Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 22, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Appointment of Planning Commission subcommittee for the review of a Planned Zoning District Ordinance Appointed Page 3 Officer Elections Page 3 FPL 02-4.00: Final Plat (Pine Valley Phase V, pp 363) Approved Page 4 FPL 02-5.00: Final Plat (McMillan Estates, pp 441) Approved Page 10 LSD 02-11.00: Large Scale Development (Guido's, pp 401) Approved Page 19 CUP 02-13.00: Conditional Use (Guido's, pp 401) Approved Page 22 PPL 02-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, CMN Business Park II, ph II, pp 173/174) Page 25 CUP 02-12.00: Conditional Use (Hatcher, pp 406) Page 35 RZN 02-10.00: Rezoning (Mid-America, pp 251) Page 46 RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) Page 47 RZN 02-12.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) Page 53 Approved Denied Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council RZN 02-11.00: Rezoning (City of Fayetteville, pp 834) Forwarded to City Council Page 54 Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 2 Discussion Item: Refunds of Offsite Assessment for Hamestring Creek Basin Force Main. Page 59 MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Loren Shackelford Don Marr STAFF PRESENT David Whittaker Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Kim Hesse MEMBERSABSENT Alice Church STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 3 Estes: Good evening, welcome to the Monday evening, April 22, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first order of business will be to call the roll. Renee, will you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Church being absent. Appointment of Commissioners to a subcommittee for the Planned Zoning District ordinance. Officer Elections: Estes: A quorum being present, the meeting is called to order. The first order of business on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the March 25, 2002 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, modifications or corrections to the meeting minutes from the March 25, 2002 meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. The next order of business under old business is appointment of a Planning Commission subcommittee for the review of a Planned Zoned District ordinance. Commissioners Bunch, Hoover and Ward have graciously consented to serve on this committee, as has Mr. Richard Maynard, a member of our community. I would like to mention that these Commissioners now are serving as Subdivision Committee members and have given exceptional service this past year on the Subdivision Committee and have now consented to serve on this special committee. The next order of business under old business is officer elections. The Nominating Committee has made their nominations at the regularly scheduled meeting where those nominations were called for and that committee report was read. Those nominations are Commissioner Hoffman for Chair, Commissioner Estes for Vice Chair and Commissioner Ward for Secretary. Are there any other nominations for the office of Chair? Are there any other nominations for the office of Vice Chair? Are there any other nominations for the office of Secretary? Seeing none, do I hear a motion that the nominations be closed? Marr: So moved. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to close nominations. Is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. All in favor? All opposed? Hearing none opposed would you please mark your ballots as you choose fit and pass them to your left to Renee Thomas please? Renee, as you receive the ballots would you please tabulate them and announce Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 4 the results? We do this because our bylaws provide that election of officers is to be by secret written ballot. Thomas: There are eight votes for Commissioner Hoffman for Chair. Eight votes for Commissioner Estes as Vice Chair and eight votes for Commissioner Ward as Secretary. Estes: Commissioner Hoffman if I may pass you the gavel, congratulations. Best wishes for much success and enjoyment in serving this term as chair. We are now going to trade places. Allen: Thank you to Commissioner Estes for the fine year that he served. Hoffman: I will make this short. Thanks everybody for supporting me to be Chairman and I am going to do my best to follow in the footsteps of a whole pack of lawyers that preceded me. I have to say that I have enjoyed serving under the Chairmanship of Commissioner Estes and before him Conrad Odom and Phyllis Johnson had provided me with a lot of insight with the workings of the Planning Commission and it is just an honor to be here. With that we will get started with our first item of new business. FPL 02-4.00: Final Plat (Pine Valley Phase V, pp 363) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of BMP Development for property located at 2726- 2840 Wildwood Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 5 acres with 6 Lots proposed. Hoffman: This is a Final Plat for Pine Valley Phase V which was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of BMP Development for property located at 2726-2840 Wildwood Drive. The property is zoned R- 2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 5 acres with 6 lots proposed. We have nine conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: I am going to go ahead and read those conditions and then we will have the applicant make a presentation. 1) Planning Commission determination of the request to remove the access easement that provides for shared access between lots. This was requested at the time of Preliminary Plat approval to reduce traffic conflicts. Please see letter from applicant requesting this change. 2) Payment of off-site assessment in the amount of $3,360.00 for improvements to Salem and Shiloh Drives as required at the time of preliminary plat approval. 3) All street lights are required to be installed prior to signing the final plat. Proof of payment by certified check to the electric company for installation and materials with a Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 5 Harris: receipt is required if not installed. 4) Restrictive Covenants shall be submitted prior to signing the final plat that match the previous phases of the Pine Valley Subdivision. 5) Payment of parks fees in the amount $5,250 (14 units @ $375). This was paid on April 4, 2000. 6) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 7) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityis current requirements. 8) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace. 9) Prior to signing the final plat the following is required: a. Project Disk with all final revisions b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 SGuarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements. to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Final layer of pavement and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. All completed improvements will be verified by the City Engineering office and shall include monuments, lot stakes, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, culverts and bridges, water supply, sanitary sewer system, and street lights. c. FEMA approved LOMR. Would the applicant come forward please? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make or would you just like to answer questions as they arise? I have a formal presentation. My name is Al Harris with Crafton, Tull & Associates and item number one, concerning the access easements to be shared between the lots. I wasn't here at the Planning Commission previously at the time of the Preliminary Plat so I am really not sure what the history was and Tim, do I understand that this easement would be shared for two duplexes, or four driveways to come into one access point? Conklin: It would be shared between lots so that each duplex, two units sharing one driveway. Harris: That is what I understood. I just took a couple of scenarios and plotted some duplexes on a lot and colored them up just to show that it is almost impossible to do. That green area represents the access easement as shown on the plat. It is 40' wide along the street and 30' deep to the north. In order to get a shared driveway in that access the duplex would have to be built way to the north in order to actually construct a driveway to stay in that green area and then loop back to hit the garage. If you had a Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 6 garage on each end of the duplex it would even be worse for the outside duplexes because your garage on the outside, you would have to do almost a 90° bend to get in the garage. It is a good idea to share driveways but I think that in this case due to the narrow width of the lots it would be almost impossible to do. Hoffman: Can I interrupt you for a minute? Is this just a general scenario or is it for a particular lot? Harris: The one on the left is usually what the developers do. They try to build the garage as close as possible to the building setback and the one on the right I just went an additional 27' further, which would be approximately 54' behind the right of way. Even then, you can't get the driveway in that easement without doing a 90° turn if they build it trying to get as close as possible toward the green area. Right now along Wildwood Drive there is one driveway that accesses on the south onto Wildwood. I believe previously the concern was more conflicts of driveways coming out than a street. The only suggestion I could make is if the Planning Commission still desires that we limit the driveways you could possibly limit it to one driveway per lot. Hoffman: Did you have any other questions about these conditions of approval other than the driveway locations? Harris: No I don't. Hoffman: Before you step down I would like to ask Ron Petrie to explain if you have had any further conversation with the engineers about lot 6 and its configuration about whether it should be one or two lots. I think that was the lot number. If you could refresh my memory? Petrie: Tim could probably answer that better. Conklin: We asked Mr. Harris to find out from the applicant and I am not sure if he found that out. Harris: At this time he doesn't really know if he is going to do a four-plex or two duplexes. Conklin: Right now it is shown as one large lot platted and noted that a four plex could go on that lot. Hoffman: Right and that is the issue that would then be going to the Board of Adjustments? Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 7 Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Harris: Conklin - Harris: Conklin: Hoffman: Harris: Hoffman: Motion: Ward: Harris: If they chose to split that lot into two lots. I have talked with the applicant, I have talked to Al Harris who is here this evening and they have not given me any indication whether or not that is something that they would like to do. Ok, I was just questioning that because I would like to know if some requested board action failed if they would have to come back in and replat to alter those lots. It could be handled as a lot split that would have to come back to the Planning Commission. That is what I was hoping, if that was a decision that the applicant made to show it as a separate lot subject to approval by the Board of Adjustment for that lot width. However, that is not what they have presented to you this evening. Is that possible that you could add that as a note if they wanted to come back in the future? To make them aware they would have to come back as a large scale development? As a lot split? Yes. That is anybody's right to apply for that so that option will still be open. What we are saying publicly though is that staff would be in support of looking at a variance for that lot in order to accommodate two lots which would allow for two duplexes. Did you have anything else at this time? No Ma'am. I will go ahead and take public comment. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this matter? If there is anyone here on this one please step forward. Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the applicant and the Planning Commission for discussion, comments or motions. It seems like we have looked at this several times and this lot six where the two duplexes are planned on being built, Al, how many acres is that? Approximately two acres. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 8 Ward: I can see that because the way the road it is has limited access and two duplexes on two acres is not a big deal to me. I think it should be approved as is. I don't know where this access easement came out of, do you have any idea? Harris: No. Ward: It is beyond my comprehension how that was put on there so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't remove that access easement off there as a requirement. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve this Final Plat for Pine Valley Phase V with all conditions. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward which would include then the requested removal of these access easements. Do I have a second? Estes: Madam Chair, I second the motion. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Estes. Is there any further discussion before we vote? Marr: Nobody remembers why this easement was put on the property to begin with? There is nothing in our packet, the applicant doesn't remember. I just want to make sure we don't remove something that was put on there for some valid reason. Tim, do you know of anything? Conklin: My guess is that it is an opportunity to reduce the number of curb cuts. This is a local street within an established subdivision that was not required to have shared access with other units and I don't see any reason why that should be a requirement on this final plat. Marr: Thank you. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? I think you can in my mind the driveways can be located in such a way that you can certainly avoid the situation at that intersecting street without having a shared access easement so I will go along with that. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve FPL 02-4.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries through a vote of eight unanimously. Thank you. I do have an announcement to make. The rezoning for item 02-8.00, which is a proposed rezoning for the old Nick's Garage at the corner of College and Cleburn was pulled from the agenda. It was advertised to have been heard tonight and there was no retraction in the paper. If anyone is here to speak Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 9 on that item we won't be discussing it tonight. Tim, is there another date that has been set for this rezoning? Conklin: We don't have another date set for this item. Hoffman: Ok. We will try to keep the neighborhood association apprised and this will also be published when or if it does come back in the newspaper in our Sunday advertisements for the agendas. If you were here for that we are not going to hear it. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 10 FPL 02-5.00: Final Plat (McMillan Estates, pp 441) was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of TFJ Nominee Trust for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 10 lots proposed. Hoffman: Our second item is FPL 02-5.00 which is a Final Plat for McMillan Estates submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of TFJ Nominee Trust for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 10 lots proposed. There are eight conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin. No. Hoffman: Ok, I am going to go ahead and read the conditions. Planning Commission approval of the design theme for the subdivision. Please see convents for proposed design theme. 2) The future buildings on Lot 1 will be required to have front facades facing Wedington Drive, Futrall Drive, McMillan Drive, and Marinoni Drive. The future buildings on Lots 3,5, and 7 shall have front facades facing McMillan Drive, Wedington and Futrall Drive. Note 3 on the plat shall be revised to reflect this requirement. 3) Access from McMillan Drive will be prohibited to Lot 8. An access easement shall be provided from McMillan Drive across Lot 9 to Lot 8. This easement shall be added to the plat. 4) Proof of payment for streetlight materials and installation shall be submitted prior to filing the final plat. This shall be submitted in the form of a copy of a certified check made payable to the electric company with a receipt. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityis current requirements. 7) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along Marinoni Drive, McMillan Drive and Scissortail Drive and an eight foot asphalt trail. 8) Prior to signing the final plat the following is required: a. Project Disk with all final revisions; b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Final layer of pavement and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. All completed improvements will be verified by the City Engineering office Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 11 and shall include monuments, lot stakes, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, culverts and bridges, water supply, sanitary sewer system, and street lights; c. Proof of payment for street light materials and installation. d. Final LOMR approval by FEMA shall be received; e. Warranty deed dedicating Wedington right of way. Is the applicant here and if so do you wish to make a presentation? Conklin: You do have before you this evening revised covenants for the subdivision and if you would like I can take this time and go over those. Hoffman: Would you please Tim? Conklin: Sure. What has been handed out this evening to you are revised covenants. I am going to go over the main points and this refers back to condition number one. I would ask that before you approve the final plat tonight that condition one should probably read "Planning Commission approval of the design theme for the subdivision as proposed in the covenants." I will just read these into the record. "Types of building materials: All structures erected on the property shall have exterior finishes with block and brick with at least 50% of all sides of the building being brick. Acme brick shall be used in one of the following colors, 30 dove gray, 160 steel gray, 300 coco brown and 250 royal oak. The block styles allowed shall be five score and striped face, single score flute block and split faced block. Standard or smooth faced blocks will only be permitted as accent blocks. Blocks shall be painted the same color as the brick selected. Roofing materials shall be either architectural shingles, architectural metal materials and the allowed colors shall be classic red, classic beige, desert tan or silver. Any canopies shall be made of cloth or metal. Gables shall be made of brick or E.F.I.S. In the event one of these materials is unavailable from on manufacturer another supplier may be substituted provided the colors are comparable and approved by the grantor." There are two page threes in your packet so look at page four, number seven, half way down that one paragraph, it states "metal buildings, sheeting or siding shall not be allowed. The front of each structure shall incorporate gables, columns and cupolas. The roof design allowed shall range from flat roof to 12 on 12 pitch." Of course, there is an Architectural Control Committee as part of these covenants. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Would you tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your presentation please? Feinstein: My name is Andy Feinstein with Engineering Design Associates. We have samples of some of the colors that were mentioned in some of the covenants there, some block design standards and a sample board indicating the colors of the block. We also have notarized copies of those Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 12 covenants. I will get those to you. There are no issues with any of the conditions of approval. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. We will take public comment now. Would anybody care to address us on this matter? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, I will bring the discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussion, questions or motions. Ward: Tim, are these pretty much the same colors that Wedington Place are using or same kind of design themes? Conklin- I haven't had a chance to compare those to Wedington Place but on this one board right here are projects in Wedington Place I would say they are similar in appearance. Keep in mind the McDonald's that is shown on that board does not have a red roof. It has a tan. Bunch: In Architectural Control, number seven. There is a sentence, the front of each structure shall incorporate gables, columns, etc. Do we need to have any sort of determination as to what is considered a front since this is in the Overlay District? Hoffman: I think we have taken care of that in item number two. That specifies, did the applicant understand that? Andy, did you make a note of that? Feinstein: Yes. Bunch: This should read the front or fronts of each building? Hoffman: Yes. These are the applicant's covenants so it will be up to them to change that language but I think we have got it pretty specific on our plat. Conklin: Yes. The Planning Commission, you typically do a good job making sure that the buildings that are visible from the street have front facades. It is very clear in condition number two that they will have front facades even with that lot that is within the floodway/floodplain between I-540. Hoffman: Anybody else? Motions or discussion? Bunch: I have another question. I was waiting on the color scheme to come through. I was looking to see if we have a silver on here and then the question I have for the applicant is the silver that is on the roof finished colors, is that a mill finish aluminum? I don't see a silver represented but we have silver called out in the types of materials unless I am looking in the wrong place. We have it here but it doesn't appear here so we don't have anything to tell us what that silver is. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 13 Hoffman: Marr: Hoffman: Bunch: Marr: Conklin: Hoffman: Marr: Feinstein: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Marr: Feinstein: Can you coordinate that with staff and make sure that that matches? My concern would be that any silver would be reflective or highly reflective and we would want to stay away from those kinds of surfaces. Do we all have the same page three? There are two different copies of this floating around. There are two page threes and it is on both of them. There is a difference in that one of them does not include the comment about the smooth faced block only permitted as an accent block. That is the only difference, I just want to make sure that we don't get confused and we are talking from the right page three. That is correct. That is something that staff asked the applicant to change because it is stated that the type of blocks used were standard and I wanted to make sure that we were not saying go ahead and use smooth faced block as the main material on the wall. The first page three, which I read into the record where it talks about standard or smooth faced blocks will only be permitted as accent blocks, that is the correct one. And we will make sure that that is the one that gets filed. Exactly. Did we get an answer on the silver question? We can get that resolved. My comment on that would be just to have the staff coordinate with it to make sure that it is not highly reflective when it comes back if that is acceptable to everybody. Should there be a question on it to run it through the Subdivision Committee? That is up to you. I don't know if we have done this before but I know we have had some discussion about consideration of an outdoor lighting ordinance and I am just wondering if there were any discussions in the covenants about what type of lighting or encouraging individuals to have a certain lighting, downward lit fixtures or anything of that nature? I don't believe there is any discussion there. Conklin: The Overlay District would require a maximum height of 35', shielded, Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 14 directed downward. In the outdoor lighting ordinance we are trying to define exactly what that means which hopefully we will bring to you in the near future. Hoffman: The project lies partly outside of the Overlay District and I did ask at agenda session Mr. Conklin to clarify and I think that we might want to discuss that and what that implies regarding the design of the building and the site when you have a building half in and half out of the Overlay District. Tim, would you mind going back over that for us? Conklin: Sure. Within the district they have to comply with the Overlay District standards. Outside they will have to comply with the rest of the standards. Since the Overlay District was passed in 1994 we have adopted landscaping standards for parking lots, commercial design standards for buildings, so you get fairly close to what the Overlay District would require. The Overlay District is probably a little more restrictive with regard to it actually states the front facade facing the street where the Overlay District talks about articulated buildings that are not just square and boxlike. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Andy, do you have anything further? Feinstein: No. We did address one of the other comments about access from lot 8 to McMillan Drive. The revised plat will indicate a 50'x60' access easement to allow egress and ingress from lot 8 to McMillan Drive and we have added a note that the owner of lot 8 should be responsible for construction of the driveway crossing the drainage channel separating lots 8 and 9. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Are there any further questions? Hoover: I have a question for staff. On Marinoni Drive, what is the future of that? Does that continue straight south? Conklin: The Marinonis, who own the property, actually the road is partially on their property I believe. When they do bring in a development that will be determined in the future exactly where that will go. They currently have 80 acres, I'm not sure if it is still for sale but it was for sale and they have met with staff and we've talked about future streets and at this time it is not on the master street plan. Hoover: My question is if someone comes in for lot 2, are we going to consider McMillan Drive the front of their building or what? Conklin- When we get to that point we will have that discussion. The Marinonis will be contacted and it is something that has been brought up to the Marinonis, it is something that I brought up for the City of Fayetteville to Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 15 make sure that we don't have backs of buildings on a future street in Fayetteville. You know, probably my guess on lots six and four, you might end up with lots backing up against those lots in the future. That has been discussed also. It is hard to tell with 80 acres currently for sale zoned R-1. Feinstein: If I can comment on that. I think just from hearing the level of interest that these lots are generating I think that timing is going to be the issue here. There will probably be no Marinoni Drive to front to at the time that these developments come in. Timing sort of precludes anybody wanting to have frontage on a street that doesn't exist. Hoover: I guess if we are trying to plan for the future...I just don't want to come up with a situation like we have a few other times where no, the street is not platted on there but six months later it comes in and then we already have the rear of the building facing the road. Conklin: On lot number two, just the way the lot is configured, I think you are going to have the northeast wall visible from the street and I think we can handle that through our commercial design standards. Hoover: And you think it would be inappropriate to expect that a building that actually straddles the Overlay District that the whole building accommodate the Overlay District requirements? Conklin: That question was asked at agenda session and back in 1994 after we passed the Overlay District we were challenged and did go to Court over that ordinance during that time and during the time that the ordinance was being considered that question was asked. It was always stated that the Overlay District boundaries only applied within that actual boundary that is described within the ordinance and that is what was stated during the trial. Hoover: Was it specifically asked about a building or a piece of property? Conklin- Property. Where do the regulations apply. Hoover: Because when it comes to code requirements and Lorel can help on this, it usually goes to more stringent than that you would split the building. Conklin: I won't take it personally if you think I'm wrong. You can challenge that interpretation and see if the Board of Adjustment will give you a different interpretation. I think that it is important that during the development of the Overlay District and being sued over the Overlay District what was stated to the property owners along the bypass that just because you may own 300 acres along the bypass, not all 300 acres were within the Overlay Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 16 District and the regulations didn't apply to that. That was a very important point. I understand your concern. Hoover: I agree there but I think a structure is different than a piece of property. Conklin: That is my interpretation. Hoffman: If I can throw my two cents in, I agree that a structure for building code purposes would have to apply with safety codes or whatever. This is an aesthetic issue and one that when you do have large tracts like we've got at CMN and several other developments, we have buildings that straddle these boundaries and I think that these restrictive covenants are strong enough and that the applicant has done an exemplary job of limiting metal and so on and gone to great, even though we don't really have an example in front of us of what these commercial buildings are going to look like, it sounds to me like they are using quality materials and plan to use those throughout the development so that is not my concern so much with these people as it would be in other cases. I think they have gone above the minimum requirement that we had talked about earlier. Ward: I think that each one of these will stand on its own merit as far as coming through commercial design standards and whatever they have coming as far as colors and materials but we are still going to require each of these to be looked at very closely with those design standards. Even lot 2, when that comes through Plat Review and Subdivision and so on it will be looked at very closely as far as what the east side of that looks like because we know that there is going to be a road down through there one of these days. I will go ahead and make a motion that we get this approved and this will be FPL 02-5.00 for McMillan Estates and it looks to me like a very nice commercial subdivision along the interstate there. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, do I have a second? Shackelford: I will second. I also have a question. It was mentioned earlier on condition one, `Planning Commission approval of the design theme for the subdivision,' should that state `Planning Commission approval of the design theme of the subdivision as proposed in covenants for McMillan Estates addition'? I believe that was recommended by staff that we make that change on condition one. Hoffman: Will you accept that change Commissioner Ward? Ward: I will accept that change. Hoffman: This will say Planning Commission approval of the design theme of the subdivision as proposed in the covenants for McMillan Estates addition Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 17 Estes: for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. In addition to the remarks of Commissioner Shackelford, in covenants for McMillan Estates addition for the City of Fayetteville, does Commissioner Ward's motion incorporate page 3 that includes the language standards or smooth faced blocks will only be permitted as accent blocks? Ward: Right and that is what the City Planner did read into the minutes I believe. Hoffman: Do you accept that Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: That was my intention. Hoffman: Ok, I have a motion and a second, do I have any further discussion? Bunch: I would like it to reflect that even though we don't have a plat in front of us on condition three of lot 8, I believe you said there was a 50'x60' easement across lot 9 to access lot 8 from McMillan, could that be on the record? Ward: Is that reflected already on the final plat somewhere? Bunch: We don't have a copy of that. Conklin: Andy, I'm trying to figure out which way the 50' and the 60' go. Hoffman: Does the motioner and the seconder accept this 50' access easement, item number three? Shackelford: Yes. Ward: Yes. Bunch: Also, the silver in the roof colors. Shackelford: We'll leave that to City staff. Hoffman: Let me make sure I've got it together here. Under item one for the design theme for the subdivision and that will be removed in the proposed covenants so we will go ahead and take care of that in the motion as well. Anything else? Ward: That's it. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 18 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve FPL 02-5.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously with a vote of 8 positive votes. Thanks Andy. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 19 LSD 02-11.00: Large Scale Development (Guido's, pp 401) was submitted by Mike Anderson on behalf of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mark Bariola for property located on Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.023 acres with a 4,275 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Hoffman: The next item of business is LSD 02-11.00 which is a large scale development for Guido's, which was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mark Bariola for property located on Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.023 acres with a 4,275 sq.ft. restaurant and 41 parking spaces proposed. There are seven conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin. Yes. Hoffman. Ok. I will go over those conditions now. 1) Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District requirements. The design theme for the Wedington Place Addition requires an "eyebrow" arch feature and brick and E.LFS. materials. The elevations indicate compliance with the design theme which includes an arch feature at the front entrance, over the windows, and on the side facade. 2) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow 41 parking spaces which is 14 spaces over the maximum allowed by ordinance. 3) Approval shall be provided from the adjacent property owners to the south and east of the site to allow a cut slope up to the property line and onto the adjacent property. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision 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 lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityas current requirements. 6) Large Scale Development approval shall be valid for one calendar year. 7) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: A. Grading and drainage permits. B. Project Disk with all final revisions. C. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Is the applicant present and would you come forward? Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 20 Ward: On this particular large scale development I must recuse. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Hoffman: Could you say your name again please? Feinstein: My name is Andy Feinstein with Engineering Design Associates. Hoffman: Andy, do you have a presentation or would you just like to ask questions? Feinstein: I need to check with my architect. Key: My name is James Key. I am the architect for the applicant. I do have mounted renderings of the proposed facade on the building. Hoffman: Ok, thanks James. Andy, do you have anything further to go ahead with? I will go ahead and ask for public comment at this point. Is there anybody here that would wish to address us on this project? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring this back to the Commission for discussion or motions. Ron, could you address for us, and possibly Andy as well, item number three and explain that? Petrie: On their proposed preliminary grading plan that was submitted for review they showed a cut slope, they are cutting the ground on their site. They are having a slope that comes up to the property line. The ordinance requires a 5' setback unless you have a joining grading where the written approval is shown on the conditions. Also, they are showing some grading offsite to the property to the south on the grading plan. The requirement is to either set it back 5' from the property line or get the written approval and have a joint grading plan. Hoffman: Has that been asked for and obtained? Feinstein: We have in hand one of those written permissions, we have made contact with the other, he is just a little slow getting his paperwork done but we will have that in had preconstruction. Hoffman: Ok and that will mitigate the need for retaining walls and things like that I assume? Petrie: Yes. Hoffman: Thank you. Commissioners? Motion: Estes: I will move for approval of LSD 02-11.00 a large scale development for Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 21 Guido's and my motion includes a determination of compliance with commercial design standards and the Design Overlay District requirements. Hoffman: Would your motion also include that the large scale development not be approved until the staff has received all the required signatures for the grading? Estes: Yes it would Madam Chair. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Bunch: Second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-11.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Ward abstaining. Hoffman: The motion carries on a vote of seven in favor and one abstention. Thank you very much Andy, we will look forward to eating your pizza. Feinstein: We are not quite done with this yet, we have a conditional use next. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 22 CUP 02-13.00: Conditional Use (Guido's, pp 401) was submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mark Bariola for property located at 1290 Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.023 acres. The request is to allow 14 additional parking spaces for a proposed 4,275 sq.ft. restaurant. Hoffman: The next item is CUP 02-13.00, which is a companion item submitted by Mike Anderson of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mark Bariola for property located at 1290 Steamboat Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.023 acres. The request is to allow 14 additional parking spaces for a proposed 4,275 sq.ft. restaurant. Before we get started with that, Tim, can you give us an update on this? Conklin: Sure. We do have signed conditions of approval for this conditional use. We did receive additional information. With regard to parking I will have Mrs. Warrick go over that information with you right now. Hoffman: Ok, Andy would you care to make a presentation on this? Dawn, do you want to take the parking first? Warrick: We did receive a letter from Engineering Design Associates this morning. You should have that in front of you addressing the conditional use request and additional parking. In that letter additional information was provided with regard to the number of total spaces being requested and some rational as to why that is necessay for this particular location according to the applicant. They propose that thye will have approximately 104 seats for customers and six employees in a maximum shift. They stated that their hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. They have also within that letter stated some additional recent conditional use approvals for the JD China restaurant on Sixth Street, as well as the McDonald's at Joyce and Mall Avenue. Basically what I've done is use the information that they have provided on this particular Guido's project, as well as the two that they have referenced and I also back tracked and found some additional information that staff pulled together on one of our recent conditional use requests for additional parking for restaurants. In total I have reviewed ten different projects. They range from 10,000 sq.ft. buildings to approximately 4,275, which is this particular project. Guido's is the smallest one we've looked at so far with regard to these requests. I have averaged things out just with regard to the number of spaces provided per square foot as well as the number of parking spaces provided per