shown on this site, what percentage of traffic is handled by drive through lanes verses drive in traffic? Peden: That is a good question. Our last data, which is about two years old, about 60-70% of our traffic is through the drive through lanes. That was about Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 20 two years ago. More recently we are running a little higher in the lobby because we are offering different products. Investing, insurance, etc., it could very well run 50/50 today. Hoffman: The reason I'm asking about that is because you have the most number of drive through lanes proposed on this site that any bank it appears that we have in Fayetteville. I would think that that would have a direct impact on whether or not we should grant a variance for additional parking. It would seem to me that if you have space for four cars per lane, that is 28 cars of customers that are being services and then if you added the other 34 parking spaces, you are up in the fifties for the number of cars on the site and it seems to me that that is actually more than any other bank that we've got on our chart. I am wondering, because of that, if this 16 additional spaces that you are requesting is necessary, just based on the number of drive through lanes. If you had fewer lanes I would think that you would have more walk in traffic. With that number of lanes it seems like you are anticipating that people will just stay in their cars. Peden: Ms. Hoffman, the only way I can respond to that is just the data that we have accumulated and the numbers are there. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Peden: Thank you. Marr: I think Commissioner Hoffman asked my question. I was trying to look at this because of the data that we asked for the banks that currently exist in Fayetteville, only 3 out of 14 listed on this page actually have 34 or more. One, I was trying to consider that with the number of drive through lanes. My question was basically answered. The only comment I would make and it seems like whenever we get retail oriented business where there is a lot of turn over of customers, we get a request that our ordinances don't meet the need. I do think that this developer, having been in a Subdivision Committee meeting when they were there, has been very accommodating to other requests. Examples of curb cuts not being put on Hwy. 62 which is something that I would prefer to do. When we get asked the question about why we would consider additional parking in this scenario, for me I am considering it because I think that they have made several concessions that we've asked for up to this point. I think we need to keep that in mind as we look at this. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Are there any motions? Motion: Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 21 Ward: Carter: Estes: It is kind of hard for any of us to guess how much parking they need here exactly. I am not in the banking business. It would've been nice to have Loren here tonight, maybe he could've helped on this. If you have fourteen or fifteen employees at the bank working as tellers and in the bank itself you are down to 20 parking spaces immediately that are left. It is not like if you start off with 34 and put 15 people in there, you don't have that many actual parking spaces left. That makes sense if you've got seven teller lines open, that is seven tellers there plus maybe a couple more in the bank, that is nine people, you can see how they could use fourteen or fifteen people in a bank real quick. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 02-4.00 for Superior Bank. There is a pertinent comment that I think I need to make before you vote on this issue. Item number one under conditions of approval. If I understand that correctly, approval of this item would indicate that we agree with all the conditions of the large scale development that is coming up next on the agenda? No, that would not be my understanding. My understanding is that should this conditional use be approved it would be subject to the requirements on the LSD and the lot split. If the LSD and the lot split is not approved then you are not going to be building sixteen additional parking spaces, you aren't going to be building any parking spaces. Carter: Ok, thank you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-4.00 is there a second? Church: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Church, is there any discussion? Hoffman: I am not going to vote for it unless the number of spaces is decreased in the conditional use by approximately 'h based on the data that the staff has provided us with and the number of parking drive through lanes. Estes: Is there any further discussion? Hoover: I have a question for staff. In an effort to be consistent with all developers, and looking at banks again. I know you started out telling us what we have done in the past with other banks would you repeat that again? I heard permeable pavers but I'm not sure if we have always done that and have they always been asking for more parking spaces? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 22 Conklin- That is the only one that we remember is Simmons on Joyce Blvd. I went back through with this research and looked at how we permitted banks in the past and there were issues with regard to considering it retail or do you consider it a sales office? We have considered them both ways. I wrote a memo to my staff and to the Commission with an interpretation that we would consider it at one space per 200 since we have done that in the past, just to clarify for everybody. Since then it hasn't been a huge issue. The Bank of Fayetteville over in the Crossover Shopping Center on Hwy. 265 and Hwy. 45, they have fifteen spaces and a 3,000 sq.ft. building. The thing to keep in mind is that some of these banks are in shopping centers. They have the opportunity for shared parking. That makes it a little different. It is a difficult issue for staff and the Commission every time that we have one of these requests. I do notice that some banks' parking lots are full then others you have two or three cars. It is just the competition and the service that they provide and how much they need. In this particular parking lot I think we should also consider that we already have a 24' drive aisle that will be required for the 90° parking. The additional parking spaces are the 17' or 19' of pavement beyond the drive aisle. We are not building additional drive aisles in this parking lot so it does minimize the amount of the pavement. I am not sure I answered your question on treating people consistently. It is difficult in this situation with the information that they are providing. I asked Mr. Peden to provide us information with regard to Superior Federal Bank with what kind of needs they had in Arkansas and they provided that to you. Their ratios are fairly high. I am going on trust that that data is correct and that is what they truly need to operate their type of bank. Marr: Estes: Allen: I am going to support the motion. The reason is I think, as I said earlier, that we have been given some concessions from the developer with curb cuts, with reduced lane entries from three lanes to two and the access that is currently on our plan which we will see next. I think one of the main findings where it talks about would the conditional use adversely affect public interest. The staff comment in that is that even with the addition of the sixteen parking spaces that the applicant is proposing to retain 40% of the site greenspace that is there and the site plan is submitted with what we have coming next. I also believe that it is not concrete drive aisles, as Tim just described. There are several reasons. I certainly think that we need to be supportive of new business in Fayetteville. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Church to approve CUP 02-4.00 is there any other discussion? I just wonder if you could explain a little bit more about how you gathered the data. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 23 Peden: This information, on January 25th we conducted two timed surveys. One was at 11:30 a.m. and one was 5:30 p.m. and these respective eight branches, cars were counted at those locations. We then compared that to parking pads that were available and applied the percentages to them. These are actual accounts. On the next page, which is this page, the same locations and then we broke it down to years and months in service and the same parking pads and then the number of employees for the square feet and the number of drive in lanes. None of these particular locations share parking with other businesses. These are stand alone locations. Have I answered your question? Allen: Yes you did, thank you. Estes: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Church to approve CUP 02-4.00. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-4.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Hoffman voting against it. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of seven to one. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 24 LSD 02-2.00 Large Scale Development (Superior Federal Bank, pp 557) was submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Bennie Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Hwy. 62 West. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.46 acres with a 2,891 sq.ft. branch bank building proposed. Estes: The next item on the agenda is LSD 02-2.00, a Large Scale Development submitted by Bill McClard of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Bennie Westphal and Matthew Cobb for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Hwy. 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.46 acres with a 2,891 sq.ft. building proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. Tim, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Estes: Condition of approval 1) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow sixteen additional parking spaces. The maximum allowed by code is eighteen parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of 34 parking spaces. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance with the commercial design standards including signage. 3) Upon extension of the future road, either private or public, directly across from the Wal-Mart Supercenter Finger Road access, two new access to the bank's site shall be installed off the future road of the southwest corner of the site and the initial entrance at the southeast corner of the site shall be closed. 4) Landscaping trees shall be a hardwood species. Staff is not in support of using crepe myrtles, as proposed, due to the insignificant and insufficient growing height in our area. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from public utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of a final detailed plan, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. 7) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum of 10' greenspace along Finger Road and Sixth Street. 8) Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; separate easement plat for this project; project disk with final revisions; and completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City. Is the applicant or applicant's representative present? Carter: Yes, I am Glenn Carter. I represent the applicant. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 25 Carter: No Sir, I don't. Public Comment: Estes: Moorman: Estes: Moorman: Estes: Ward: Carter: Ward: Carter: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development? Yes Barbara, would you come forward, say your name and address and provide us with the benefit of your comments please? My name is Barbara Moorman and I live on Finger Road. The only thing I want to say at this point is that since you are being asked to split a lot off of an 83 acre parcel I just want you to be aware of the fact that there is a discrepancy in the survey describing one of the boundary lines between the 83 acres and my property. Barbara, what is that discrepancy and where is it? It is on their south line and my north line. It is not anywhere near this particular lot split. I am only mentioning it because when you split the lot off you are splitting it off of a piece of land whose survey is included in the documentation for the lot split and I just want you to be aware of the fact that there is a disputed line. It is their south line and my north line, it is over towards the west. I don't have a map of it in front of me but it is there. I suppose it is in the southwest corner of their property. It is a straight line that runs for them about 2,000 feet, for me about 1,800 feet. Thank you Barbara. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this requested large scale development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or questions for the applicant. Just as a matter of record, I would like you to go over the construction of the building as far as materials and color and so on. I brought in some samples here. We are going to build exactly the same thing that you see in these pictures and these are samples of materials here. If you have any questions about them I would be glad to answer. You might just verbalize what the materials are going to be and point out on the building with the materials that you brought. We will be using red brick on the front of the building. The sign on the building is illuminated but it is not lighted. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 26 Peden: The front is split faced block and then we have the red. We put the soffit which is a sand tone. The windows will be double insulated and the roof, this is shown in a three tab but it is architectural, it will not be three tab. Ward: Ok, thank you. Marr: I have a question about the elevations that we had in our packet. The one that shows what would be the rear of the bank for the access across from Wal-Mart. It is the top of the page and then there is the front with the grass on the bottom. Certainly one of the things that I am concerned with. Peden: These are front elevations. The initial ones didn't show the directions. Marr: I guess my question would be on the south elevation. The access, and obviously, one of the things as we have heard a million of times, can't project what is going to happen. The fact that we are putting access into this for future development there would hopefully be a road that parallels the back of this bank. One of my concerns is making sure that we've hidden the utilities that are showing in this south elevation, air conditioning units, etc. I guess I am looking for and I don't see it.. . Carter: If you look at the southwest corner of the building there is a fenced area that contains those utilities, the utilities will be screened or fenced. Marr: Is it possible to have landscaping around that? I am assuming that a fence like this is what we are looking at on this plan. I would like to see if there is any other option other than a privacy fence to cover that up. Carter: Our sidewalk is pretty close to that. If we don't have a sidewalk or we narrow the sidewalk to take out the fence that might provide room. Conklin: May I make a suggestion? We have used this before in other areas. It is quite a small space. We've had others put a trellis up and some type of vines to help not to just have a wood fence there. Is that something that would be interesting to the Commission? Marr: I can't speak on behalf of the whole Commission but I am looking for something that if this does develop I don't think it will be considered a back any longer. I think it, even for their own business, should be something that is visually pleasing. When I look at this photo of the south elevation and see utility boxes on the building and so forth or even a 4' privacy fence, I think we could improve on that. Allen: I wondered first of all if the colors on the sign are true? