Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-25 MinutesPlanning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 25, 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 Approved ADM 02-7.00: Planned Zoning District Approved Page 16 ADM 02-9.00: Sidewalk Resolution Approved Page 21 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Loren Shackelford Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover Don Marr Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Hugh Earnest Chuck Rutherford Renee Thomas Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 2 Estes: Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening February 25, 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 Church absent. Commissioner Shackelford arrived at 5:33 p.m. Estes: A quorum being present, the next item of business will be approval of the minutes from the February 11, 2002 meeting. Are there any additions, changes, comments or addendums to the meeting minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. Planning Commission February 25, 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 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 downzone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Is the applicant present? If so, would you come forward and make the presentation that you would like to make at this time. Bayyari: Yes Sir. We met with the neighbors... Estes: Would you state your name please and give us your address for the benefit of the recorded record? Bayyari: My name is Fadil Bayyari; I'm the owner of the property in question here. I live on 2880 Carley in Springdale. Estes: Thank you. Bayyari: We met with the property owners last week and drafted covenants and restrictions that I propose to go with the duplexes if we get to build those. We discussed them at length and I guess your question would be to them now whether they are satisfied or not. Estes: Does that conclude your presentation? Bayyari: That is about it. Estes: Thank you Sir. Staff does recommend approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings that are included as a part of your staff report. Does any member of the audience wish to comment on this requested rezoning? If so, would you please come forward and state your name and your address for the benefit of the recorded record and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Jensen: My name is Sue Jensen, I live at 1980 Caton Drive, which is in the Pine Valley subdivision. We have met with Mr. Bayyari twice. We have had very involved conversations regarding the differences between restrictive Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 4 covenants and Bill of Assurances. Mr. Bayyari has assured us that he is very willing to work with us and we have talked about restrictive covenants. We have found out however, that the restrictive covenants are not enforceable and certainly not by us because we do not own any property over there. We would like Bill of Assurances. We have asked Mr. Bayyari for this. He was quite emphatic that he felt he could not give it and that is what we are concerned about now. Mr. Bayyari has told us he is going to sell the property. It is our understanding that the Bill of Assurance stays with the property, which would not be putting Mr. Bayyari or anything else of his at risk because it would be sold off and continue with the land itself to whomever he sells it to. We would like to continue to work with him. We would like to see if we couldn't iron this out. Our concerns are that the area that would be developed without a Bill of Assurance could become detrimental to our property. If there are merely restrictive covenants, there is going to be no way of enforcing them from anyone. That would allow the whole possibility of that area being something that Mr. Bayyari doesn't really intend and is going to be beyond everyone's control. Thank you very much. Estes: Thank you Ms. Jensen. Is there any one else that would like to provide comment on this requested rezoning? Cryder: My name is Lane Cryder, I live at 2876 River Ridge Drive in Fayetteville. That is also in the Pine Valley subdivision. Again, as Sue stated, there have been several meetings with the developer. I don't think that anyone disagrees that he is willing to work with us and that has definitely been an enjoyable change. I don't disagree with the fact that it can be rezoned and be rezoned properly. The Bill of Assurance is the issue at hand. The one thing that I would dispute, not necessarily with anything that the developer is doing, but with the finding of facts; as anyone who lives in these types of areas knows in a college town, the findings of fact states the density is such and such and the traffic count can be such and such is based on typical findings for those types of developments. However, in a town where all the developments are full of college students, if it is a three- bedroom townhouse or three-bedroom condominium then there are three people living in them and then there are three boyfriends or girlfriends that is six people in nearly all of those. That is the case with our subdivision as it stands right now. The traffic count is much higher than it would normally be when predicted by these types of numbers. Saturday night, this is an example that goes on all the time, on a nearly every weekend basis. At 2:00 a.m. there were five police cars responding to an altercation and a party and a fight out there. The property managers were out there. This is typical and I think this is the concern that the property owner's in that subdivision have, that this will continue. Again, I don't have a problem with Mr. Bayyari's development or the rezoning but the issue that Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 5 it be done to a certain set of standards and it is not anything less than we have now would be my concern. Thank you very much. Estes: Thank you Mr. Cryder. Does anyone else wish to provide comment on this rezoning request 02-5.00? Yes Sir, please come forward. Campbell: My name is Sam Campbell. I live I in the Pine Valley neighborhood over there. This is, as described by Mr. Bayyari, this is certainly superior to those colossal fire traps that I see being built along I-540 that have been approved apparently by your board. We like it. We like the street pattern he described. The problem is that the piece of paper that assures the building will be as he plans. He is the developer, not the builder. He is planning, as described to us, brick exteriors and duplexes rather than a multiplex frame structure that we see going up all over that end of town. Our problem is a piece of paper really. It is probably the City Attorney and Mr. Conklin there describing to us what is needed in the way of assurances. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Campbell. Does anyone else wish to comment on this requested rezoning? Yes Sir. Irwin: My name is Jim Irwin, I live in the Pine Valley subdivision too. I guess I built my duplex out there because I liked the way that all the duplexes all met some kind of standard to them. After looking around the neighborhoods in Fayetteville and some of the other duplexes, some of them were mainly owned by leasing companies around the neighborhoods and stuff like that. Our neighborhood is much more of a owner occupied owner and they all meet certain standards, they are nicer duplexes, more of what a family house would be like in the way of standards, minimum requirements, sizing of yards and the way they are maintained and stuff. My concern is that another subdivision being put in there that would lower the standards of our subdivision just by being around the neighborhood is my concern. As long as we can meet with Mr. Bayyari about certain standards and getting him to agree that the builders will meet those same standards, I have no trouble with that. Like I said, we worked with the covenants and that is what concerns me. The covenants, like previously said, they are not enforceable by anyone in our homeowner's association. We, as homeowner's in our neighborhood, don't have any objection to that homeowner's association in that neighborhood. That was a concern of ours, that is why we like the Bill of Assurance so much because those are being set between the city and the builder so thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Irwin. Does anyone else wish to provide comment on this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring the matter back to Mr. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 6 Bayyari. Mr. Bayyari, do you have any comments or rebuttal that you would like to offer in response to the comments that we have just heard? Bayyari: Yes Sir. Frankly, I don't understand what kind of assurances you want me to provide to you at this moment for the neighbors. I tried to tell them that I did sign some Bill of Assurances before and they came to haunt me years later and I think Mr. Kit Williams knows about that. My cards are on the table. I am going to develop this property and I am going to sell the lots. I may choose to build some of those duplexes and I will build them exactly to what I told them I was going to build them as per the covenants. If I choose to sell these duplexes it will be my right to do so. What can I assure them? I can't assure anything after that. It is up to the owners of the properties themselves once it is owner occupied or invested to comply with these assurances and maybe the city needs to provide some teeth into these covenants so to speak. I don't know how I can assure something that I have no control of later on once the property is sold. That is all I can say at this moment. Estes: Thank you Mr. Bayyari. I will now bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion, questions of the applicant and motions. Let me say this for the purpose of a clarification. It is not permissible for the city to require that the applicant provide a Bill of Assurance. Should the applicant offer a Bill of Assurance, then that Bill of Assurance may be accepted by the city but it is not permissible for this Planning Commission or for the City of Fayetteville to require a Bill of Assurance as a condition of approving a rezoning request. As for the restrictive covenants and the enforceability of the restrictive covenants, there is a distinction. The restrictive covenants may not be enforced by the city, they may, however, be recorded on the plat and be made a part of the permanent plat that is of record in the courthouse. The person who may then attempt to enforce those restrictive covenants is a landowner. There is a very important distinction but I want to make it very clear that this Planning Commission may not require a Bill of Assurance as a condition for approving this rezoning request. Mr. Bayyari, I have a question Sir. We have seen this once before and now we are seeing it again. What is the explanation, why is this being brought to us a second time? Bayyari: I am trying to remember. I think the meeting with the neighbors wasn't accomplished. Although, they had all the time they wanted to meet with me. If I remember, when I came here the first time it was tabled because we hadn't met with the neighbors although, it wasn't my fault. Estes: This rezoning request was tabled at the request of the neighborhood association but before this rezoning request, we heard a previous rezoning Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 7 request and that was granted unanimously by this Commission. Why are we hearing this again for a second time? Bayyari: Ok, I think there were a couple of other acres that were not brought into the parcel so we will have more lots and have enough property to provide some park land. Estes: What I am struggling with and I am going to direct this to Mr. Williams in just a moment; is why are we hearing the entire request once again? We have already acted on approximately twelve acres. Why are we hearing the same request again? Mr. Williams, is that permissible or would it be appropriate for us to hear a request for the remaining two point something acres? Williams: This isn't really addressed in our Unified Development Ordinance. You probably have never seen this before, and I haven't either. I talked to our City Planner, Tim Conklin, about why we are experiencing this procedure. Maybe Tim can explain it pretty well, I think he was pretty clear when he told me about it. Conklin: What has occurred here is that the Planning Commission did review 12.22 acres back on November 26, 2001. The Planning Commission did approve that rezoning request and did make a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Between Planning Commission and the City Council, we met with Mr. Bayyari's engineer and we talked about Shiloh Drive and other requirements that would have to be met as a part of the development, at that time they informed me that the rezoning request needed to be withdrawn. They wanted to leave it as I-1 zoning. Since they withdrew it, I contacted the neighborhood to make sure they didn't show up at City Council and told them that the applicant asked that the rezoning request be withdrawn and that it would be left as I-1. When Mr. Bayyari came back later on, a month or two later, I thought it was important for the entire process, including the additional 2.62 acres that were included, added onto this, to come back to Planning Commission because the entire neighborhood was told that it was withdrawn, that it was going to be left I-1. I didn't just want to put this on the City Council's agenda a month and a half or two months later without it going through a normal process. That is why it is back before you. I think it is important that when an application is withdrawn by the applicant that we do start over. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. Estes: Commissioners, are there any questions? Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 8 Hoffman. Al-Madoun: Hoffman: Al-Madoun: Hoffman: Al-Madoun: Hoffman: I have a question for the applicant. In our packets on page 1.17, the minutes of the old meeting, you were discussing at that time a density of 72 units per acre and I wonder if that is still the same density that you are thinking about proposing and have you discussed that with the neighborhood as we requested? My name is Shawki Al-Madoun of Northstar Engineering. The total units we have on the entire 14 acres, we have thirty-six lots, that is seventy-two units on the entire 14 acres. The seventy-two units per acre, I think that was what we are allowed to do but that is not what we are doing. I have in my minutes that you were going to do about half of what was allowed so I may be looking at a misprint. It is now thirty-six? That will be a total of seventy-two units, thirty-six lots if it is duplexes it would be seventy-two units. Total for the entire acreage? That is correct. That then has not changed and with the addition of the two acres that is currently zoned R-2 that would not change. Al-Madoun: That is correct. Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Ok, I wanted to clarify that because in the absence of a Bill of Assurance your zoning would permit twice what you are saying that would actually be built and this kind of dove tails right into our second item on the agenda which is beginning to consider the planned zoning district which would actually bring together density and the zoning at the same time. I assume Tim that that is not something that we could do at this time to satisfy everybody's needs? We are not allowed to place conditions on rezonings. I was thinking that if they offered we could do it as a Planned Zoning District, kind of an idea in the absence of a new ordinance. Mr. Bayyari is well aware of what can be offered. He offered a Bill of Assurance on a previous development. I don't think he is not educated with the ability to offer those assurances. I think we've heard from Mr. Bayyari that he is unwilling to offer that voluntarily. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 9 Hoffman. I am not as inclined to support the rezoning request in the absence of that. I thought you were pretty clear about it last time and now with considering the impact on the neighborhood and the traffic generated by possibly twice as many units than you are verbally proposing and the fact that you could sell the property. Al-Madoun: I went through the plans with the City Planner. The way this property lays you cannot even fit more than thirty-six units in the parcel. It is impossible. It doesn't work. There is a floodplain through it and if you want assurance that that is the maximum number of lots, I will talk to my client and offer that to you because you can't put any more on it. The only way you can put anymore is to build apartment buildings and go a couple or three stories but that is not what my client wants to do. The issue of traffic on the report by the City staff, it was very clear that the existing industrial zoning will generate 900 some trips per day. This zoning to R- 1.5 will generate with the number of lots, units, almost 1/3 of that. Traffic, of course we will deal with this issue when we go to the design and the City Council, when we come back again for the plat. We will handle those issues at that time. At this time, I was going to say on the original zoning, we did have the 12 '/2 acres rezoned. The remaining two acres we were considering to use part of that for parks and it was zoned R- 2 and I did speak to Tim prior to the time it was going to Council and we decided not to forward with it because of some differences on extending the road to Shiloh and that is why we are back before you. I just wanted to confirm what Tim said earlier. I do look forward for a favorable response from this Commission. I think we have been through this path, we met with the property owner's. I personally am against any Bill of Assurances. I have seen what Bill of Assurances do and I don't think it is appropriate. Estes: Commissioner Marr? Marr: Al-Madoun: Mr. Chair. I don't want to get off on a large debate about Bill of Assurances but to help me understand from your perspective why they haven't worked because we have certainly had numerous instances where they have been very effective. What have been your negative experiences with it so I understand from your perspective. On this previous Bill of Assurance that my client did on another property, the property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, in the Bill of Assurance, there is a word that says "no residential structures will be erected." We wanted to do single family and he couldn't do it because the Bill of Assurance, based on the interpretation of the City Attorney, says no residential structures. Although the zoning allows it, apparently the Bill of Assurance overrides the zoning. We don't want to be caught with something like this again. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 10 Estes: Mr. Williams? Williams: I can say that obviously that was the whole purpose behind a Bill of Assurance. That was obviously something that was considered by the City Council and maybe the Planning Commission, I'm not sure when that was passed. However, just with any other kind of agreement that you might have with the City with the neighborhood association. If you feel like it is a situation where times have changed and the neighborhood would support a change in a Bill of Assurance then certainly you would be permitted to come back before the City Council and see if the City Council wants to change the Bill of Assurance. I am sure that they will listen to the neighborhood there before they would make a change. If the neighbors there believe that that portion of a Bill of Assurance that restricts residential dwellings along Highway 16 East there at that subdivision, if your subdivision would support that, then I would imagine you would have a good hearing before the City Council and probably the Bill of Assurance could be changed. The difference between a Bill of Assurance of course, and Restrictive Covenants is that the city will enforce the Bill of Assurance. Restrictive Covenants, as the Chairman has stated, must be enforced by the neighborhood. The property owners that are also affected by the Restrictive Covenants. Al-Madoun: I understand that. This is where we go through the process with what the property is zoned. We come back before the Planning Commission with a plat and the City Council. I am assuming that if they want to lay any conditions on the plat they will do that at that time. Whether or not to restrict the number of units, whether to do whatever. In my opinion, I will be honest with you, this is the only town where we have to do it. My experience has been absolutely negative with it and I see no reason to do it. The Council and the Commission, once we come back with a plat, you can lay any conditions you want. We can argue and negotiate or whatever and reach a point of consensus at that time. To do this up front, before we rezone the property, I think is very restrictive. Hoffman: I just want to try to make sure that we are all on the same page with what this Bill of Assurance, if it were offered, it sounds like it wouldn't be, would be to accomplish, merely to set the density. It would not to set even the construction standards of the building or anything like that in that should you get the rezoning requested there would be no assurance once the property were sold that the density would not be twice what has been verbally proposed. That is my question. If there has been a problem with a Bill of Assurance on a density that is able to be reasonably constructed on a piece of property, I am unaware of it. I do understand what you are Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 11 talking about the residential structures on the other piece of property and I certainly agree with the City Attorney on that. Bayyari: My problem with a Bill of Assurance is the fact that once I've sold this property, I am liable for something I have no control over. If the City chooses to give a Bill of Assurance to the neighbors, they are most welcome. Why do you want me to sign something that I have no control over, I would be brought into it later on when I have no interest in it whatsoever. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I do want to remind the Planning Commission that we really cannot ask for a Bill of Assurance. This is something that has to be voluntarily offered by the petitioners as I think it was in Mr. Bayyari's case in the past when he offered a Bill of Assurance and now he evidently regrets having offered. We cannot ask for that and you should not attempt to condition your vote on the fact that they have not offered you a Bill of Assurance. This is supposed to be a voluntary act by the landowner and not something that they are forced to do. Bayyari: I have provided Bills of Assurance on a project. For instance, when it is almost 90% finished, maybe you need to do the curb or you need to finish the landscaping but yet you need to start building at the same time. Yes, we will go ahead and give the City a Bill of Assurance we that will assure them that this is going to happen and will provide the bond or a letter of credit and so forth. That is a Bill of Assurance. I don't understand what is my Bill of Assurance going to help. Especially if later on I am not going to have any financial interest in this property. Estes: Mr. Bayyari, let me be responsive to your question if I may. Bayyari: Yes Sir. Estes: Presume with me that there would be a Bill of Assurance offered, it would run with the land and it would be enforceable irregardless of who the simple owner of the property may or may not be. Commissioner Marr? Marr: I have a question for Ms. Jensen if she is speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association. If you could come back up to the podium. The question I have is certainly, I think you have heard from our discussion tonight, we don't have the legal right to require a Bill of Assurance. In listening to the testimony that has come from the neighborhood association, certainly for me it appears that the main issues we look at include the compatibility with the General 2020 Plan, traffic congestion, and the justified and needed at this time are primary findings. Those seem to be being met in terms of what the staff report says. I guess I'm looking Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 12 Jensen: Marr: for when I asked for it be tabled last time, was the chance for you to get to look at it and to try to come to that but certainly only being able to look at this within the legal rights we are allowed to do. Is there anything else, I understand the testimony, I agree with your concerns. That is not a condition that we can require. Are there any items relative to those three that you would add because I've heard from two of the people who testified that they are ok with it being residential if they know what kind of residential it is going to be. What we are looking at today is whether the zoning being downsized from industrial to R-1.5 is a good thing. Typically, I perceive down zoning to be a good thing. Can you help me out if there is anything else? I don't know that there is. We understand that the City cannot require this of Mr. Bayyari. We understand Mr. Bayyari's reluctance based on past experiences. What we are looking at in asking for this, is a method, quite truthfully, of protecting ourselves. Mr. Bayyari intends to sell this property, which, is the whole purpose in purchasing it. Once he has sold it to someone, he has no more claim on it in any fashion. No matter what he would like to do or what he says is his view, his goal, if someone else purchases one lot or thirty-six, they get to do what they want with it. That gives us a problem, or the potential for problem I should say. That puts a whole different light on this ballgame. We have an area that has some restrictions to it, we know that Shiloh is going to be extended, and we know that Sycamore is going to be involved. There is going to be all sorts of things. This is going to impact our neighborhood. Those things are going to happen regardless of whether Mr. Bayyari sells the property tomorrow morning, whether he puts on duplexes, whether he does something industrial or somebody comes up with a fourth scenario. There is no controlling it in any fashion without the Bill of Assurance and that is why we have asked for it. I guess, just to add a comment so that Ms. Jensen and the neighborhood, because we have certainly had discussions about it at other meetings around the city. I am going to support the rezoning and the reason I am going to is because I think legally we have to with what we are looking at today. I think that the traffic information that is prepared by the City, which we have to rely on shows that we don't have unsafe conditions. It certainly is in compliance with the 2020 plan and I think it is also justified and needed at this time in this part of town. I think it highlights that the next item on our agenda about being able to look at zoning and actually the development of that zoning at the same time is certainly something we need to look at pursuing if we are allowed to by our City Attorney, once we continue to look at that. It is something that I certainly support for the very reason that you have heard today. I just wanted you to understand why I will vote the way that I have. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 13 Hoover: I have a couple of questions for staff that I think might help the neighborhood. I guess when the neighborhood says that there will be no control after this is rezoned, it would be rezoned to R-1.5. Tim, what would that mean that can't happen? I understand that that means they cannot be putting any industry there. There won't be any industrial building if this gets rezoned. What other things could they not do here? The other question I have Tim, this will be coming back to us for Large Scale Developments or what? Conklin- A preliminary plat. They talked about doing a Planned Unit Development and staying outside the floodway, floodplain. You would see a P.U.D. preliminary plat. That is what they are proposing at this time. With regard to what is allowed in the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, Heavy Commercial allows most of the uses you see on College Avenue, car lots, restaurants, that type of use, warehousing and storage are also allowed. The R-1.5 allows single-family duplex, triplex by right, up to twelve units per acre maximum density. The change in the land use is going from Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial type uses to residential single-family/duplex/triplex. Once it is rezoned, if someone applied for a large-scale development or a subdivision, they would be allowed to build triplexes there, they are allowed under the ordinance. That is one of the things with regard to if the applicant is saying that they are going to develop thirty-six lots, seventy-two units, duplex. There is no guarantee that will happen, it could be sold after it is rezoned and come back through as a triplex development. That is why it is important when we talk about restrictions, we do not address land use restrictions at Subdivision or Large Scale Development. Those are addressed at the time of rezoning. That is the difference that we are looking at tonight is it appropriate for Heavy Commercial, the warehousing light industrial type uses, or is it more appropriate for residential? Hoover: When they come back through with the Preliminary Plat I assume there will have to be some roads? Conklin: That is one of the things we've been discussing. I have been working with our Engineering Division. Shiloh Drive is shown on our capital improvements program in 2004 to be extended between Mount Comfort and Wedington. The original design we looked at back in November after this went to Planning Commission, it didn't show that road going through. That was one of the issues that we dealt with. We are still working with them with regard to Sycamore Street, which appears that it used to run east and west until 1-540, which cut it basically in half at that location. We are determining what to do with that. Those are the issues that will have to be dealt with. In your staff report, with regard to the findings of fact, we have included that the applicant will need to provide a traffic study at the Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 14 Motion: Ward: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Bunch: time of preliminary plat to determine what improvements would be required with regard to offsite to serve this development. More detailed information would be provided to determine what improvements would be necessary to serve this type of development. I think at this point, we have already approved this once, the twelve acres. This property is zoned I-1, it is in our design overlay district. We don't even have the right to require any kind of commercial design standards on this property at all as it is right now. This R-1.5 is much better than R-2 because it lowers the density in half of what we normally would have zoned R-2. The two acres that we haven't acted on before are already zoned R-2, by rezoning it to R-1.5 we are making the density half of what is allowable at this point today. To me it is a total win/win situation for the whole area out there as far as the neighborhood. I am going to recommend that we go ahead and rezone this again as far as I'm concerned, RZN 02-5.00, I recommend approval. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to recommend to the Fayetteville City Council approval of RZN 02-5.00, is there a second? I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? Mr. Chair, I would like to explain my reasons as clearly as I can for not voting for the motion. That is that since becoming aware that there is an immediate sell in the works with the additional two acres, even though they are zoned R-2 and I understand that, I do not view personally, rezoning from Industrial to Residential zoning as particularly down zoning because you are putting a higher concentration of people into a smaller space than even there would be in some kind of commercial or industrial use. I am keeping in mind that this Planning Commission is only acting as a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the zoning. I would like my no vote to just be counted in terms of a request to carefully consider the density that is proposed when it does finally get to City Council. Thank you very much. Is there any other discussion? Commissioner Bunch? I had a couple of questions that I didn't get the chance to get answered before the motion was made. One is does the current Pine Valley subdivision, was it built out under restrictive covenants? Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 15 Jensen: It was. Bunch: Were those restrictive covenants presented to Mr. Bayyari in your negotiations as a possible guideline to demonstrate what your needs and requests are? Jensen: From the back of the room Ms. Jensen responded that no, they had not given a copy of those covenants to Mr. Bayyari. Bunch: Back in November, to date, the restrictive covenants of Pine Valley have not been presented to the prospective developer? Jensen: From the back of the room Ms. Jensen responded no. Bunch: My comment is that one of the concerns were, that were expressed even back in November, were the compatibility and the likeness of the Pine Valley development with the prior ones. It has been all these months and those covenants have still not been presented as "Hey, this is what we are looking for, this is what we are interested in." Jensen: No. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to recommend to the Fayetteville City Council approval of RZN 02-5.00 is there any other discussion or comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 02-5.00 to the Fayetteville City Council was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Hoffman voting no. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of seven to one. Thank you. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 16 ADM 02-7.00: Administrative Item (Planned Zoning District): to discuss a draft ordinance that creates a Planned Zoning District (PZD) to permit the combination of zoning and development review for parcels of land into one process in order that all aspects of a proposed development can be reviewed and acted upon simultaneously. Estes: The next item of business on the agenda is item number two under new business, ADM 02-7.00 to discuss a draft ordinance that creates a Planned Zoning District to permit the combination of zoning and development review into one process in order that all aspects of a proposed development can be reviewed and acted upon simultaneously by the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission establish a committee to discuss the Planned Zoning District ordinance. Tim, do you have any presentation that you would like to make at this time or should we rely on the materials we have? Conklin: Let me just make a brief statement. We would like to begin the discussions with regard to a Planned Zoning District. We did meet with planners in Little Rock and discussed their Planned Zoning District. What we are asking the Planning Commission to do tonight is to form a subcommittee to begin these discussions. We would want to bring up people from Little Rock, possibly their City Attorney and others to discuss how their ordinance works in Little Rock. With regard to the Planned Zoning District, it functions similar to a Planned Unit Development ordinance We are combining site plan approval with the zoning. This is done at the option of the applicant and also the City. Therefore, this evening, what we just saw prior to this item, our conventional method of rezoning would still be in place and this would be an option to allow developers to bring a site plan through, showing what is going to be built there and have the City place restrictions with regard to zoning on that site plan. The way this works in Little Rock, Arkansas is that you would actually refer back to the ordinance where the particular project or piece of property that would become the zoning ordinance and allows a lot of flexibility in design. I would hope that passing such an ordinance would allow people to bring in progressive, innovative type developments that we could evaluate on a case by case basis and draft regulations to regulate with regard to building height setbacks, uses allowed and I think it would be very beneficial for the City of Fayetteville to have such an ordinance where we could actually draft regulations to protect the character of our city and neighborhoods and to allow flexibility for developers to bring in progressive, innovative projects. That is all I have. Estes: Thank you Tim. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this administrative item, 02-7.00? If you would come Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 17 forward please, tell us your name and your address and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Maynard: Hi, my name is Richard Maynard and I am at 1717 N. Sang Ave. I am also the Chair of the Asbell Neighborhood Association. Although, I am not necessarily speaking for them tonight. I didn't really have enough time to ask their permission if I could. I wish this would have been in place a long time ago. The only thing I have that is a little bit of a reservation that I just heard tonight is that it will be an option. This will be, I think what we just witnessed in this dispute up in Pine Valley has happened in our neighborhood. A lot of this would be taken care of with this kind of an ordinance. I will tell you why, as you probably already know, I don't need to inform you of anything. The real problem that I had 2 1/2 years ago, when I first met many of you, was coming with a rezoning. At that time, I came here very naively trying to find out exactly what the rezoning was about, what was driving the rezoning, what was the development, what was the change that you were proposing in my neighborhood or more specifically, my own back yard. I was told time and time again by that Chairperson that that