seats, just because those were pretty standard numbers that I could compare on each of the ten. The average with these ten projects was one parking space per every 71.75 sq.ft. This is after additional parking has been granted by the Commission through this process. The other average that 1 determined with these ten projects was Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 23 that one parking space for every 2.81 seats was typical. This project falls right within the averages as far as these numbers are concerned. They are proposing one space per 104 sq.ft. of the structure and that averages out to one space for every 2.54 seats proposed. There is a relatively wide range within these projects. There were a few of them, I think we pointed out when we looked at the Olive Garden project, that four of these that we used within this chart were approved prior to the current calculation on parking but they are all very representative of restaurants within the city that you have looked at as a Commission. Most of them have been looked at within the past two to five years. Hoffman. Thank you for that very thorough research, we appreciate it. Marr: Dawn, could you go through who those ten are? Warrick: The ten that we looked at are Chili's, Golden Corral, Rio Bravo, Ryan's, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Dixie Cafe, JD China, McDonald's at Joyce and Mall, and Guido's. Estes: In considering staff's recent report and the information recently provided by the applicant as the underlying data for compiling this report I would move for approval of CUP 02-13.00 incorporating the condition of approval of compliance with compliance of all conditions with the accompanying large scale development. Hoffman: You concur with the findings of fact and we need to make a positive statement about that with the conditions that are listed. Estes: My motion incorporates a positive finding of each of the specific findings of fact which are required and mandated and listed in our materials. Hoffman: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Bunch: Second. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? Marr: A couple of questions for the applicant. On the restaurant, how much of the business is actually sit down in the restaurant verses take out. We tend to associate pizza as being people coming and leaving. Feinstein: Are you talking in terms of people coming onto the site or volume of business here? Marr: I guess when I'm looking at approving additional parking I want to know if there are people that come and sit for 45 minutes that makes for a higher Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 24 requirement. Feinstein: 60% of clientele are expected to be dine in and the other 40% are expected to be take out. Marr: Is business typically split between lunch and dinner, is it weighted to one side or the other? Feinstein: It is heavier on the dinner. Marr: The only other comment Tim that I would come back on. I know these eight Commissioners are sick of hearing this but I am going to say it every time we do it. I can't think of in four years one that we've turned down because we get this analysis and I know we took this to our Council last time but it seems to me that when we have a conditional use for every restaurant, EVERY restaurant that we should go back to the Council and have it revisited again and see if there is any different consideration on that. The reason I ask this question is because I do think there are differences in restaurants between those that have transient come and grab a sandwich or pizza or whatever and maybe we can look at that, which we didn't do last time. To me it is silly for us to do this every single time we have a restaurant and I will support it. Hoffman: I certainly concur with your discussions because I think that Tim and Dawn have told us time and again that this is in line with national standards, not an unusual situation. Thank you. Marr: And thank you for trying last time. Conklin: You're welcome. Hoffman: Anybody else? I have a motion and a second on the floor. Renee, would you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-13.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Ward abstaining. Hoffman: The motion is approved with seven positive votes and one abstention. Thank you very much. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 25 PPL 02-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Lot 17, CMN Business Park II, ph II, pp 173/174) was submitted by Christopher Rogers, P.E. of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Marjorie Brooks and Nanchar, Inc. for property located between Mall Avenue and 71B and north of Fulbright Expressway. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 21.55 acres with 5 lots proposed. Hoffman: Our next item of business is PPL 02-5.00 for Lot 17 of CMN Business Park II, Phase II which was submitted by Christopher Rogers, P.E. of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Marjorie Brooks and Nanchar, Inc. for property located between Mall Avenue and 71B and north of Fulbright Expressway. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 21.55 acres with 5 lots proposed. There are eight conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Thank you. I will read through those. 1)Planning Commission approval of the requested waiver for a public street longer than 500 feet ending in a cul-de-sac. Staff is in support of this request due the impracticality of continuing the street all the way to the north property line. See letter from applicant requesting this waiver. 2) Planning Commission approval of the tree preservation plan. 3) An environmental specialist shall be employed to insure that the spirit and letter of the Corps of Engineers' 404 Permit obtained for the CMN Business Park II is followed during the construction of this project. 4) Additional "Best Management Practices" shall be employed within the Detention Pond to insure that the storm water quality will not be detrimental to the wetlands. These additional "Best Management Practices" shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityis current requirements. 7) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along Van Asche. 8) Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Would you please state your name? Rogers: I am Christopher Rogers. Hoffman: Mr. Rogers do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Rogers: No Ma'am, I am just here to answer any questions. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 26 Hoffman: Ok, we will open this up for public comment at this time. Does anybody wish to address us regarding this project? If so, would you please come to the front? I don't see anybody so I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. Marr: I would like for Mr. Whitaker from our City Attorney's office to go through this memo that we have. In this development we have had a lot of discussion of preservation for a single lot after preservation had been given for an overall preservation plan of the development and I would like to make sure that we understand clearly and that we have one position as a city on that particular item. That is my first question, I have several others. Hoffman: We'll take those one at a time and I will ask Mr. Whitaker to go ahead and enlighten us on the tree preservation ordinance. Whitaker: Thank you Madam Chairman. The Commission members have copies of a memo that I went ahead and drafted after your agenda session last Thursday when the question arose as to the legal status of tree preservation on the CMN properties. Let's go back first of all to October second which was the third and final reading of the revised tree ordinance when it was approved by the Council. I was asked by staff when it would become effective and since there was no emergency clause in it, none being needed, the standard 31 days from the date of passage applied and the first business day that fell after those 31 days was November 5`h. I have included in your packet as an attachment to it my memo of October 18th responding to that request, it was sent out to City staff to inform them that the effective date was November 5th. In it I state, and I put it in bold even back then, because I felt that it was the essential point of the memo and answered the question that was asked all applications for development approval submitted on or after that date must conform to the new provisions and that date would be November 5th. Probably not always mentioned or highlighted when these large amendments or revisions are made to our code but by ordinance we are require to repeal and then insert rather than what we used to call the old strike and insert method so on November 5th a second thing happened that passed without much notice but was equally important. That was that the ordinance which existed prior to November 5th was repealed in its entirety. It ceased to be a legal document in our city. The gist of that is for consistent enforcement at this point and to go with the concept that all applications for development approval submitted after November 5th be under the requirements of the City's ordinance is our opinion in the City Attorney's office is that new subdivisions, and this qualifies as one since it was submitted in January of this year, well after the effective date be treated as new subdivisions and that each and every provision of the new ordinance apply. One of the Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 27 reasons for that and I quoted in the memo the specific language from §167.04 (L)(2), the language regarding continuing preservation and protection under approved preservation plans, "The geographic extent and location of tree preservation areas once recorded may only be modified or abolished with the express approval of the City Council. Applicants requesting such action shall bear the burden of proving to the City Council satisfaction that such modification or abolition is in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville." I have emphasized the phrase "once recorded." The new ordinance contemplates that as we go through these processes, as this preliminary plat goes through each stage and when it reaches final plat the tree preservation areas will be clearly delineated