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 27 Peden: They are close. They are a little darker than that and not as bright red as that. Allen: Where is the placement of the sign? Could you point to where it might be on the drawing? Peden: It is in the northeast corner of the property. Conklin: It is at the intersection of Finger Road and Hwy. 62, 10' from the property line. If you look, it says sign location right there and has some arrows pointed. Hoffman. I agree with the comments that the other Commissioners have made concerning screening of utilities and so forth. It sounds like that might be something that you might be able to work with staff on. Since I was the lone ranger on the parking, I still have to ask one more thing about that. If you will refer to your plats, spaces 14 through 24 and 25 through 34 either abut Sixth Street in the case of 14 through 24 or a property line for future development in the case of 25 through 34. Would it be possible to screen that parking from the street and from the adjacent property if we are going to have it and to work that out with the Landscape Administrator as to the type and spacing of the bushes? I would like to add that as a condition of approval if that is acceptable to you guys and I would sure appreciate it. Peden: We will agree to that. Lets get back to the screening, would you feel a little more comfortable if we did a spaced brick screening? Marr: I would certainly like that better. Peden: In other words, where we have the fencing then we would agree to a separated brick screening, it wouldn't be solid. Do you understand? Hoffman: That sounds fine to me. Allen: Back to this monument sign again. I wondered if there was any possibility that this could be subdued somewhat. Could it not be some kind of a brownish tone instead of this hot pinkish color? Peden: That color is not the appropriate color, it is more of a darkened maroon color but corporate colors we can't shift them and move them around. Allen: It's a corporate color? Peden: Yes. Red and white is the corporate color. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 28 Marr: I actually think that in this drawing that the ATM is probably the color that we're talking about or close to it. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Bunch: A question was raised by Mrs. Moorman about wetlands. When will that determination come into play? Ron, if there are indeed wetlands here could you or maybe Glenn tell us if anything has been done on the question of whether or not there are wetlands involved? Carter: There is a lot of discussion I could do about my understanding of wetlands but I don't think now is the place. There are certain grasses that grow, there are certain soils that exist and I haven't seen vegetation on this lot that indicates that there are wetlands there. I didn't go out and study the entire 83 acres. I surveyed the boundaries for the lot split. For this site and this frontage I have not seen any indication of it so we haven't requested a determination of wetlands. Estes: Mr. Conklin, is any portion of this property in the designated wetlands as defined by the U.S. Corp. of Engineers? Conklin: I do not have knowledge of any official wetlands delineation done. Ron Petrie could probably explain better at the city what we require at the pre - construction meeting. Petrie: Even before the pre -construction meeting the engineer of record has to certify that there are no wetlands on the site. That is a federal requirement. We don't necessarily regulate wetlands. We do let the state and federal governments do that but we have to have a certification. If we suspect there are wetlands then we make sure that the studies have been done. On this particular site I believe it is part of the area that has been filled over with some of the Wal-Mart spoils. Estes: With regard to this particular piece of property has such a certification been made? Petrie: Not to my knowledge. Estes: The certification that it is not a wetland, has that been made? Petrie: No. It will be required before we can approve the final drainage. Estes: My question is this. Is this a wetland or is this not a wetland? Petrie: I could only let the engineer of record answer that. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 29 Estes: I understand that there must be a certification by the city engineer before the pre -construction meeting? Petrie: No, the certification is by the engineer of record. Estes: Mr. Carter, are you the engineer of record Sir? Carter: Yes Sir. Estes: Is this a wetland? Carter: A determination has not been made? Estes: Well, does that mean that we need to look at that issue? Carter: I don't feel like we do personally but I don't make determinations like that it has to come from the Corp. of Engineers. Estes: I kind of feel like an owl in the tree right now. Mr. Petrie has told us that the engineer of record makes the certification that it is a wetland or it isn't a wetland and you are the engineer of record and you are telling me that you haven't made that determination. How am I supposed to vote on this issue? Carter: Well, I normally don't make that determination until after we get into the grading and drainage plan. Hoffman: The question then becomes if it is indeed a wetland what happens to the project once it has been approved for large scale development within our process? Ron, can you elaborate on that? Petrie: I would require the Corp. of Engineers to approve what is being proposed. A lot of times it is, I am not sure what the cut off is, if the disturbance is over an acre they require a 404 permit, there is mitigation involved. If it is under an acre they can handle it with a nationwide permit is what they call it with no mitigation. The City Engineering Division does require the Corp. to approve it and we pretty much step out of it and let the Corp. do the permitting. Hoffman: This is just over an acre so if mitigation were required would it likely be offsite on the adjoining parcels if they are under the same ownership or how would that work? Petrie: That is very hard to say. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 30 Allen: Could we not make a condition of approval that the determination be made prior to starting the development? Estes: I think that would be permissible. Petrie: That is what we will require whether you put that condition on there or not. Allen: Before any work starts? Petrie: Yes Ma'am. Carter: May I say this? It is a condition already. If it determined to be wetlands then it is one more step that we take. Marr: Tim or Ron, the property that was previously developed, the Wal-Mart Supercenter property, was any of that determined to be wetland? Petrie: I do not know the answer to that question. That Wal-Mart was built prior to 1990 I believe? Conklin: No, it was around 1994. Petrie: l just haven't gone back and researched it and it predates my time here. Conklin: I would guess that the current detention pond with cat tails and water in it 360 days a year is probably a wetland underneath that. Estes: Is there any further discussion? Are there any motions? Motion: Marr: I am going to attempt a motion. I would move for approval of LSD 02- 2.00 with the finding that the commercial design standards are being met and that we don't have untreated, concrete positioned block walls or box square like structures, metal siding on the main facade or any long unarticulated surfaces, large out of scale signs. I believe that the color that we have had some discussion about is currently being used within our city. I can certainly think of other businesses that have used what I would call fire engine red. In fact, I think we have a McDonald's that is about as red as this sign is. I think it is a very small portion of the development. I would like to add a condition of a brick screening wall for all utilities viewed from the south elevation. In addition, additional landscaping required between parking spaces 14 through 24 and 25 through 34 on Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 31 those two sections that Commissioner Hoffman spoke with the applicant about. Also, all of the other conditions as stated by staff. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 02-2.00 with the stated conditions of approval, is there a second? Ward: Estes: Carter: Marr: Estes: I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Ward. Is there any discussion? We do have one comment that we need to discuss in the conditions of approval that we are having some trouble with. Item number three states that "Upon extension of the future road, either private or public, directly across from the Wal-Mart Supercenter Finger Road access, two new accesses to the bank site shall be installed off the future road at the southwest corner of the site." We have no problem with that but this last additional sentence here gives us a problem. "... and the initial entrance at the southeast corner of the site shall be closed." That is an item that we discussed at Subdivision Committee. That is not how we drew the plan and how we submitted to the Planning Commission. If you are voting to approve as drawn then we would concur but if you are voting to approve with that condition then we can not concur. My motion does include that condition as it reads. The reason is I think at which point that becomes an ingress and egress to the site I think for traffic back up, the ability to have an entrance so close to that when further traffic would be coming from that development, I am not comfortable leaving that open. I don't know if I'm using the correct terminology but the throat of access off of the property or into this would be much better with the other two and I don't think we need a third to do that. If I may speak briefly in support of that particular condition of approval. That would allow a point of ingress and egress with a curb cut immediately adjacent to Finger Road which would not be permissible. Conklin: I just want to make sure that the applicant understands that condition and if we need to clarify it. We are talking about the extensions of the drive directly across from the Wal-Mart drive. At this time, since there is no future development, you would have your access come into the property through an access easement and then provide a two way curb cut on the east side of that property. What the condition is saying is that at the time that private drive or public street is extended further to the west you would close that one since it is so close to Finger Road and you would add these two shown on your plan. I thought that we all agreed to that and that was Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 32 Carter: what we thought was a compromise to the issue of future ingress on this site. Are you saying that you want three curb cuts? I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding Tim. In our discussions with this, the problem is that if you close that initial access out front then traffic coming out of Wal-Mart can not go into the ATMs directly then all of the sudden our convenience banking becomes a matter of inconvenience because he can't come to the middle curb cut and get in without circling back around to the left or he has to go all the way to the far end and circle the bank and come in the same entrance from Finger Road from the north. We feel like an entrance there should remain, and it is critical to our operation. Yes, if there was a curb cut in the middle it would allow the traffic in and out and we think that is good, but we at least need in at the front if we are going to be in at the front we could go out at the front unless traffic stacks, I understand that if traffic stacks on the future access road coming out that people can't get out if they are right up against Finger Road. Still, I don't think that we should be prohibited from bringing traffic in at that point even after it is developed. Conklin: I am a little frustrated because I thought we had worked it out prior to Subdivision Committee and then we worked it out after Subdivision Committee and then tonight at 7:00 you are opposed to that condition. I thought we worked it out where they could have two ways in and out in the middle of the project to get into the bank. I am just making a statement that apparently we are not communicating very well with each other. We met a couple of times on this and we worked it out twice which I thought was worked out for Subdivision Committee and then again tonight at Planning Commission. Staff is opposed to the three curb cuts, thank you. Estes: Mr. Conklin, I share your frustration as a procedural matter the applicant did not comment or contest this condition of approval until after the motion was made and seconded. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-2.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 33 ADM 02-5.00: Administrative Item (Tanglebriar/Applebury) was submitted by Karen Rose and Dennis Becker for the portion of Applebury Drive that intersects Rockwood Trail. The request is to change the name to Tanglebriar Lane. Estes: The next item on the agenda is an administrative item submitted by Karen Rose and Dennis Becker for the portion of Applebury Drive that intersects Rockwood Trail. The request is to change the name to Tanglebriar Lane. It will be necessary that I recuse on this item and Commissioner Hoffman will chair. Hoffman: Thank you. This administrative item is to again, change the name of Tanglebriar to Applebury. Since it is an administrative item I don't see any conditions of approval but I would like the staff to give us their report and then we will take public comment. Conklin- Members of the Planning Commission, this is an administrative item for a street name change. The City received the street name change request for approximately 300 feet of Applebury Drive to change that to Tanglebriar Lane. The location of the segment is where Applebury Drive intersects with Rockwood Trail. In the approximately 300 feet to the north at the intersection of Applebury Drive and Tanglebriar Lane. We are talking about a 300 foot segment of street currently named Applebury and we are changing it to Tanglebriar. There are three homes that are addressed off this street. A preliminary plat for this subdivision was approved on December 3, 1968. A final plat was approved on May 9, 1969. This segment of Applebury Drive has existed with this name for the last 33 years. The final plat that is recorded over at the county includes the name Applebury Drive partially on this segment. Therefore, I think that is why there is a street sign that states that because it was on the final plat that way. Currently, there are three houses addressed. I did include in your packet some letters of opposition from one of the home owners. The applicant who brought this to our attention has also requested that the spelling of Tanglebrair be corrected to correctly be spelled for the briar part instead of a -I -r to I -a -r. I think that is something that we can probably accomplish here at the city. Also, there is a letter that was handed out this evening by Dwayne Multchin dated February 7th. I want to make sure that you have that. I will not read that into the record. He is concerned that the current situation does cause confusion with regard to police and fire protection getting to Tanglebriar since the street name is Applebury at that intersection of Rockwood. That is all that I have. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Once again, this item after Planning Commission will have to go to City Council for approval. It will be up to the City Council to make that decision. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 34 Hoffman: Thank you Tim. I will take public comment now. Is there anybody that would like to talk to us about this matter? Public Comment: Rose: Good evening, I am Karen Rose I live at 919 Tanglebriar. I am also known as Mrs. Dennis Becker. We have lived in Fayetteville since 1978 and we have seen the confusion this sign has caused because on all of the maps going back to the time that we first moved here, and there are a number of companies, for instance, Rand McNally, Accurate Mapping, L&R Mapping, Seager Map Company, maps that come out of Oklahoma, out of Texas, out of our own state. We couldn't find one that had Applebury as connecting to Rockwood Trail so when people try to find Tanglebriar, if they are using a map, old or new, they pass right past where they should be turning off and they kind of wind around the hill for a while trying to find Tanglebriar and they can't find it. When we called emergency services we found that they also have that confusion. We talked to Kathy Stocker at the Police Central Dispatch and she had Tanglebriar off of Rockwood Trail. If you use Yahoo you find that all of the computers have it that way. I started looking into the maps that the city had and I found a couple of them that had kind of an ambiguous map showing Tanglebriar, I hope you have this one, I included it in the packet to you showing Tanglebriar (this is the assessor's map) stopping right there and Applebury Drive coming up there but this was just kind of unnamed on the Assessor's map. I saw a few others that sort of did the same thing. Checking back with my own documents I found a letter from Jim Blair and another one from the man we bought our lot from. They had Tanglebriar (one word) but when I looked at the street it was spelled Tanglebrair. I thought there must have been something happening at the time that they passed this through the Planning people that maybe they had a correction for the spelling, a correction for Tanglebrair going up and so that is why I decided to challenge it to see exactly how we should spell the name and what that section, that little tiny section should be called. The worst thing that happens, besides people not being able to find us, is the confusion that they have when they do look for Applebury. They are turning on Applebury, they see the street sign, they turn on Applebury but then they miss the sharp right turn going up hill. That is what Applebury does. They continue down Tanglebriar and pretty soon they have to stop because they can't find the big numbers they are looking for. They usually stop and ask somebody where the number is and if they know those people and they are around on the other side. It is confusing for people trying to find Applebury addresses as well as Tanglebriar addresses. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 35 Becker: I am Dennis Becker, let me just say a couple of things. We called, as Karen said, Police Department Central Dispatch and asked what they had at that intersection. They have Tanglebriar connecting to Rockwood Trail. We called the Fire Department and asked what they had at that intersection. They have Tanglebriar connecting to Rockwood Trail. Now we have a condition where we have life threatening situation. Emergency services, police department, fire depaitment depending on the maps that all show Tanglebriar intersecting at Applebury. Something needs to be done. We haven't found one map in use right now that shows Applebury going through. As you head up Rockwood you want to turn on Tanglebriar, good luck, you can't find it. We are putting this before you to see if we can solve it in someway. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address this? Graves: My name is James Graves. I live at 825 Applebury. I am on that little 300 foot section of Applebury. I have written a letter as well. I think they have probably included it in your packet. I am not going to try to stand here, it would be ridiculous for me to suggest not to straighten out an issue with the City's master 911 map. If the maps are wrong then it seems that the maps ought to be what is corrected. As Mr. Conklin pointed out, the street has been named the way it is named now for approximately I would say 30 years or more. If there is confusion, I don't think it would be necessarily if the signage was done properly and the maps were done properly any more confusing than any other street that doesn't intersect with a main road. If you change the 300 foot section of Applebury then Applebury no longer intersects with a main street, it would be intersecting with Tanglebriar. As far as correcting whatever situation there might be there, it could easily be solved by maybe putting a sign where Applebury ends and Tanglebriar starts and correcting whatever issue there is with the city's master 911 map. I know that map could be corrected and fire and emergency services would all have the right information. There are only three houses on that section. One of them is not occupied right now. The owner moved out of the country and so it is for sale. There are only two houses that are actually occupied on that section. What you are putting those four residents in the position of having to do is change every mortgage, every deed, every trust record, every insurance record, everything where that piece of property is listed as an asset, as an insurable piece of property, as a collateral for a loan or what have you, you are going to have to change every single place where that piece of property is listed. It seems to me like the less burdensome thing to do would be to change the signage so it makes more sense there and to correct the 911 maps rather than putting this burden on the people who live there and on a street that has been named the way it is named for Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 36 thirty some odd years. I don't have any issue with the Becker's concern. I think if there was a 911 emergency and there was a mistake there it would be a terrible thing. I just think is there a compelling reason to grant the petition in the form it is in right now? I don't think so You've got all kinds of streets like this and that is just a part of living in the city. You've got for example, College Avenue which turns into Archibald Yell which turns into School Street without any kind of sign other than way over on the side and you can't see it unless you are looking for it. You've got, even on the street that our hospital is on, it is North Street, then you cross Garland and it is Wedington. There is no warning for that. It is just the way that things work out and that is the way that this strange little street is. I wouldn't want to have to go through the time and expense, and maybe I'm being selfish, but I don't want to have to do all that if there is another less burdensome way to do it so I would ask that the petition be denied. Hoffman. Ok, thank you. I am about to close the floor to comment and generally we don't have a discourse between people but if you have one more thing to say then come on up. Rose: Mr. Graves said there were four families involved, we have talked to the Slucericks, They live on the corner of Applebury and Applebury which really would be called Tanglebriar if they kept their Applebury address I was told by Jim Johnson they could do that. That brings you down to three people affected. One is a vacant lot owned by Ellen Gilcrest and I have a letter from her saying she doesn't care one way or the other. It is a vacant lot and she doesn't want to be a part of the argument. She really doesn't care. That leaves two people, it leaves Mr. Graves and it leaves property that is owned by Procter & Gamble. As a corporation they are evidently going to try to sell that piece of property. That is really not a burden to someone that will eventually have to change a lot of records. It will be done hopefully before they move in or buy the property, I just wanted to make that comment Hoffman: Is there anybody else? Seeing nobody else, I will close the public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for comments. Ward: For twenty-five years I have noticed that the street has been misnamed or should've been Tanglebriar. Being in real estate I was always confused of why it was named Applebury turning in there. I personally think it needs to be changed. I don't know if it takes an administrative item from us to change it. Williams: I think you just need to make a recommendation to the City Council because my understanding is that only the City Council can actually change a city street's name. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 37 Motion: Ward: Hoffman: That is right. I am going to go ahead and move that we approve this ADM 02-5.00, send it to the City Council and let them look at it. It really does need to be named Tanglebriar Lane. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, do I have a second? I guess if nobody is going to second it then I will throw in some thoughts here. I too had wondered if the map companies had been contacted. Has anyone tried to call Rand McNally or anybody to see what the procedure is to changing a map. Also, if we could talk to Perry Franklin, our Street Superintendent about making the signage more clear. We also have the situation where you are going down Milsap and it changes to Futrall in the middle of the street. We have a sign that says look out, you are getting ready to go on Milsap or whatever. Would that be possible to do that in this case? Conklin: I have talked to Perry Franklin. Regardless of whether this is approved or not approved, he has agreed to clarify the signage in the area and to make sure that people realize when it does change. With regard to map companies, most maps the street names are probably generated from our maps at City Hall. Just like the census I worked on, most names and everything are done here at the city. I think that part of the problem is that it is such a short segment that trying to fit a street name in, I didn't include those in your packets, but when you are trying to write a street name on that short segment and you have got Tanglebriar, it is always difficult to list every street name, especially on a 300' street at 1:2,000 foot map or something even smaller than that. I think that is part of the problem. Regardless, either way if it is changed, we can change our maps fairly easily and we update the census maps and that information gets to the census and people pull off the census tiger maps to make their maps, it will get updated over time. Hoffman: In essence, we could at this time, without any action go ahead and install more clear signage that would address the concerns of the people that are getting lost and the 911 calls, not have to change all your mortgages, and update the GIS map so when the next editions of the new maps appear then that would be Applebury off Rockwood. Conklin: Yes. I think part of the problem though, just looking at some of those maps and I'm not the expert here on how they make their maps at Rand McNally but when you get to that level of scale and you are trying to include so much, you type Tanglebriar in and it includes the entire block of Tanglebriar just to get it on that map and it spills over to that area. That is part of the problem. Yes, we could make sure that our maps are correct. I am not sure that that is part of the problem is that our street names are Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 38 Marr: incorrect. I think it is more of a labeling issue. The map that I made I had to physically insert that in there and make it fit. If the motion is still out there I am going to second it. I actually drove up there today to take a look at this. I left agenda session on Thursday feeling that I wouldn't support this for some of the reasons that Mr. Graves actually talked about. After going out there today I do think that Tanglebriar seems to be the straight route and when you turn on it you never would know that you were off Tanglebriar if you keep straight which is the way some roads go. I also tried to make some phone calls of people I know that live in the area, just to see if it is one household verses one household issue or is it something that is common in terms of delivery and so forth. I think it is a common problem of people being lost in deliveries and we've seen some of those examples. The thing I struggled with on this is that when does it stop because when I continued on and actually went down the true Applebury and got to the stop sign it appeared to me that the road was Columbus I think it is. According to all of this material we've received, Columbus is only to the left and Applebury continues to the right which I think is another whole issue so where do you stop? I look at this and there is one vacant lot, there is one vacant house that is unoccupied today. We have two other residences. I think that the road appears to be more of Tanglebriar. We are not going to solve every issue but I think this is one that we can so I am going to second the motion. Hoffman: Ok, thanks. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any other discussion? Bunch: I will not be supporting this. I was driving around looking for this location and Rockwood Trail was closed off this afternoon with some emergency vehicles. I went up Assembly Drive trying to get there and I turned to go along Sequoyah and low and behold there were some signs that had arrows on them that said this street goes this way and this street goes this way which it was a very confusing intersection. Also, later when I was driving around looking at some of the other issues we had today I went through some other neighborhoods where streets changed names as you were going down the street. Low and behold there was a sign that says this street ends right here. I looked over my shoulder and there was another sign that says this street begins right here. It seems like there is a fairly simple resolution. There definitely is a problem but it could be done with adequate signage and with some corrections on the map and it would be much less expense to all involved to make the correction in that manner. I can not support this. I would recommend that we not pass this motion and that we come back with another motion to recommend to the Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 39 Allen: City Council that we do it by signage and correct the spelling on the map. We could do it with map corrections and signage. I agree with Commissioner Bunch. I will not be voting for this motion. I think it could be handled through correcting the maps. I think it needs to be done but now that we see that that is going to happen I will not vote for the motion. Hoffman: Tim, I'm not used to these administrative items. Does it take five affirmative votes or just the simple majority? Conklin: The simple majority on this one. Hoffman: We have seven people here so it would take a vote of four? Conklin- Regardless of the recommendation if it passes or it fails, I'm going to send it to the City Council for their decision. Hoffman: Ok, I was going to say that I didn't think we needed to have two votes on it and we would just state our preferences and if it is voted up or down they will have the minutes. Bunch: I do have one question. There is a street light at this intersection as you are approaching the intersection from Rockwood there is a street light on the left, as you are coming from Rockwood, north at this intersection there is a street light on the left and on the right of course, is a normal street sign. Is that street light a private light or is that public property? Does anybody know? Conklin: I was up there today. I don't recall seeing it, is it on a telephone pole? Bunch: It is not like the normal ones. Groves: It is in our yard and as far as I know it is a public right-of-way. It is just a regular tall street light. Bunch: That would be a very good location to put signage if it is public property both there and on the existing street sign. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there anyone else before I call the roll? Marr: I would like to ask Commissioner Ward so that in his motion, whether it passes or fails and goes to City Council that Tanglebriar be spelled correctly as a part of that motion. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 40 Ward: I concur. Hoffman: Thanks. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-5.00 failed by a vote of 5-2-1, with Commissioners Bunch and Marr voting in favor. Commissioner Estes recused. Hoffman: This motion fails on a vote of five to two to one extension. Bunch: Since this motion did fail do we need to make a recommendation or does it speak for itself? Hoffman: It is my understanding that if it is going to the City Council.. . Williams: I think it speaks for itself just like if you didn't recommend for a rezoning. Hoffman: The options are also in the letters in our packets and the minutes will be available to the Council members so we will be able to pass the word on that way. Thanks. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Hoffman for chairing that item. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 41 ADM 01-47.00: Administrative Item (Revision of General Plan 2020) to update census data, the community facilities section: add an annexation policy, and reorganize for easier use) Estes: The next item on the agenda is also an administrative item, it is a revision and reorganization of the General Plan 2020 to update census data, the community facilities section and add an annexation policy and reorganize for easier use. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this revised and reorganized General Plan 2020. Shelli, will you be making the presentation? Rushing: Yes I will. Good evening. I would like to briefly go over some of the changes and the additions to General Plan 2020, just to highlight a few of the things that came out of the census 2000 data as well as some recommended additions or changes. This is a good time to go over the general purpose of our general plan 2020. This has not changed but I do want to go over this. Basically our General Plan establishes long range policies and implementation strategies that will help us manage and guide future growth and development. The time period for the General Plan started in 1995 and lasts through 2020. The plan was adopted in 1995 and was updated in 2000 as required by ordinance. It is required that we update that every five years. The General Plan also provides policies and strategies to be used when changes in land use are proposed, when new developments are being planned or when changes to existing development regulations are being considered. I am going to go over a couple of the reasons of why we are recommending some updates and revisions to the General Plan. Last spring the 2000 census data became available which changed our numbers for population and housing. They showed a significant increase in our population and a couple of trends in housing that we felt like it was important to get into our general plan. Also, when the plan was updated in 2000 the community facilities section was not updated and since we are making the revisions at this time we thought that it would be a good time to go ahead and make those changes at this point. We also have decided that the city wanted to adopt an annexation policy and that including that in the general plan would be the best place to put that policy so we have done that in this revision. Since so many changes were being made we thought it would be a good time to go ahead and reorganize the plan so it would be easier to find information that you are looking for. The outline of the plan has changed. There are two sections. The first is the existing conditions. The second is the plans and policies. Part A is the existing conditions and it includes the setting of an organization, that is the general plan itself, community context, those two sections did not change. The following few sections did: Population characteristics, housing, employment and income and community surfaces and facilities. That section was updated by contacting the various Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 42 depailments and asking them to revise that section of the plan. Planning Constraints and Resources, Circulation Chapters did not change. Part B is the plans and policies and that includes the future land use plan which did not change. All of that information stayed the same. The Master Street Plan which also stayed the same and the Annexation Policy which is a new addition to the General Plan. These have not changed but I wanted to go over them since we are reviewing our General Plan. Some of the principles of the General Plan include creating a sense of place and connectivity within neighborhoods and community, containing and strengthening the emergence of multiple activity centers, enhancing and revitalizing older urban areas, relating the natural and built environments through community design, increasing transportation efficiency, and increasing affordable housing. Let me go over a few of the key findings. I will do that for Population and Housing. First of all, the 2000 population was 58,047 persons, this is an increase of almost 38% from 1990. That is pretty consistent with the trends for the Northwest Arkansas region which includes Washington and Benton counties. The region increased by 47.5% during that same time period. Fayetteville has a median age of 26.9, a median age is calculated by half of the population is under that age the rest of the population is over that age. It is pretty low in comparison to the rest of the region. Washington County has a median age of 30.8 and Benton County has a median age of 35.3. We are pretty consistent with 1990, we have slightly more males than females, that didn't change much over the ten year time period. When you look at ethnic origin, Caucasians continue to represent the largest portion of the population, 86.5% but this percent of total population has decreased during the 1990's. It was over 90% in 1990. A lot of that is due to the increase in the African American population and the Hispanic population. African Americans represent 5.1% of the population of Fayetteville. This number has doubled since 1990. The number of Hispanics has tripled and represents 4.9% of all persons in the city. The 1995 General Plan made projections for population from 1995 to 2020. The projected population for 2,000 was 56,429. This is 1,600 less than what the actual population was so we were off slightly on our projections. We did not change those numbers in the plan though. The projections stay the same as they were in 1995. When we looked at housing we found that the vacancy rate decreased from 10.3 in 1990 to 6.6 in 2000. We find that renter occupied units outnumbered our owner occupied units by over 2000 units. The persons per occupied unit is 2.21 and this is slightly less than the rest of the region. The number of duplex and multi -family units increased at a greater rate than the single family units did. This table just shows you a breakdown of the residential housing types built during the 1990s. You will see that the single family units, we added almost 4,000. Duplex and multi -family units we added approximately 4,300. The percent of single family verses duplex is starting to shift a little bit due to the increase of duplex and multi -family Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 43 construction. The highest building permit activity in the 1990s occurred between 1993 and 1995 when we had approximately 3,400 building permits. During the 1990s 48% of all units built were single family units, 13% were duplex and 39% were multi -family. One of the things that we do when we look at housing is to look at the age of the housing and we found that 1/4 of all dwelling units were built in the 1990s but we also found that 50% of all housing is more than 20 years old in the city. I am going to go over a few findings of employment income. I do want to point out that the 2000 census data for employment and income will be out this spring. The numbers that we are using here are from different sources than the U.S. census. They come from economic surveys that were conducted in 1997 but since we are updating other information we wanted to try to bring this as up to date as best we could. In Fayetteville we find that retail trade accounts for 1/4 of all of the establishments. The largest number of employees are in retail trades as well as manufacturing. Employment in Fayetteville is projected to be at about 45,000 people by the year 2020. The reason we only give you a projection here is because we do not have that actual number from the census yet. Hopefully we will have that this spring. The data that we looked at looks mostly at the metropolitan statistical area which is Benton County and Washington County so we wanted to include some of that information. It might give us an idea of what is going on in the region. The MSA labor force increased by 49,000 employees between 1990 and 2000 which is a 35% increase. The unemployment rate dropped from 3.8 in 1990 to 2.1 in 2000. The per capita personal income was $24,000 which is an increase of almost 52% from 1989. That is just an overview of some of the data that we updated in the General Plan. I wanted to go over the guiding policies and implementation strategies just to refresh your memory with this. Those listed here represent the categories in the Future Land Use Plan except for the last three, which is the Historic District, Environmental Resources and Community Character. None of those categories changed. All of the policies and strategies remained the same. The newest part of the General Plan is the annexation chapter. The purpose of this is to take a proactive approach towards annexations by identifying potential annexation areas and establishing annexation policies and criteria for reviewing annexations. A quick outline of the annexation chapter, we go over the purpose of the chapter, which you just saw. We discuss some history in terms of annexation in the city, identify some guidelines for what would be good to control annexation areas, identify the unincorporated islands and provide those annexation policies which is really the meat of the new chapter. A couple of guidelines when looking at potential annexation areas. They are areas that already urban in character, areas that can be developed at urban densities, needed areas are those that are peninsulas or islands where municipal services have already been extended, vacant lands that are subject to development pressure, areas where urban services are Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 44 already provided or need to be provided. The guiding policies are broken down into categories. The first is the boundaries, the second is the environmentally sensitive areas. Next is how we provide emergency and public services. Infrastructure and utilities to those new areas, establishing some policies for dealing with the county and adjacent cities and how we would administer those annexations. That concludes my presentation, I would be happy to answer any questions. Estes: Thank you Shelli for that very informative presentation. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Hoffman: I just have an observation, and I want to thank you for telling me how many more people are going to be living here by the year 2020. I think that kind of puts a lot of things in perspective for me with regard to how we should be approaching planning and the 2020 plan. Marr: I think we should also make it clear, we actually had this presentation at our planning retreat and had a lot of discussion around these items at this time. I actually think having an annexation policy is a great idea and something that definitely should be in our 2020 plan. I appreciate Shelli and the staff working on that. Estes: Thank you Shelli. I know that involved a lot of work and thank you for your presentation. Conklin: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, I would like to thank Shelli Rushing for doing all this work. This will be very valuable. We get phone calls every week from individuals who are interested in where Fayetteville is at today and in the future with regard to population, our plans and policies. It will be very beneficial. The annexation policy is something that came up last summer and we have developed that and we have researched and looked at what other communities have done with regard to adopting an annexation policy. One interesting note, I would just like to point out is that the unincorporated islands, those areas that are within Fayetteville, completely surrounded by Fayetteville, we currently have a total of eleven of those areas with about 1342 acres. It is very important in a community where we pride ourselves on protecting trees and the environment that we have an ability to regulate these areas that are completely surrounded by Fayetteville because the alternative is stepping over into other communities and other jurisdictions that do not regulate and protect these resources like we do in Fayetteville so that is something that we hope to bring forward in the future once the City Council adopts this annexation policy. Thank you. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 45 Public Comment: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on ADM 01-47, the revision and reorganization of General Plan 2020? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions? Motion: Bunch: I move that we as a Planning Commission approve the revised and reorganized General Plan 2020. Allen: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, we have a second by Commissioner Allen, is that correct? Allen: Yes. Estes: Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-47.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 46 ADM 02-3.00: Administrative Item (Liquor Stores) was submitted by Planning Division for Planning Commission consideration of an ordinance amending Zoning, Chapter 160 of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Fayetteville to remove the use of a liquor store from use unit 16 and allow that use as a conditional use within the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, while remaining a permitted use by right in the C-2, C-3 and C-4 districts. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number 8, this is submitted by the Planning Division for Planning Commission consideration of an ordinance amending Zoning Chapter 160 of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Fayetteville to remove the use of a liquor store from use unit 16 and allow that use as a conditional use within the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, while remaining a permitted use by right in the C-2, C-3 and C-4 districts. This item was first proposed by Commissioner Marr at a regularly scheduled meeting of this Commission and is now before us for our consideration. Mr. Conklin, is there any presentation? Conklin- Yes, I will briefly go over the proposed changes to our zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission, on January 14`h , did pass a resolution directing staff to work with our City Attorney's office to propose an amended ordinance to amend our zoning district to allow liquor stores as a conditional use in a C-1 zoning district. We have attached those minutes for your reference as a part of this packet. This amendment would create a new use unit which would create the liquor store use unit and would define what a liquor store is. Use Unit 16, which currently has the liquor store term in there, would be amended to remove liquor store as a permitted use under that use unit. The description of the C-1 zoning district would be amended to include the new use unit 34 which is our liquor store use unit as a use allowable on appeal to the Planning Commission. That means that by doing this amendment an individual in a C-1 zoned property could apply for a conditional use which would be brought before the Planning Commission for approval. The descriptions in the C-2, C-3, C-4 zoning districts would have to be amended to include use unit 34 within those districts. Those zoning districts and that use unit 34 would replace the unit 16 once that is removed. There would be no change within those zoning districts other than to make sure that use unit 34 appears within those zoning districts. That is the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. It takes a little work to change the use unit and the different zoning districts so that is why it is kind of detailed. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to try to answer them. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 47 Public Comment: Estes: Motion: Marr: Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on ADM 02-3.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions, or any questions of Mr. Conklin. I would like to thank staff for drafting this proposed ordinance to be forwarded to the City Council. As we talked about earlier, I think it is important that we have this as an option and not have the requirement of a C-2 zoning which would allow uses that may otherwise be inappropriate. I would like to move for approval of ADM 02-3.00 to forward to the City Council. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve ADM 02-3.00 and to forward to the full City Council the recommended ordinance change, is there a second? Hoffman: I will second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman, is there any discussion? Williams: Mr. Chairman, my only discussion is I think you will approve this and I would encourage members of the Commission to appear before the City Council when this does come to the City Council so you can advise them why you recommend such a change. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 02-3.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 48 ADM 02-6.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Public Library, pp 523) was submitted by Kip Guthrie of Garver Engineers on behalf of the Fayetteville Public Library for property located at the southwest corner of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The request is for a waiver form § 169.06(D)(1) of the grading ordinance to not require terracing for an earth cut of greater than 10' in height. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number nine. This is also an administrative item, 02-6.00. It is submitted by Kip Guthrie of Garver Engineers on behalf of the Fayetteville Public Library for property located at the southwest corner of Mountain Street and School Avenue. The request before you this evening is for a waiver from §169.06(D)(1) of the grading ordinance to not require terracing for an earth cut of greater than 10' in height. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. Those conditions are 1) Handrails shall be installed along the retaining wall that meets the SBBC and AASHTO requirements. 2) The retaining wall shall be designed and inspected by a registered professional engineer. As built drawings and a certification shall be required to be provided upon completion. Are there any other conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: There are no other conditions of approval. Estes: Is the applicant or the applicants' representative present? Guthrie: Yes Sir. Estes: Would you tell your name and if you have a presentation provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Guthrie: Ok. Planning Commission, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with you tonight on behalf of the Fayetteville Public Library Board and the Fayetteville library design team, which I am a member. I represent Garver Engineers. I want to first express my apologies if there was anything in this packet or letter that caught you by surprise. One of the main objectives of the Library Board is to always be up front and to inform the public of all of he decisions that we've made. That was not our intent at all if you were taken by surprise by any of the contents of this letter. I want to take a few minutes to take you on a brief history, I will make it brief, and then I will open it up for questions. First of all, you may or may not notice, but the person who stood before you before representing Garver Engineers, his name was David Norman. David Norman is no longer with our company. He has opted to be in the flat lands of west Texas selling bleachers for some unknown reason. Why he left Fayetteville I don't know. My name is Kip Guthrie and I am representing Garver Engineers and I have taken over in the absence of Mr. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 49 Norman and I was the one who signed this letter and submitted it to you for your approval. At the beginning of this project there have been numerous public meetings throughout the course of this project, dating years and years back. We've invited the publics' input on many, many occasions. One of the items that came up obviously was tree preservation and how we were going to preserve the trees on the site that would best allow for the library that has been proposed. Through numerous conversations that we've had and many public meetings and some discussions that we've had with Ms. Hesse of the City of Fayetteville, it was decided upon that the trees on the southeast corner of the lot were to be saved. There were some larger trees on the southwest corner of the site that were a part of the negotiations, if you will, that they were going to be removed along with a very tall retaining wall which would improve the site distance at the intersection of Rock and West Street. Through this whole process and through the process of involving the city and the residence of the city of Fayetteville, the trees in the southeast corner were designated to remain. Through the large scale development process we identified on our plans that there would be one particular wall and it would be one particular wall that would extend in height past the right-of-way as you approach into the library site, not adjacent to the sidewalk, not within the right-of-way but as we progress into the site. If you have been to the site it is a very steep site and there are some existing retaining walls now. In order to proceed with the design that has been approved by the Library Board Commission and what we've shown in our large scale development and to adhere to the request made by Kim Hesse to preserve certain trees, we have one retaining wall and it is one particular part of one retaining wall. On the south side of the library it is away from the main entrance of the library. To insure that no grading will take place around or near these trees that have been designated to remain, that particular wall needs to extend up vertically and follow the grade of the existing ground. What we are proposing is for that particular wall just to be about 4" to 5" above the existing grade as we go up this steep hill. As we go up this area that we are preserving these particular trees. We are limiting the wall height every way we can. We understand that the wall height is tall, it adds cost to the project, we understand all of those deals but to preserve these trees and to adhere to the no grading ordinance within the tree preservation drip line this wall needs to proceed quickly up a steep slope to match the existing grades. There are a couple of different things that I want to bring to your attention that I know wasn't clear in the packet. The library will have extensive landscaping. There will not be any part of the library that will need mowing. There won't be mowers maintaining the library site at all. It will be heavily landscaped all over. In the area that you see in your packet in the kind of clouded shape wall and it is just labeled the area described in the letter. In this particular area... Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 50 Conklin- Excuse me, Kip, if you could because the maps or the site plans are not very illustrated to show where this is at. Could you walk by the Commissioners and show them exactly the location that we're talking about? Guthrie: Does everybody have this? Petrie: It should be sheet 9.4. Guthrie: Ok, the area that I'm describing is this clouded area right here. The area described in the letter is this clouded area. It is kind of an odd shape. Hoffman: Have you not changed your elevations on this plan yet? Guthrie: Yes. Hoffman: You have changed them? I am seeing a 4' tall retaining wall. Guthrie: I will explain that. The area that I'm describing will be heavily landscaped. It will be landscaped with day lilies, azaleas and shrubs. To paint a visual picture, if you are in Razorback stadium and you look to the north and to the west there is that big grassy hill right there where a lot of kids play on during the games and people sit and watch the games, that is not what this is. It is not a grassy slope that people are going to be picnicking on and people are going to be seeing. I mean people will see it but they won't be able to have access to it. What you see in this plan is to the right of the area that is hatched all of these areas are areas that are concrete and sidewalk, they are places for people to come and enjoy and stand and look at all the landscaping and the trees that we are preserving, it is not for pedestrians to walk in this area at all. We are limiting access to this area by the landscaping and the shrubs and by not allowing any grading in this area, that is why we have got to the point that we are. Ms. Hoffman, you did point out that there is a 4' tall retaining wall right there. That is correct. When you are walking along the north side of Rock Street, that particular retaining wall will vary in height, depending on the slopes that we need with the ground behind it. For example, in that particular case back behind there the existing ground might be an elevation 1339 or 1340. At the top of the retaining wall and the sidewalk is 1336.5, that retaining wall is going to be about 4' tall. As you are walking along the northern side of Rock Street and you progress walking towards the west and you come around that handicap access ramp that is designated right there that runs east and west, as you round that corner and you go back to the backside of the library which is where the loading dock is and where the recycling bins are and where the trash dumpster is Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 51 located, that is the area designated by the contours that the ground starts to go up. Hoffman: So that will be 17' tall? Guthrie: At the very top of the apex at right where it connects to the building, yes Ma'am, you are correct. Hoffman: Ok, so how tall is it going to be at the intersection of the driveway on Rock Street? I ask that just so that we can know what the sight distance is and if there would be any problem with site distance. I will ask you that question and then I will ask staff if they have been able to review the plan and have somebody take a look at the trucks or cars exiting that driveway to see if it is a safety problem. Guthrie: The retaining wall at that particular location is approximately 6-7'. That handicap ramp is where we start to increase our height significantly to insure no grading around the existing trees. Hoffman: Thanks. Public Comment: Estes: Kip, thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion and questions of Kip or motions. Mr. Petrie, I have a question. This is a request for a waiver from our grading ordinance and it involves an earth cut. If it was a stone cut or something different from an earth cut would the same waiver request be before us? Petrie: No Sir. Estes: Could you explain that to us and give us some background on what we are dealing with and why? Petrie: Sure. The grading ordinance allows, if you are dealing with a cut in a solid rock formation, like you see around the mall behind the shoe store and that area, that allows for a 30' straight vertical cut. If you are dealing with a fill situation and you have a retaining wall there are no requirements for terracing unless you have a running slope over 100 feet. There is no vertical foot requirement. The only requirement is on a cut situation. I was just discussing this with Jim Beavers, the City Engineer. He tells me that this was put in there for aesthetics only. The handrail requirements are placed to handle the public safety. That is why you have Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 52 Estes: got the 30' vertical cut limit and the no requirement on the fill. It is only for aesthetics is the reason this was added to the ordinance. This was added as a part of the modifications in the 1998 modifications when the ordinance was changed. I hope I answered your question. Yes you did. Thank you. Kip, what is different now than when we first saw this? Why is there the change and the requested waiver? Why didn't we see this on the plans that we first approved? Guthrie: Let me answer the first question. The difference now than before is that in the initial plans we had shown some grading to take place around these trees, which was still going to require a wall of 14' in height. That would still require a waiver. At that particular time, if these trees were not to be saved then terracing the wall would have been a much more feasible option because obviously a footing on any retaining wall has to extend to the back and to the front. The way the ordinance reads we would need a certain amount of greenspace in there. To do that we would be encroaching upon the trees that we are saving now. What you saw originally had proposed a 14' retaining wall with some grading. What we are proposing now is a taller wall and adhering to Ms. Hesse's request of preserving these trees and no grading in this area. Estes: Thank you Kip. Marr: Exactly how many trees are being saved by not terracing this place? Guthrie: There are three trees that are in immediate danger by not terracing this. There are two 10" hackberry trees and a 28" oak tree. Ward: Tim, on where that retaining wall is if someone is moving there will that provide some kind of problem as far as visibility? That is the only thing I have a problem with. Can you tell if that is going to be a blind coming out of there? That is a 6' tall wall; it looks like it is going to cause some problems. Petrie: 1 think the potential is there for that case. I should just remind the Commission that.. . Ward: Is there anything that we can do about that to help that from being such a tough drive to come out of? Petrie: I think we will run into the same situation of scooting the retaining wall back into the trees, it will have to be taller. That portion has already been approved by the previous Planning Commission action. It does meet the Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 53 regulations so it is kind of hard to tell you that something can be changed. If it can then it will have to be on a volunteer basis by the library. Ward: Ok, that is all I had. Estes: Are there any other questions, discussions or motions? Marr: Mr. Chair, I am just going to make sure that I'm clear that this section at the top of this wall has no pedestrian access so we wouldn't have some small child visiting from a school standing anywhere near the top of this wall or having access to it at the point of which it is 17'. Guthrie: That is correct. There will also be a safety rail at the top of this wall. At some point there will be a gardener in there to maintain the day lilies, the shrubs, the things that are actually planted there. There will be a safety rail at the top of this wall protecting anyone who is remotely in that area but this area will not be accessible to children. It will be heavily landscaped and it will not be grass. Bunch: A question for staff. Do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: On this item? This is our item, yes. Bunch: But has the applicant agreed with conditions one and two for the retaining wall and the handrail? Conklin: Yes, we agree with our conditions. As the City of Fayetteville we will comply with our conditions, yes. Motion: Bunch: I move that we approve ADM 02-6.00. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve ADM 02-6.00, is there a second? Church: I have one more question. You mentioned the area will not have pedestrian traffic? Guthrie: Yes Ma'am. Church: Are you using landscaping as a means to keep that from happening because having worked in a public place, I know that landscaping doesn't keep the public out of those areas. I am just wondering is that all that you are relying upon to keep that being a safe place or are there other means? You mentioned a safety rail, are there other means for doing that? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 54 Guthrie: I am going to defer that to Jim Foster, the architect. He is much more familiar with those types of detail. Foster: That is a good question. Indeed, children can wonder into a landscaped area where we didn't intend them to go and that is the purpose of having a safety rail as the ultimate barrier to make sure that they don't fall over the edge. Church: Thank you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve ADM 02-6.00, is there a second? Hoover: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoover, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-6.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Thank you. Guthrie: Thank you for your time Sir. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 55 ADM 02-4.00: Administrative Item (Rough Proportionality) was submitted by Kit Williams, City Attorney for an ordinance to amend Chapter 155 of the Unified Development Ordinance to add an appeal right to the Planning Commission. Estes: The next item is item number ten. This is an administrative item, this is submitted by Mr. Kit Williams, our City Attorney for an ordinance to amend Chapter 155 of the Unified Development Ordinance to add an appeal right to the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams, do you have any discussion or comments that you would like to make in support of this administrative item? Williams: Yes Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, as you are well aware, we have looked at the issue of rough proportionality and the requirements of the Supreme Court has made upon any government entity, especially Planning Commissions and City Councils. I think that in reviewing the Unified Development Ordinance that this would be a good addition to the Unified Development Ordinance to give an appeal right to anyone that feels like they have been aggrieved by dedications beyond the rough proportionality of the impact that their development has caused on the city and its infrastructure. They would then be able to appeal that to this body and you would be able to give the individualized determination that is called for by the Supreme Court. In fact, let me just quote one sentence from the Supreme Court, it says that "No precise mathematical calculation is required but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." By having such an appeal ordinance here, even though it might increase your work load a little bit, it insures that our entire Unified Development Ordinance will not be unconstitutional and in fact will be constitutional. I would recommend that you do recommend this to the City Council. Estes: Marr: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide comment on ADM 02-4.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. I have a question for Kit. In Section 2 page 10.4, it talks about making this retroactive to March, 2001. I am just curious of why we picked that date and what the basis for it. Williams: The primary basis is that was approximately the time, I actually think it was April of last year, that the current sidewalk ordinance was changed to require a dedication of money in some circumstances when the Sidewalk Administrator felt that a sidewalk was unfeasible and practically built on that particular location. It is my understanding that there are a couple of different situations in which a fairly large amount of money was required Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 56 Estes: of the home builder and I think that it is only fair to allow a home builder in that situation to come forward to this Planning Commission if they feel like they are aggrieved or that this was beyond the rough proportionality of the impact that building their house caused on our sidewalks. I am aware of one particular situation where it was more than $4,000. That is one thing that caused me to begin to look at the constitutional law when I saw how that sidewalk ordinance was working I felt that was, the person that was charged that much probably had a reasonable gripe and should be able to be heard by the Planning Commission and then let the Planning Commission, with this new ordinance, would be able to vary or modify that dedication requirement so that it would be within the rough proportionality that we are allowed under the Constitution. The reason that I made it retroactive for that is that is when the sidewalk ordinance was changed and we started receiving money at that time. Mr. Williams, I thank you for the time and attention that you have given this ordinance. Anytime that there is administrative, administarial, or legislative action and there is no avenue for an aggrieved party to make an appeal from that action it is constitutionally suspect and I think that you have certainly taken a step in the right direction to attempt to correct that. I do have one suggestion. In part A, the third line up from the bottom that begins "Building permit, lot split..." Do you see that? Williams: Ok, I see that. Estes: If that would read "Building permit, lot split, other development permit or otherwise." Then it would be inclusive of any administrative or administarial action and would also include legislative action. Williams: That is fine. We were obviously trying to cover every possibility in that and I don't have any problem making that change to recommend that to the City Council. Bunch: A question for Mr. Williams. Is an appeal from a Planning Commission decision included in this or is it in some other portion of our city ordinances? It does not appear to speak to that issue. Williams: I did not include any specific thing in there. It is within the appeals section that already have appeals going to the Planning Commission from various different findings. As you see, this is D5, there is also D4. I did not cover what would happen at that point in time. We could take a look at the U.D.O. and that would tell us. I basically left it the same as almost any appeal that goes to the Planning Commission. Most of the time it does not go further to the City Council. I think this would probably also be that same case that it would in fact, at this point, on your decision it Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 57 would go to circuit court if someone still disagreed with you. I will confirm that before it goes to City Council. Bunch: Primarily my question was to see what the appeal process would be subsequent to a hearing by the Planning Commission whether it would go to Circuit Court or to City Council. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Motion: Marr: I would like to move for approval of ADM 02-4.00 with the change on section A the third line from the bottom, with your comment of adding "or otherwise," and that be what we forward to the City Council. Ward: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Ward to forward to the City Council the recommended ordinance to amend Chapter 155 of the Unified Development Ordinance to add an appeal right to the Planning Commission. Is there any discussion? Hoffman: I have a couple of questions. I see the wording that "No precise mathematical calculation is required." It appears to me that we will be hearing appeals for not only sidewalks but perhaps road and water and sewer improvements and everything and it is my understanding that we do have a standardized construction fee schedule that we use when we determine what those offsite improvements are to be. I guess we should also include parks or anything that is charged money for private development. Would it be possible to publish that as a policy list to aid the Planning Commission in making determinations when we eventually would be hearing appeals under this ordinance? Williams: I would recommend that you not do that but instead hear it on an individualized basis. It is very difficult to come up with any set figure and I think that every piece of land and every development is going to be somewhat different and I think to some extent you will begin to place yourself in a straight jacket if you get too detailed on this and you might not be able to consider every factor. At this point I would certainly not recommend that. However, if the appeals come before you, you could rely on the staff to give their recommendations and analysis from the previous determinations. As you are aware, we do have impact fee consultants who are working with the city potentially designing ordinances, although none has been done yet and I think the staff will have a great deal of expertise in this area if the appeals come before you. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 58 Hoffman: I understand that. Really what I'm talking about now is what we normally charge a developer for half a street when they have a property abutting a proposed Master Street Plan street or something like that. We generally assess based on a known quantity. Williams: I think generally we actually require them to build that half of the street do we not Tim? Conklin- That is correct. With regard to all of our offsite improvements that we assess on new development, we always give their engineer and the applicant the ability to calculate what they think their rough proportionality is, their impact of their development and most of the time they don't challenge our recommendation to the commission but once in a while we do have an engineer that will do their own calculations with regard to calculating what they think their fair share of the improvements is. Mr. Chairman and the Commission, I would like to make sure that the Commission understands and the public that is watching and the City Council, maybe even Kit, I am going to put you on the spot here but can you explain the term rough proportionality. It is in your memo on 10.2, to make sure that we understand it is not a set up formula. Williams: That is true. That is one reason I requested that we not have a formula. The Supreme Court actually came up with that term `rough proportionality' some other courts had used the term 'a reasonable relationship' but since that term had been used in another context, they thought that would be confusing so they came up with this term `rough proportionality' but they are talking about the relationship between the dedications required and the impact of the development on the community's infrastructure. How much this particular development, whatever it may be, building a house, building a shopping center, etc., what kind of impact that had on the community's other infrastructure. Some things, like when you approve a subdivision that has internal streets and things like that, obviously you wouldn't need any of those streets or any of those sidewalks unless that subdivision was being built so there is no question that that is within the rough proportionality of that impact of the development. It is only when you don't have such a massive development. For example, when you have a single house being built in an infill lot or something like that where there is a question about how much of an impact that single house is having. That is where I think that appeals will come to you. Hoffman: The reason that I asked that is because we have quantified that number and I'm trying to make sure that we don't set ourselves up to arbitrarily assign rough proportionality on just a whim. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 59 Williams: I surely hope that this Planning Commission will not arbitrarily decide anything or just use a whim but instead rely upon recommendations from the staff and also evidence presented to you by the petitioners who come up to you and say, "This is too much money." Hoffman: Ok, thank you on that. I have two housekeeping items. In item A, I think on sight and off sight should be spelled s -I -t -e. Williams: I think you are probably right on that. Hoffman: In Section 2, since this ordinance is proposed for any onsite or offsite improvements, not just sidewalks, should section 2 have similar wording so that an aggrieved party can protect that? Williams: This is just the retroactive part. City Council and you can decide what you want to do but I would recommend it only on the items that really brought the attention of the City Council and Planning Commission and my office, which was the requirement to pay money in lieu of having sidewalks built. I think it would be preferable to make it retroactive only to that case. Most ordinances or most ordinances are not actually retroactive. It is only when there should be a good reason to make them retroactive and I think this is a particularly good reason for those particular individuals that were affected by that recent change with the sidewalks. Hoffman: We haven't had any complaints on anything else like parks or anything else that this ordinance would cover? Williams: No. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr. Commissioner Marr, do you accept the amendments suggested by Commissioner Hoffman? Marr: Absolutely. Estes: Does the second, Commissioner Ward, accept those amendments? Ward: Definitely. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Ward, Commissioner Bunch, did you have a comment or a question? Bunch: Yes. In the accompanying letter Mr. Williams mentions eliminating reference to lot splits in the current sidewalk ordinance, do we need to Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 60 address that as a separate issue? There is no proposed ordinance that reflects that even though the recommendation is there. Williams: Ok, I think that will be the next administrative item when you are going to look at the proposal for the sidewalk ordinance which is the next administrative item and not on this one. Bunch: In voting on this we would be simply limited to what is on page 10.3 and 10.4 in our packet with the amendments? Williams: That is correct. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 02-4.00 for an ordinance to amend Chapter 155 of the Unified Development Ordinance to add an appeal right to the Planning Commission. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-4.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 61 ADM 01-36.00: Administrative Item (Fee in Lieu of Construction of Sidewalk) was submitted by Kit Williams, City Attorney to revise the calculation method for determining the fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks for a single-family lot, duplex lot or lot split. The amendment also adds a list of factors for the Sidewalk Administrator to review when considering waivers for the construction of sidewalks. Estes: The next item on the agenda is an item of old business, which was originally contained as item number one in your packet that was distributed at agenda session last Thursday. It is an administrative item, an amendment to §171.12 regarding contribution of fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks to revise the calculation method for determining the fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks for a single family lot, duplex lot or lot split. The amendment also adds a list of factors for the Sidewalk Administrator to review when considering waivers for the construction of sidewalks. Mr. Williams, do you have any comments that you would like to make regarding this administrative item? Williams: The only comments I made were basically held in my memo where I said I believe that if we simply modify the current sidewalk ordinance, which was approved on May 1s` of 2000. It passed by the City Council and had gone through a lot of study and readings by the City Council, Sidewalk and Trails Committee, which included both council members and private citizens. That is a committee established by the City Council that continues to meet. In fact, we will meet this week. I think that if we look at the ordinance that was passed there and we strike through only the reference to lot splits, which is only in two places in that ordinance and with the adoption of the appeal right to you for this rough proportionality, I think that the constitutional problems I had with this ordinance will probably be resolved and we can avoid having to do such a major rewrite. I certainly appreciate the Planning Commission's long and hard work on that. That subcommittee that worked on this and studied other city's ordinances, my recommendation would be that we don't go through such a major rewrite and send it back to the City Council. I would simply suggest that with a lot split, that is not enough of an impact, there is almost no development, there is just a line on a piece of paper. Therefore, I don't think we should require a fee for that. Beyond that, I think that any other problems that individuals may have could be resolved by appealing to the Planning Commission and having you view what is best from a rough proportionality idea. Part of the things that you came up with in this proposed sidewalk plan that came out of your subdivision certainly can be looked at and used and weighed when an appeal comes before you. I think that there was a lot of good work done on that, a lot of good thinking on how you would go about it and some of your proposal on how to change the amount that might be charged a single-family infill lot. I think it is very appropriate when an appeal might come before you. I would Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 62 Estes: Rutherford: Estes: Varvil: recommend though that you save your information and your research and everything and apply it then when an appeal comes before you rather than recommend to the City Council that we make such a major change and trying to codify all of these different factors that you found. Of course, that is your recommendation one-way or the other to the City Council. Thank you Mr. Williams The persons who served on that committee were Commissioner Hoffman, Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Bunch together with Mr. Williams and Chuck Rutherford, our Sidewalk Administrator. I know that there were many meetings that lasted for quite a while. I want to thank each of you on behalf of the Commission, for your contribution. Mr. Rutherford, is there anything that you would like to say? I don't have anything to add. Ok. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this administrative item? If you would please come forward, give us your name, address and benefit of your comments. I know you have waited a long time for this. I am Nancy Varvil and I built the house on 531 E. Rock Street that I paid the $4,212 to not have sidewalks around my house. I don't quite understand what has just now happened but I am trying very hard to understand. I just will read what I wanted to say, it may not even relate to what you guys are doing up here. Last year when the city determined that I don't need sidewalks on the little under lot where I built my house the City Planning staff determined that I had to pay the $4,212 in lieu of sidewalks. I did, even though it seemed like a lot. When I began to check out if that is a legally defensible amount to pay I discovered that under the constitution when citizens pay fees to governments, like Kit was saying, they are supposed to receive a benefit roughly proportional to the amount of the payment. I am sure that I, or the people who may live in my house after I do, will not receive $4,212 worth of use of sidewalks elsewhere in the city. I do think I should have to pay a fee for my use in the city since I built another house and people are going to be using those sidewalks that live in that house. I came to urge you to pass some sort of change in the existing ordinance that relates the amount of the fee to the amount of impact that people who live in the house will have on the sidewalks. I know that is a really hard thing to figure out. How much impact somebody is going to have that lives in a house on the other sidewalks that are in the city but that is what the constitution says and I also don't think it is fair that people like me that are shy and trembled should have to come and ask for you to enforce the Constitution on our behalf each time we don't fit into the categories that the city makes up for us. In other words, Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 63 Estes: the city's laws should already deflect what the Constitution says. I shouldn't have to come and ask for those rights under the Constitution. Let me be responsive to what I think your two questions are. Simply stated they are: What are we up to this evening and what have we done? The previous item that we discussed was the appeal ordinance. In section 2 there is a specific provision that reads retroactive to March of 2001 for any person aggrieved by a requirement to pay money in lieu of construction of a sidewalk, that is you. Varvil: That would be me. I understand that I am going to have the chance to appeal. Estes: We have forwarded that to the City Council and with their good judgment they will do whatever they please with that recommendation but that is out of here and that is on the way to the City Council. Varvil: Ok. Estes: The second item, which is the one now before us, is to amend the calculation method for determining the fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks for a single family lot, duplex lot or lot split to correct the issue that you have so well articulated and just addressed. If the City Council is sympathetic to our recommendation under the appeal ordinance, you are taken care of. Varvil: That means that I will have to come again and say this to somebody? To you guys? Estes: No. You can say to whatever you want to whomever you please. Varvil: I have to appeal it. Estes: Yes, but there is a specific provision in the ordinance that we just referred to the City Council to take care of your appeal. Varvil: Not in front of people though, is that right? Estes: Pardon me? Varvil: Does everybody have to come in front of people to make that appeal? Williams: You just have to come forward and say that you think that the City is charging you too much and you would ask the Planning Commission to assess a lower amount. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 64 Varvil: Ok, I don't think that is fair but that is all I have to say. Estes: Is there any other member of the public that wishes to provide public comment on this administrative item? Yes Ma'am. Cheevers: I am Heather Cheevers. I don't have an address in Fayetteville yet. About a year and a half ago my husband and I bought some property, it is about eight acres on Skelton Road. Some of you probably know where that is. It is at the end of that road that goes up a steep hill. Mr. Rutherford has been keeping me very informed and we have not started building yet. We are waiting to see where this sidewalk ordinance is going to go because to us, the amount which is adding up to about $4,500, is really not going to fit into our budget. Most people do have a budget when they go to build a house. I think that is too much. I understand when somebody is going in and subdividing property. You can have them build sidewalks and all of that, but it would be more feasible but on an established road like this is, where most of the houses have been there for many, many years. Somebody new is going in and when you are talking about this much money I just don't think that that is right. I know I read in the paper one day last week that the Planning Commission thought of taking the minimum width that your lot would have to be on a certain road and saying that that's the most that you are going to have to pay. What happened with that? Estes: Mr. Conklin, can you respond to that? Cheevers: That would set out the rules right there so you would know when you go get your building permit I am going to be out this much money at the most. Conklin: Yes. That ordinance is in their packets from the subcommittee. It does set the maximum distance based on the minimum lot width you would have to have under zoning. Cheevers: Ok, but say that I have approximately 380'of frontage right now. Conklin: Your property is zoned R-1, the minimum is 70' times $3.00 a square foot. Williams: That is still in front of the Planning Commission for their consideration. Cheevers: That is not part of either of these two items that you've been talking about tonight? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 65 Conklin- Mr. Chairman, I apologize because I am struggling here too. The Planning Commission did form a subcommittee and they did propose an ordinance and that is in the packet. I believe that that is what you are considering this evening is what is in your packet with the proposed ordinance. That is in there. Cheevers: You are considering a set amount to where we don't have to come and appeal? Conklin- Yes. It would reduce the amount. So it would be $840. Cheevers: Ok. I did read about that last week and I did talk to Mr. Bunch one night this week and he had mentioned that, setting a minimum. Conklin: Mr. Chair, if you would allow Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner, she could go over this proposed ordinance for the Commission and the public's benefit since we haven't really discussed what the changes are from the subcommittee. Estes: Alright, we will do that in just a moment. Do you have anything ese? Cheevers: Nothing other than that. I just want to enforce that I think there needs to be a maximum amount of money that is going to come out of someone's pocket for someone in a situation like myself or the lady that spoke before me. When you do have that amount of road frontage to deal with, especially on a road like that, like I said, there are two sidewalks on that road right now and I really don't see how it is a benefit to me or my family to pay that amount of money for something that we will never see because it is not guaranteed that it would be necessarily used on our road, is that correct? Estes: Under the present ordinance, that is correct. Cheevers: That is basically what I wanted to say because we are waiting to start our house to find out where this is all going to lead. You know, because once we get that building permit I guess and start with our house, we will be expected to pay before we do move in and I think that needs to be a set amount. Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions, and comments. I will ask that Mrs. Shelli Rushing come forward and give us the benefit of her presentation. Before you do that Shelli, I have a question. There are two marked ordinances in our packet and one starts at page 1.3 and the Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 66 other at 1.9. Could you please edify us and tell us what we have here and why we have two marked copies? Rushing: Yes. The one on page 1.3 is the ordinance proposed by the subcommittee. That is the one that is being proposed tonight. The other copies in here are from previous correspondence from our City Attorney and some proposed ordinances. I don't believe that you are recommending those ordinances at this time? Williams: I think that we could probably simply amend the current ordinance that we have right now by removing the lot splits with this new appeal procedure. Even though, I do share some of the concerns of the petitioners about having to come up and make an appeal. That is why originally, I felt that we should exempt homes built on a single family lot and duplexes as well as lot splits. However, in light of the Planning Commission's subcommittees' desires on this, I felt like we could work a compromise out and give everyone an appeal process. Hoffman. Mr. Chair, before Shelli starts I just wanted to respond to Mr. Williams The subcommittee worked on the ordinance with the idea in mind that the situation would not occur for these people because the fees would never have been $4,000. They would just be based on the impact of a single family dwelling in the R-1 zoning, or whatever zoning was proposed. Although these two properties came about before any change to the sidewalk ordinance, if what the subcommittee has proposed passes, that will prevent that and I think the property owner would be faced with paying a maximum of something like an $800 fee instead of a $4,000 fee. That is eliminating a lot of any necessity for appeal on these sidewalks. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Hoffman. Shelli, do you want to continue with your presentation? Rushing: Sure. Let me just briefly go over, on page 1.3, quite a bit of it has already been covered tonight. This is the ordinance that the subcommittee is proposing. The major changes here are under A .2A, they are recommending a calculation method for the fee for all development except for single family lot, duplex lot, and lot splits to be as it was in the previous ordinance which is $3.00 per sq.ft. of the sidewalk that normally would've been required to be constructed there. The proposed change is that for single family lots, duplex lots, and lot splits the cash contribution in lieu of construction would be at the rate of $3.00 per sq.ft. and the square feet should be decided by multiplying the sidewalk width by the minimum street frontage for the use as set forth in the zoning regulation. The subcommittee is also proposing on page 1.4, to include factors for the Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 67 Estes: Sidewalk Administrator to use when reviewing a request for a waiver. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you Shelli. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mrs. Rushing before she leaves the lectern? Thank you. Mr. Williams, I have a question. On number three, the Sidewalk Administrator shall grant the waiver, is that a good idea or do we want that to read that the Sidewalk Administrator may grant the waiver? Williams: I wondered about that language myself'. I actually did not participate in the direct drafting of this ordinance, so whatever the Planning Commission desires on that, but I would agree with the Chair's suggestion on that. Estes: The administrative item is now before the Commission for discussions, comments or motions. Motion: Marr: Mr. Chair, I too would like to thank the subcommittee and our City Attorney, Mr. Williams for drafting this. I do think it is important and I appreciate your comments that our two citizens had tonight. I do think it is important though, that just because you build a single-family residence doesn't mean you don't have an impact on this city when it comes to sidewalks. Children walk on them to school. Downtown there is a lot of usage. I am certainly supportive of having an ordinance to have a homebuilder pay no more than their impact. In terms of budgeting for a home I think it is important that citizens understand that there is a cost when doing that and that they will need to plan on that. With the change that you made on changing shall to may, I would like to move for approval of ADM 01-36.00 to forward it to the City Council as drafted by our city legal staff and the Planning Division. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve ADM 01-36, is there a second? Hoffman: I'll second. Estes: Is there any discussion? Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: At this time I would like to thank Ms. Shelli Rushing for the work that she did on this and for gathering information that we requested all over the country and going back several different times and continued to satisfy our questions and needs and I would like to thank you very much. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 68 Estes: Marr: Estes: Rutherford: Marr: Rutherford: Conklin: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve ADM 01-36 to forward the proposed ordinance to the full City Council for its determination, is there any other discussion? Mr. Chair, I just have one more question. This is actually probably a separate item but is there a Master Sidewalk Plan? The reason I asked that is as a Commissioner, when we are going to be asked to look at the impact of a home builder and whether that sidewalk is appropriate, certainly one of the things to me would be whether there is ever planning to be a sidewalk on the road that the lady talked about or whether there never will be. I am just interested to know if we have one. If we do have one, where is it? How can we use that in the future when we get these kinds of requests? Mr. Rutherford, would you like to answer that one? Our current Master Sidewalk Plan is our Master Street Plan. They go hand in hand. On our Master Street Plan anywhere you see in the city in the bottom left hand comer gives you the right-of-way width, the cross section of the street width, the greenspace that is required, the sidewalk width for each and every street in the city of Fayetteville. My concem with that or the difficulty I have in using that as a tool is for instance, this road that she just talked about, it is on our Master Street Plan but it doesn't have sidewalks. Is it a plan that is going to have them eventually? How is that determination made if our Sidewalk Plan is the same as our street plan? The current Master Street Plan was developed in 1996, which gives the sidewalk and the greenspace width, and all that like I just explained. Prior to that the Planning Division used a Master Sidewalk Plan, which is what you were just referring to. At that time, many of the streets on that Master Sidewalk Plan required the sidewalks to be on one side of the street only. That did not work with our new current Master Street Plan, you couldn't use them together so we quit using the old Master Sidewalk Plan and went with a new Master Street Plan that was passed by the City Council in 1996. With regard to the Master Sidewalk Plan, the Planning Commission did meet in your Planning Commission retreat to do the 2002 work program. Within that work program is a Master Sidewalk Plan. I am pleased that Chuck Rutherford is here tonight and if that is something that you would like developed, I would like to make sure that you express that to Mr. Rutherford again. Mr. Rutherford does not work in the Urban Development Department, he is under Public Works. That is something Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 69 Marr: that they will have to work with to develop that. We also have a Sidewalk and Trails Committee and that is something that could possibly be brought up with them with developing such a plan. That is not something that I didn't listen to I think it is important to have a Master Sidewalk Plan and I don't really consider the Master Street Plan a Master Sidewalk Plan. It has proposed cross sections is what we are talking about. Proposed street cross sections and depending on the classification of the street, is a 4' sidewalk, a 5' sidewalk or a 6' sidewalk. Is it on one side or both sides? That is what this states; it doesn't say where they should be located. I think that a Master Sidewalk Plan would put the physical improvement in a location that we could all see and would know when it would occur. That is certainly my intent, I am looking for not only where they should be, where is the priority of where sidewalks should be put in. I have difficulty saying that that is tied to a Master Street Plan personally because even though it is on a plan there are certain roads that are more traveled even within the same category class. Again, I think it is something I think the whole Commission needs to weigh in at another point. I think it is important because if we are going to be asked to look at rough proportionality, one of the things that comes into mind is, is this a street that is a high priority of a sidewalk area or is it somewhere that only has two, like we heard tonight, and I don't get that from the Master Street Plan. Williams: I think Commissioner Marr makes a very good point. Back in the early 80s when a local Chancellor held our greenspace ordinance unconstitutional and it was appealed to the State Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court felt like they did not have to reach a constitutional issue but they did affirm Judge Butt who had held our greenspace ordinance unconstitutional and it was primarily because there wasn't a well-defined plan. There were some vague statements about having parks in various quadrants of the city. There weren't any definite plans about how quickly the money had to be spent. The Supreme Court made it very clear that under the statutes that we are allow to get some of these impact fees from development, which is the same sort of statutes that require sidewalks to be built, that in fact, they must benefit the subdivision or the person that you are taking the money from. There must be a definite plan; a facilities plan is what they call it. That is some additional problems that we still have with this sidewalk ordinance. In that, simply giving fairly unfettered approval to our Sidewalk Administrator to use them where the sidewalks need to be, might not be sufficient if they do not in fact help the people that pay these impact fees, this sidewalk fee. That is one of the concerns I had about our sidewalk ordinance and requiring someone who can not build a sidewalk feasibly in their infill lot and still require them to pay even as much as $840. That still concerns me. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 70 Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Yes. One of my concems on the subject Commissioner Marr brought up of a Sidewalk Master Plan is that we have many streets in Fayetteville that are under built according to the Master Street Plan. They probably need sidewalks and as a matter of practicality, may get sidewalks long before capital monies are there to build a street out to what is on the plan. That is one reason I would support having a Master Sidewalk Plan from a pragmatic standpoint of how are we going to address some of the areas where we need sidewalks and the streets may not be built out to what is shown on the Master Street Plan. Conklin: You have a very good point. You look at the original town plat and our streets, we have no curb and gutter, very few sidewalks and most new development has streets that meet our Master Street Plan and sidewalks where we have many, many areas that need improvements. I agree, I think it is important to do that. There is a Sidewalk and Trails Committee meeting this Wednesday, I think that starts at 4:00. Nancy, you are on the committee. We can take this message from the Planning Commission that the Planning Commission would like to have a Master Sidewalk Plan developed and I think that is a good idea. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve ADM 01-36, an ordinance amending §171.12, is there any further discussion? Bunch: Yes. I would like to ask the motioner and the seconder if for any reason you might entertain a sunset clause on this because it is new ground and it is a more or less stop gap measure and legislative processes, by nature, should be thorough and slow and this was an expedited process to bypass a constitutional question. My concern is that in creating a stopgap measure it may solve a current problem but we may be actually creating problems in the future when this thing becomes forgotten about. Should we consider putting a sunset clause on it to force us to revisit it in 2, 3, 5 years, I will leave that to the motioners to see if it is acceptable to them. Estes: Commissioner Bunch, I will suggest this. Anytime that; one wonderful feature about our form of government is that at anytime that a problem develops regarding an ordinance or a statute it can be immediately brought to our attention and we can act on it. That is what we are doing right now. Should a problem develop six months from now, we can act on it. I am not opposing your suggestion at all; I am just suggesting to you that if an issue develops we can visit that issue very quickly. Is there any other discussion? Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 71 Hoffman: Mr. Chair, I just have a little response to Mr. Williams on the maximum of $840. I thought that during our discussions we had agreed that there was an impact for each house built of that additional person or population within the city using other parts of the city, not necessarily those in their own neighborhood and that this is merely a mechanism by which we can, in time, certainly now with the tight budget constraints, be able to have some monies to build these infill sidewalks and other areas of that quadrant of the city to benefit all of the residents. I thought that that was something that we had generally agreed on and I guess I may be mistaken. Williams: I know in talking to our impact consultants, Duncan & Associates, they were concerned about any sort of requirement to charge money for a single family infill lot when a sidewalk was not going to be built anywhere relatively close to that particular development. I do think you could make an argument, and I would be willing to make the argument on behalf of the city, that any house built there within the city has impact, not only in roads, water and sewer but also sidewalks. Although, there is a much lesser extent on sidewalks. You don't really wear sidewalks out by having another person walk on them. You might use up some space. Anyway, I was just repeating what the Arkansas Supreme Court had said to support what Commissioner Marr had said that we definitely need a plan and they also tie very close to aiding this particular development. These are all very difficult issues. I am sure that we have a very independent and strong City Council and they will have all of their own questions, issues and opinions about this too and we will see what they want to do with all of this. Hoffman: Thank you. Estes: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve ADM 01-36, is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve ADM 01-36 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Is there any other business? Conklin: There is no other business. Estes: Mr. Conklin, I would like to suggest that staff consider bringing to us as an administrative item, a proposal regarding a Master Sidewalk Plan as articulated by Commissioner Marr and supported by Mr. Williams. Planning Commission February 11, 2002 Page 72 Conklin: With regard to directing the Public Works Department to prepare that? I don't have the ability to prepare that. Estes: My suggestion was that staff refers to us an administrative item to consider a Master Sidewalk Plan. You craft that however staff feels is appropriate. Conklin: As a resolution, yes, I understand the question. I am not trying to get out of any work; I just want to make sure I understand the question. Estes: Is there any other business? Conklin: I would like to make some announcements. With regard to the Impact Fee Study, I am still working with Duncan & Associates to reschedule that. Hopefully, we can try to reschedule that next week. I will be talking with the City Council tomorrow night about what time and date they would be agreeable to. That would be with regard to looking at water and wastewater. Of course, all four parts of the study are complete now. We have their recommendations with regard to water, wastewater, roads and review of the parkland dedication ordinance. That is available at www.acccssfaycttcvillc.org. You can download those; those are PDF files, Adobe Acrobat Reader. I have a couple of other announcements. Tomorrow we do have an Outdoor Lighting Subcommittee meeting at noon. The City of Fayetteville Urban Development Department will be hosting several free workshops in the upcoming months. Next month, March 5th, will be a workshop to discuss our tree ordinance and developing with the trees. These are free workshops. In April, we are going to have a workshop on the Fayetteville Development Review process. In May, the Corp. of Engineers will be up in Fayetteville to discuss wetland regulation and floodplain regulation again. There have been some changes within those regulations and we will be hosting those workshops and those are all free and there will be more information that will be sent out. Thank you. Estes: Thank you. Are there any other announcements? We will stand adjourned until our next regularly called meeting.