was an inappropriate question, we are only here to talk about the zoning. The catch 22 that we neighborhoods always find ourselves in is that the development is driving the zoning but we can't really technically ask about the development but yet we do it all the time. We break that rule all the time. We do here, you do it in Council, I don't know, possibly exposing yourself to some liability. I think that takes care of that. I am a little disappointed that it is going to be an option. I remember at that time, 2 12 years ago, I kept thinking that Mr. Conklin or the Planning Division was withholding information from me, that I wasn't finding out, that for some reason he just wasn't giving me the information that I needed. I found out later, of course, he was giving me all the information he had. Certainly, what needs to happen and what is happening very rapidly in this City and I think absolutely for the benefit of everybody is that the partnership can no longer just be about a developer and the City. It cannot just be a contract between the developer and the City. You need to include the neighborhoods. Just to be more specific about that, what are neighborhoods but nothing more than citizens who live here, who raise their families, who pay their taxes, who have an investment in the place they live. Anytime somebody comes and proposes a change in that neighborhood certainly I think we have a right to ask exactly what that change is. It seems to me, if I understand exactly what this would do. I can see a real downside to this, I am not a developer but if I were, I would think "Well, wait a minute! You want me to come in and spend all this money with these detailed plans and before I've even got the rezoning." There is an answer to that too. I think most of you are aware of this. It is what happened in my neighborhood, in the Asbell neighborhood although Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 18 I always hesitate to say that, there is an Asbell Neighborhood Association, but Asbell neighborhood has just kind of taken on that name. Lindsey & Associates came to the neighborhood first, before they ever went to the City. Just for the record, they called me at the recommendation of Mr. Conklin, I did not call them. They asked to meet with us first. I think usually if there is a zoning problem there is one of two things that are going to happen. Either it is not going to fit into the land use plan, which they can find out very quickly from Mr. Conklin. More often, it is because there is an objection to the neighborhood. That goes back to what I said, it is never really about the rezoning per say, it is about what is driving the rezoning, what is the development? We don't need this kind of detail. What is being proposed in this new ordinance, or this new policy. Basically all we need is somebody to come in and talk to us. If there is going to be an objection to the rezoning chances are it is going to be from the neighborhood. If they come to the neighborhood first, they can find out for themselves whether there is going to be an opposition, whether there is a need to negotiate. When they do bring it before you there are two things that will happen, they will know that they have overcome that political hurdle and the second thing that would happen with us is that if something is proposed to us and then something different, I have absolute faith in the Lindseys that we are not going to see any surprise a month from now, but if it were to happen for the sake of argument, then we could come up here and say "This isn't what we were told was going to happen." I don't really see a downside to this at all. I don't. Neighbors, citizens do need to be included in this discussion into this contract or pact or whatever you want to call it. Again, we do want to simply know if you are proposing a change into the neighborhood, exactly what you are proposing. I think this, if I'm not mistaken, accomplishes that. Again, so that they are not having to waste their time they can come into this with a lot less detail than what this is proposing and say "This is what we want to do." Just a word about these kinds of meetings with the neighborhood, I am one that does not think that these things should be required. I think the intent is all. What we had happen in our neighborhood three weeks ago is a potential neighborhood neighbor coming into our neighborhood and saying "This is what I would like to do. I would like your support." In that case saying, "If you don't want to do it, if you don't like it, if you're not happy with it, we won't do it." I think he even went too far. I don't think he needs to say that. Just the act of coming to us and saying "You are included." That meant a lot. The only downside that I see to this, quite frankly, are people who live under the illusion that they have somehow an inherent right to rezone the property, which does not exist. I had a discussion with Mr. Whitaker about that the other day. A right to rezone does not exist. You have property rights but you don't have the right to rezone. Or somebody who thinks that the neighborhood or the neighbors somehow need to be excluded from this process. I don't see Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 19 any other losers on this. The developer certainly has the option of coming into the neighborhood before he ever presents this and talking to them and seeing if there is going to be opposition, what he or she can do to resolve that opposition and whether or not they want to proceed. The difference between what I experienced 2 ''A years ago and what I hope will happen in the future is at least everybody will know, each party will know, what the other one is talking about. I think this is a wonderful thing to put. The only thing I'm a little surprise about is I am sorry that it is optional. I think, although I said I don't think neighborhood meetings should be required, I don't know why this could not be required and I hope it passes. May I ask a question? Is this just a recommendation? Would this go to the Council? Estes: Mr. Maynard, the dispositive action that is being considered tonight is whether or not I am to appoint a subcommittee. Maynard: I absolutely think it is a good idea. I do want to say that it hasn't been too far in the past that I don't think neighborhood issues were included at all. I think this will go a long way towards making this, the growth of our city, a joint decision rather than just between two parties. Thanks. Estes: Thank you Richard. Yes Ma'am, if you would please come forward and state your name and your address and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Littel: My name is Annie Littel, I live at 411 W. South Street here in Fayetteville. I am a member of the Environmental Concerns Committee and I am somewhat representing them I guess tonight. I applaud your idea of forming a committee on this issue very much. Our committee has tossed around the idea that "Gee, it would be nice if this type of thing could happen, where the site analysis or site plan of some sort was part of the rezonings." I know you are not voting for or against it but I think the idea of forming a committee is great. I would encourage the committee, to along with Mr. Maynard, consider it not being optional. You are going to talk about it so throw that in the hopper if you can because my concern would be that perhaps the very situation where it would be helpful, maybe that developer wouldn't choose to do it. It seems to me that you could avoid a lot of cost, not only to the city in time and perhaps money, but the developer's time and money if some of these issues got done at the beginning, at the front end. We had an example, that land out by Hwy. 112 where I think the developer was glad that they had figured out that there was a wetland there before they had a chance to buy it. I think, although a developer might look at this as "Oh gosh, I have to pay more money up front." They might be very glad about it as it developed. Thank you. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 20 Estes: Motion: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions and motions. Marr: I think obviously we all just saw an example of why this would be a good thing with the first item on the agenda and I am going to move for approval of ADM 02-7.00. Bunch: I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Bunch to mandate that I appoint a subcommittee to discuss the Planned Zoning District ordinance. Is there any other discussion? Hoffman: I would just urge the future members of the subcommittee to take a look, not only at the City of Little Rock but there are many other of these similar ordinances around the country that are very effective. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-7.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote and I will be polling members of the Commission and appointing a committee within the week. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 21 ADM 02-9.00: Administrative Item (Sidewalk Resolution) A resolution for development of a Master Sidewalk Plan. Estes: The next item of business on our agenda is item number three. This is the second item of new business. It is also an administrative item, 02-9.00. A resolution for development of a Master Sidewalk Plan. This is being brought before you in response to some of Commissioner Marr's remarks at our last meeting and my request that this then be placed as an item of new business on our agenda for your consideration this evening. Included in your materials is the proposed resolution. Tim, is there any presentation that you would have on this administrative item? Conklin- I do not have a presentation other than just the resolution. The Resolution does call for the Fayetteville Public Works Department, Sidewalk Division, to prepare a Master Sidewalk Plan. We have included several whereas clauses about why the need for a Master Sidewalk Plan is desired in Fayetteville and that we would want this Master Sidewalk Plan completed within one year of the date of passage of this resolution. What I intend to do if this resolution does pass is to forward this to our Public Works Director and Sidewalk Division and see if they can prepare this Master Sidewalk Plan that I think Fayetteville desperately needs. Thank you. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions or motions. Hoover: I have a question for staff. I guess at our last meeting we talked about the Planning Department at least assisting in this Planning process since it will be a planning process. What happened to that? Conklin: With regard to Planning participating, I will be more than happy to assist our Public Works Department. Chuck Rutherford is here as our Sidewalk Coordinator. This is something that with everything else in our work program that we are trying to accomplish, I do not have the time to prepare this plan by myself. I think the Sidewalk Coordinator is much better able to prepare this plan. They are already implementing our capital improvements program. They are working closely with schools and neighborhoods and this is something that they need to come up with and develop because it will help the city and it will help them as they prioritize their capital improvements programming. That is why you don't see the Planning Division managing this project. Hoover: I would like to know if Chuck has the time to do it also. Chuck, are you going to be able to accomplish this? Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 22 Rutherford: Well, if this resolution passes we will have to look at alternatives, the options that are out there to make this happen. There are many different ways it can be done. The resources will have to be found to make it happen. Conklin- We do have a Sidewalk and Trails committee and they have worked hard with regard to developing a Master Trails and Greenways Plan. This is something I think that there are many individuals that are interested in volunteering to help such a plan. Hoover: Our Trails Administrator, they are not under Public Works are they? Conklin: They are under Urban Development. Hoover: How are they going to be able to assist on company time basically? I just am wondering when we are going to actually have time to do this? Conklin- We all work together. Just like on Planning Commission reports, you see with a subdivision or a Large Scale Development, Engineering and Planning, we work very well together. We work very well together with Chuck. We probably see Chuck in the Planning Division at least once a week discussing issues with regard to sidewalks. I know the City, with the passage of this resolution, is committed to making sure that we can develop such a plan and identify resources and actually make it happen. Marr: Motion: The only comment that I was going to make Tim is that I think at least in the wording of this, and I certainly can understand it being shared by an ultimate responsibility if you will. I think it is extremely important that we have cross -departmental involvement and sidewalk and trails coordination because one, I don't think we need to be doing and we already have questions about who has enough time, we certainly don't need duplicating work going on between a Trails and Sidewalk Committee, our Sidewalk Administrator and things that we are doing. Although, I do really believe it is very important to have our own stand alone prioritized sidewalk plan. I love the idea of the resolution, I just think we also ought to make it clear that it is cross -functional involvement between some other areas. Allen: I think this is a real need in our community and with that being said, I would like to move for approval of ADM 02-9.00. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 23 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to approve ADM 02-9.00, is there a second? Hoffman. Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Is there any further discussion? Conklin: We will work closely with Chuck Rutherford and the Public Works Department with Greg Boettcher. Chuck is on the Sidewalk and Trails Committee. Nancy Allen, from the Planning Commission is on the Sidewalk and Trails Committee and we do have one member of the Planning Division on the Sidewalk and Trails Committee. I would envision any plan, just like the Master Trails and Greenways Plan that is being developed in close coordination with this committee, that with one representative from the Planning Commission, one from planning staff and working with Chuck we can make sure that we understand what is being planned and how it will work. Currently, the Public Works Division is making the decisions with regard to recommendations for future capital improvement projects for sidewalks. I think that anytime the Planning Commission can assist with regard to that, that will be helpful. Estes: Mr. Rutherford? Rutherford: I would like to add a remark to Sharon Hoover's question about time. We actually have started a Master Sidewalk Plan earlier, in the fall of 2001. We worked with John Goddard in GIS Division to get it organized, to work with GPS, develop our criteria and those sorts of things. We did do that. Once we got started with it, we found out it was going to take an enormous amount of time to put this all together and so we had to back off a little bit to continue building sidewalks and doing those sorts of things. It is just going to be a matter of how we want to go about making this happen. Estes: Thank you Chuck. Is there any other discussion? Bunch: One rather minor item that doesn't seem to appear in whereas clauses. It is probably one that is included, just as a matter of course and that would be that an accurate inventory be included in the plan, not only what we want to do but what have we accomplished to date. I just wanted to make sure that there is an identification of existing infrastructure included as part of the whereases. Is it necessary to amend the resolution to include that Tim? Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 24 Conklin- I assume that will be part of any plan that we develop is to understand what we currently have. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Williams: I had one question Mr. Chairman. It might be that the Planning Commission actually needs to provide a little bit more guidance to the administration here about what they are looking for in a Master Sidewalk Plan. I don't know, it seems like a very broad charge that you are giving them on this. I don't know, I guess if I was either Tim or Chuck over there, I don't know if I would be absolutely certain what the Planning Commission really wants here. The latest suggestion by Commissioner Bunch, we are paying $50,000 to $70,000 for a tree inventory. If we do an inventory of all the sidewalks, especially if we are going to judge if the sidewalk is in "Al" shape or "F" shape, I think that will be a terrific job in itself. I do strongly support a Master Sidewalk Plan I think we need to have one, I would like to see a prioritized plan in place. I think it will be good for many reasons but right now I'm not sure. Maybe, Tim wrote the resolution so maybe he is sure what you want him to do but just reading the resolution I'm not absolutely sure exactly what the Planning Commission wants at this stage. Conklin: Here is what I attempted to do. I will just read the whereas clauses, if you don't mind and the rest of the Commission. WHEREAS, A Master Sidewalk Plan is needed to implement General Plan 2020 Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies which include policies of accessibility and connectivity between different land uses and activity centers; and WHEREAS, A Master Sidewalk Plan is needed to better understand existing funding levels and plan for future funding requirements and availability with regard to staffing, maintenance, and future sidewalk improvements; and WHEREAS, A Master Sidewalk Plan is needed to provide the desired connectivity between the Trails and Greenway Master Plan, 10 year Master Parks Plan, and the existing and future users of the facilities proposed within these plans; and WHEREAS, A Master Sidewalk Plan will identify areas within the City of Fayetteville where sidewalks are desirable and where sidewalks are planned to be constructed with a certain time frame; and WHEREAS, This plan will also identify areas within the City where sidewalks are not planned and what alternatives for pedestrian access are available to citizens within those areas; and WHEREAS, A Master Sidewalk Plan is needed to provide information to assist in the planning prioritization process for the Capital Improvements Program. I am more than happy to expand upon that but we are talking about identifying where sidewalks Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 25 need to go, identifying what maintenance issues, staffing issues, funding issues, where we are going to identify areas where sidewalks are not planned and what available alternative modes for pedestrian accessibility issues. I have attempted to try to make it broad but at the same time at least identify where we plan to have sidewalks, where we plan not to have sidewalks, how much funding we have, when they are going to be built, where they are not going to be built and how much staff it is going to take. I would be more than happy to have you expand upon this resolution. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin, Mr. Earnest? Earnest: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Hugh Earnest; I am Urban Development Director and as such, Mr. Conklin reports to me as do several other individuals that are associated with trails in the city. I have read this resolution. I have talked to Mr. Boettcher about this. Let me assure you that what Mr. Conklin has put in this resolution I think is adequate for us to develop a good Sidewalk Master Plan for this city. One of the options that Mr. Boettcher will be discussing and it is obviously his decision, one of the options that has come out of our discussion of impact fees is a possibility of a traffic study. One of the additions that could be put in the traffic study, which would have to be done by consultants would be an analysis of where we are on our sidewalks. Obviously, it ties to arterials, to collectors, to principal streets so it is a little more discreet and a little more identifiable than the difficult issue that we have assigned ourselves in identifying trees and their status. It is a more discreet issue. There is a finite number of streets, there is obviously a finite number of trees but it is an issue I think that we can get our hands around in the time frame that is allowed in this resolution. Estes: Mr. Earnest, does this resolution need any further definition as far as you are concerned? Earnest: I personally don't think so. Estes: Thank you Sir. Hoffman: I would just like to add that I think that the City of Fayetteville staff has gone a long way over the years for saving us these consultant fees. We've done many, many different pieces of work, including the Unified Development Ordinance, which is a job in and of itself, without the benefit of hired guns. I would also like to remind everybody that zoning is a dynamic and not a static process and that as we go through this Master Sidewalk Plan and any other plan as we see fit we can adjust and tweak and change what needs to be changed so I think it is an endeavor that Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Page 26 Estes: certainly needs to be started and can be certainly adequately scrutinized as it goes along. I am fine with it. Commissioner Hoffman, I would like to take just a moment to say Amen to what you just said. We have a very fine staff. I think more often than not we should use them in lieu of outside consultants. I think we get equal work product and in many cases a far superior work product and I think more often than not we should use our staff instead of outside consultants. Mr. Rutherford has done an excellent job in this area as have Mr. Conklin and Mr. Earnest. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve ADM 02-9.00, is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Conklin, are there any announcements? Conklin: The Impact Fee meeting is tonight in room 326. The consultants will be there to update the Commission and the City Council with regard to where are they at on the Impact Fee study. I also would like to make sure that the three Planning Commissioners are aware that if you plan to reapply for the Planning Commission, the deadline that your application must be submitted to the City Clerk is 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 8`h. You do have to fill out a new application to reapply is my understanding. If you need more information give me a call or give Heather Woodruff, the City Clerk a call. Thanks. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. We will stand adjourned until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Meeting adjourned: 6:42 p.m.