as required in other sections of the ordinance and then filed as part of the final plat in the county clerk's office to become part of the permanent recorded record of this county. Old plans, old tree preservation plans, for the most part under the old ordinance, were never formally delineated. There were some projects where they were on the working plans submitted to you, some were more clear and straight forward than others. There were no particular requirements of how it was depicted, etc. It would simply be not only mind boggling for this city to try to enforce in such a haphazard way those things that were never recorded and we have no way of saying which version was authoritative. Under the current ordinance which contemplated very clearly recorded device with specific delineation of tree preservation areas, one of the things that we will see is that there is a gap in here. The projects that came in in the latter days of the old ordinance had recording as a condition of approval. This argument wouldn't apply there because obviously it was recorded so subsection L would apply to any of those that were recorded in the County Clerk's office and we could enforce. Any of those that were contemplated as tree preservation in the old ordinance that are not documented in the county court house we certainly would have no way of even handedly enforcing that. Some folks by being precise and forthcoming way back when would actually be at a disadvantage now because those who were murky in their plans would gain a competitive advantage in that they could argue there are no tree preservation areas on my plans. The new ordinance, if evenly applied to new submissions, will provide the same set of rules and the same playing field for those similarly situated I think this applies not only to CMN but to any number of parcels that at one time in the past, prior to November 5, 2001 would have had something called a tree preservation plan. I think it is a much stronger legal argument that we have one set of rules for everybody. Not one set for the community and one set for CMN. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Commissioner Marr, did you have anything else? Marr: I have a couple of comments and then a question. I would like to thank you for that opinion because I think one of the things that we dealt with last time was that we built Van Asche, changed the road which effected Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 28 tree preservation of the overall site that no one had any discussion over and yet it became an issue when we looked at lots 15 and 7 as we had prior preservation. I just want to make sure that, at least for myself, I'm not in that situation again of someone putting that back up when these actually come through for development. I thought it was important to get a determination on that. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. Who delineated the for lack of better word, the health of the tree? When I read on this plan that this tree is fair, this tree is poor, who did that? Rogers: Ms. Hesse assisted us in that determination. We had a Landscape Architect go out and look at them and then also Ms. Hesse went out and looked at them and since she is the resident expert we used her opinion on the health of the trees. Marr: I guess I have a question for Kim too then because when I went out and looked at this one of my questions on the tree preservation one, which would be item two on this is the trees that are just off the end of the cul- de-sac, there are a couple of really nice trees in those two. There is a sycamore on the far end, there is a ash which is the first one. One of the things that does bother me at times about our tree ordinance is we tend to, there is nothing that has a save trees on the more public space which is I think the intent of the ordinance primarily is trees that you will see and these two sections are also closest to I-540. The other concern I've got is that the section we are preserving, there are trees in that that are, it appears to me that there are a couple of trees that we are marking off that are better than some of the trees that we are preserving that are just adjacent to it. I don't know if any other Commissioners have walked it or looked at it. I guess I am just trying to understand is there any alternative as opposed to wiping out both of those two groves. Rogers: The reason that we are requesting those to be removed is for lot 17C as you see it now, we are not sure when it is going in and we have a strong possibility of subdividing it further but at this time we aren't sure of how those lots are going to be laid out. The intent is to take Van Asche even further to the east and that is why it would go right through that grove of trees and that is why we are asking for those to be removed. It was just a practicality as far as getting Van Asche through. Marr: Were there any other alternatives for boulevarding that section or anything of that nature? Rogers: No, we were looking at as far as land values and so forth. The width of that street with the grading would have to be substantial because those trees are running right along the ridge of an old pond and so you would have to have the street completely at different elevations or go completely around that grove and it is going to be difficult to get that to match up with Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 29 Ward: the other lots as far as getting the drives and so forth to work. We came up basically with the street going down the middle was going to be the easiest way to balance the grades between the lots on the north and south sides of Van Asche as that gets extended through. I think that it might be wise for us to have our Landscape Administrator, Kim Hesse, talk to us about this particular plan and I assume that this says that there are five lots proposed, are there really three? Conklin: That is correct. They revised their plan and made lot 17C one larger lot that could in the future be resubdivided through another preliminary plat process. Ward: So we are really in the process of approving a preliminary plat with three lots. Conklin- That is correct. Ward: I would like for Ms. Hesse to go over her take on the preservation area and maybe talk a little bit about some of Don's concerns about the other trees there. Hesse: The client first of all, they did confer with me very early on in the process, which is what we intended with the new ordinance which lead us to several different scenarios and one of the scenarios in our new ordinance does allow for one option for commercial subdivisions where you can preserve them all up front and for this type of subdivision it was determined that that would be the best option so that is what we are looking for when we say 15% on this particular development then that tree canopy will go into a conservation easement or the equivalent of and then the rest of these lots can do what they want. It is not necessarily to say that they are going to take out the trees during construction but it does allow for those trees to be removed. The other option of course is to have each lot stand on its own and preserve their 15%. In this particular situation it is clear that most of the trees are in two lots and so it is certainly to the city's benefit to do it this way, to save it up front. Obviously, a lot of that preservation is in our pre-existing conservation easement for the wetlands but there are other pretty large areas of trees that would be dependent on each individual lot's development. I do encourage that we save them up front in this situation. Really, throughout this development you have a mix of healthy to average to poor health trees and it is true that in each one of these groupings you have all three. The sycamore is in very good health. There is an ash that is in very good health, the trees in between are not so. It is the same with all of these groups. When I review a plan I do look at what it takes to really develop it and to construct and it is always better, from my experience in the past Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 30 three years, to save trees in a grouping. It is very difficult to pick out a tree here, to pick out a tree there and develop around it so I do always look for groupings and that is probably what lead us more to this configuration is to save as many in the groups priority wise along the creek, that is the highest priority. We have additional trees that will help buffer the wetland conservation easement. Secondly, we try to pick out another group that would work and it is difficult to really make an educated decision on which trees can be saved and which can't when you are looking at a subdivision. We obviously don't have a development in any of these lots to try to determine if they can develop it in a way to save the trees. That is the downfall of that option. You really don't have the flexibility of trying to come up with creative ways to design around trees. With these circumstances, and knowing how these lots may develop due to their location it seemed most appropriate to try to save them in groups and to save them towards the property lines of the lots. There is the understanding that more property lines may occur if we do subdivided further. This is basically how we have looked at saving these trees from the beginning. Ward: Thanks Kim. Hesse: Does that answer your question? Ward: Yes. Marr: Could you speak to the actual percentage and the validation of it and the reason I am asking is that I also can't think of a time we've ever seen a 15.00 number hit and the last time we went through all of this we also saw a number change like five times. How did we validate this number? Hesse: We haven't validated this number at this point. You know, from the past and today, we still have to give some faith in the engineers. It is their ethical duty, if nothing else, to give the accurate information and that is what I am thinking on this one. There are ways for us to validate it and it is a possibility that prior to final plat or prior to actually, the best would be prior to construction would be to validate that with AutoCAD drawings. If I could get an AutoCAD drawing of this lot I could calculate the area as well as they could. Marr: We don't have that currently available to you? Hesse: It is not to me but surely we can get it. Marr: Could you speak to the 15 number? Rogers: A lot of the information came from the previous tree preservation plan. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 31 That was previously submitted for CMN. Marr: Which, just so you know by the way, I don't have a lot of confidence in. Rogers: A lot of that information came from that and then we focused more on the extreme south corner of lot 17C of how to save that area and that is how we got to 15.0 because we started out trying to figure out which trees did we have to have and what cluster would be best to get us down to the 15% and that is how we ended up with the tree canopy down in that corner. That area though was not in the original preservation. This is what we are adding to get to the 15%. Some of those trees are smaller, some of them are bigger, that was just for some reason not included in the original preservation area. To be honest with you it came out 15.0. Conklin: I would like to add that prior to any tree removal the calculations will be validated by our Landscape Administrator and if they are not 15% it will come back to the Planning Commission. Hoffman: And that is typically as design progresses. Conklin: Before any trees are removed there will be 15% tree canopy saved on this site. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Rogers: We can guarantee that with doing an actual tree survey ourselves since we will be held accountable verses the other plan. What we can do is we can verify those canopies directly so it will be based off of our information and nobody else's. Whitaker: In this situation once that 15% is set aside ahead of time it will be recorded on the final plat and it will be a tree preservation area that will be in the record for any future reference. If anything were to come back it would be enforceable. Hoffman. There is just so much information that can be put on one plan. Do these plans go as a set that is recorded as numerous sheets at the county or how are we doing that now? Whitaker: On one of the attachments I gave you had the page that had section L and sub one actually addresses what would be on it. Lets see, the existence "...tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plat for large scale developments and on the final plats for non-residential subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature of the protection afforded and bearing the signature of the Landscape Administrator." Skipping down a bit, "...if it is Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 32 impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserved on the easement plat or the final plat itself, a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice." Hoffman: Commissioners, are there any further questions at this point? Allen: When I drove out there to look at this I wouldn't have thought that the whole area would have had a great deal more than 15% of it in trees, I wondered if you had any idea what percentage of the whole area was treed. Rogers: It would basically be what is existing plus the trees that we are asking to be removed. Conklin: They are showing 16.12% existing canopy currently. Rogers: So we are only taking out just 1%. Conklin: 1.12%. Allen: I think that is an important thing to be clear on. Hoffman: Thank you for bringing that up because this 15% figure is a percentage of the total lot area that we are talking about, not the number of trees or so on. It is the canopied area of the lot. Estes: I have a question for Mrs. Hesse. Mrs. Hesse, does the tree preservation plan comply with the existing ordinance? Hesse: Motion: Yes it does. It is built in with the typical subjectivity of what is high priority and what is not high priority. Like I say though, I put the highest priority along the creek and we have those saved. We are not saving all of the highest priority but we are saving those along the creek. That is my answer, yes we are with the subjectivity of looking forward to development and knowing that that is going to be developed. Estes: I would move for approval of PPL 02-5.00, CMN Business Park II, Phase II subject to all conditions of approval. Hoffman: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoffman: I will give that to Commissioner Shackelford. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 33 Conklin: Madam Chair, will you add a condition that the tree preservation plan shall be validated by the Landscape Administrator prior to any grading or storm water permits, or tree removal? Hoffman: Do we want to make that number nine? Conklin: Sure. Hoffman: So we will have a confirmed tree preservation application prior to grading and storm water approval. No trees will be removed prior to that date. Estes: The movement accepts the additional condition of approval. Hoffman: Thank you. Does the second? Shackelford: As does the second. If I could, one quick comment. Commissioner Mary's comments about the tree preservation, what trees are being preserved and what trees aren't, it is very admirable thing that you are doing looking at the trees and trying to preserve the best trees you can. The reason that I am comfortable with it as stated is simply because we have a Landscape Administrator and that is her job to do that. Just as if we don't try to redesign buildings and stuff like that, I feel that we have to depend on her expertise and her guidance in this area. That's all I have, thank you. Hoffman: I would just like to add that it is through the hard work of a lot of people and those sitting here on this Commission as a whole to get to where we've gotten to this point with our tree ordinance and we have actually had, this is the most discussion we've had regarding it since it was passed. We have had several projects that have been approved under our new ordinance and that have gone quite smoothly so for that I would like to thank everybody involved and particularly Mr. Whitaker who has been with it from the inception. Most of us were here during the great tree debate and I think that we have shown as a city the ability to grow and yet preserve our natural beauty and I for one would like to commend the entire staff and Commission that has been involved in doing that. Marr: I would just like to make one other comment. I am going to vote on it based on Kim's recommendation but I do want to say a couple of things. I think we ought to have a file folder somewhere where we stick things into it that says these are the kind of issues that are coming up and we're discussing particularly with the new ordinance. One of those is that I think that trees need to be public visible areas and this is an area where we are cutting out what is very visible. Secondly, I think there is some question about who delineates the health of a tree and whether it is high Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 34 priority and I think that we need to be able to look at that because if you walked out there and went through these things there is a reason that the part we are adding now as preservation wasn't listed as a part of preservation of the overall CMN development. That is because there were trees of higher quality somewhere else. That is my concern in this is that there are trees in these other areas that I think are significantly better trees than the ones we are capturing. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford that we rely on Kim and I understand the difference between 16 and 15, just like I understood it between 10.29 and 15 but I think we need to be consistent in how we look at these things. At one time when it is not a tree that we argue about or that we like because it happens to be the tallest walnut or the tallest sycamore that we don't do it. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Marr. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-5.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: This will pass on a unanimous vote of eight. Thank you very much. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 35 CUP 02-12.00: Conditional Use (Hatcher, pp 406) was submitted by Rudy Hatcher for property located on the north side of Lawson and east of Gregg Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is for a duplex in the R-1, Low Density Residential zoning district. Hoffman: Our next item of business is CUP 02-12.00 which was submitted by Rudy Hatcher for property located on the north side of Lawson and east of Gregg Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is for a duplex in the R-1, Low Density Residential zoning district. The recommended motion by staff is denial of this conditional use. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve this request the staff does recommend the following conditions. I will just go through those. 1) Structure shall contain approximately 1550 s.f. heated space for each of the two units (total of approximately 3100 s.f.). 2) Each unit shall have a two car garage. 3) Each unit shall contain no more than 2 bedrooms. Tim, do you have anything to add to that before we go to the applicant's presentation? Conklin: Staff was unable to make findings. We are recommending denial. If you do approve it we have placed the following conditions. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Are you here to represent the project? Please state your name. Hatcher: Rudy Hatcher. Hoffman: Do you have a presentation for us Mr. Hatcher or would you just like to answer questions? Hatcher: I have a short, quick one I hope. I will start with saying that I've been a builder in Fayetteville since 1975. I live within two hundred yards of this piece of property. I am aware that some of the local property owners have petitioned against this. Over the last five days I've talked to quite a few of the local property owners, especially the ones that were major in working on this petition. I spent time trying to find out if there were any conditions under which that they would be in favor and I did not by in large. Most of them said that they just didn't want a duplex down there. The reason that I requested this conditional use was because of the fact that I live near there, I felt that it would be less dense, that I could retain more trees, and that it would be an upscale use that would work with the immediately adjacent property and meanwhile, come near to fitting in with the property that is further away. Addressing the Planning Division's thing, this isn't a major deal, but they have got it down for .44 acres, it is about .67 acres. Later in their report they state that it is 29,200 sq.ft., which is correct. Probably my major disagreement, if you want to call it with the findings Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 36 that Tim and Dawn made was that, I've got a map showing all the owner occupied property. In the staff's findings, their last finding states that the proposed duplex is not generally compatible with adjacent properties and other properties within the district. The Lawson Street area is developed with primarily single-family homes. There are some duplexes along Gregg Avenue in this part of town. Most structures are single-family homes. It is important that the encroachment of multi -family residences along thoroughfares is not allowed to put the neighborhood at risk. There are 37 rental units within a 350' radius of that lot, of which three of those are single-family homes, the rest are multi -family. There are five owner occupied residences within the same 350' radius. There is also about an 80' elevation change from the property up along Vandeventer down to that property so that property is much nearer to the same elevation as Gregg Street. My point is that it is not, the property immediately around it is not single-family. I have the right to build a couple of houses on that property and that is what I will probably do, assuming that this is going to get denied. That is the reason that I requested the conditional use, I felt like it was a better use. I had less density and I was able to save approximately 26 trees that I won't be able to save with the houses. Hoffman: Thank you very much. I will go ahead and take public comment at this time. Is there anyone that would wish to address us? Please come forward and tell us your name Newman: My name is John Newman and I live at 319 Holly Street, which is in that neighborhood there. I am here representing myself and also the newly formed VA Hill Neighborhood Association which is comprised of about 60 homes. I guess I am here to ask you to reject this application and there are really three reasons that come to mind for me. The first is that the duplexes are inconsistent with our neighborhood. Excluding those properties along Gregg Street, which you could argue are part of the neighborhood or not. It is certainly different, there are no duplexes to my knowledge in the neighborhood. It is a neighborhood for exclusively single-family homes. The vast majority of which are owner occupied. This map, Rudy came and showed me this map a couple of days ago, and I appreciate that he did that, but at least from my viewing the way that he put it together was confusing at best and perhaps even a little bit deceptive in that he is equating, if I understand this right, there are two colors there, one is owner occupied and then he is equating anything that is not owner occupied with a strict definition as rental. The problem there is for example, the house right next door to me on the comer of Holly and Shady Lane just sold. I believe it is marked as rental property there. That house was bought, it is a young couple who just got married and the Bride's parents bought the house for them. Strict definition it is not owner occupied because it is the parents that own it but it is certainly not rental Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 37 property in my definition. There is also a number of houses that the owner has lived there, three is a house down the street from me that the owners are over seas for a couple of years and one of their kids is living in the house, again, that is being considered rental. More importantly, fortunately there is a fair amount of greenspace in our neighborhood which is unoccupied. Technically I guess Mr. Hatcher is considering that non -owner occupied because it is not occupied. I could point to the parts of the map but there is a lot here. The biggest of which is the Whitfield place, which is that large white space on the map. He has got the house in red and the rest in green. Well, it has been in the Whitfield family for I don't know how long and there are no plans to develop it that I am aware of so I just wanted to clarify that. From my point of view it is a neighborhood of single-family residences. We have, maybe five years ago or so, I have lived there almost fourteen years now. It seemed like the neighborhood was kind of on the cusp. It seemed like there were more rental houses, more houses were going toward rental and we had a few that were students and it was a problem. They were nice kids that lived in them but it was just inconsistent. They liked to party, they liked loud music and a number of neighbors were unhappy and just by talking, I am thinking in particular of two houses, one was right next door to me and another one was on Vandeventer about four houses away from me, kind of half way between my house and the property. Just by talking with the owners of the houses we convinced them to sell them and those are now owner occupied. That shift has gone toward more owner occupied. If this were approved it would be a major shift in my mind in the other direction towards rental property. I look forward to living there perhaps until I go to an old age home (hopefully not soon) but if there are going to be a lot of duplexes and rentals and students then I don't want to live there. I guess my problem is right now the line is clearly drawn that it is ok on Gregg Street but not beyond that. Once we go over that line then for me, a homeowner there, I don't know where the line is anymore and I don't know whether that is the last line. The other lot that Mr. Hatcher bought, whether that is going to be duplexes, I don't know if the whole neighborhood is going to be duplexes eventually. I guess that is the problem that I have with if we cross that line coming off of Gregg Street. The other reason that I wanted to say is that the property is on Lawson Street, which is a narrow street. Lawson up until roughly five years ago was a dirt road. It got paved but it didn't get widened when it was paved. I don't know how wide it is but it feels narrower than perhaps it is because it has ditches on both sides, no shoulders. Parts of the ditch are maybe 2' or 3' deep, I regularly take a walk on my street with my dog and when a car comes there is enough room for me and the car, but there is not a lot of extra room and you've got to be careful when you step out of the way of the car that you don't step in the ditch of course there is no sidewalk. I am just concerned about a lot of building on Lawson if the population Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 38 increases there and whether that street needs to be altered or what is going to happen. The third reason that I think that this application should be rejected is that the neighbors are very much against it. We went around and asked neighbors to sign a petition, would you guys like to see this or should I read it? Hoffman: You can go ahead and read it and we'll pass it around. Newman: Of the roughly 60 homes in the neighborhood we were able to get 44 signatures opposing this. That was all in just one pass through this weekend, we didn't have a lot of time. I am told from the three people who went around to collect the signatures that in asking neighbors to get these 44 signatures they only had 3 people who said that they were uncomfortable signing it. We are talking about more than 90% of the neighbors being opposed to this. I guess that is all that I have to say. Thank you for listening to me and please keep in mind that this decision is very important to our little neighborhood. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to address us on this issue? Yes, would you come forward and tell us your name please? Brown: My name is James Brown. I live at the top of the hill at the corner of Lawson and Woolsey. Just to address a couple of things that Mr. Hatcher had said, he said that the immediate adjacent property was not mainly single-family but in contradiction there is only one side of the property, which is to the north, not even on the street side, it would be on the backside of the property that is multi -family currently. Also, the 350' radius that he is including is including properties across Gregg Street, which I would say is undesirable for a single-family dwelling and actually not bad for a multi -family dwelling. I don't think it is fair to include those properties on Lawson. The flow of the neighborhood in my opinion would be affected by a multi -family dwelling on Lawson Street. The flow of the neighborhood is very obviously, if you travel through there, which I do daily up the hill away from Gregg Street. That area is primarily single- family, the area is vacant and has a lot of woods. That is all that 1 have. I would like to ask one question. Mr. Hatcher has stated that he would like to build two dwellings on the property, would that be subject to Commission approval? Hoffman: I will let Mr. Conklin address that. Conklin: The property has 150' of frontage, lot width. The zoning district R-1 requires a minimum of 70' so there is adequate room to build two separate single-family homes. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 39 Brown: But it also requires 8' on either side, is that correct? Conklin: Yes, two 8' side setbacks, 25' front setback, 20' rear setback. There would be adequate room to build two homes on this property. The ordinance does allow that if he did apply for two building permits allow that each structure is built in a manner that the lot could be subdivided in the future and they would meet setbacks for each one. Brown: So it is subject to approval of the building? Conklin- That would be administrative by staff. We would make sure that the placement of both structures, if we drew an imaginary lot line down between them, each would have two 8' side setbacks or 16' between them measured from eave to eave. Brown: Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you very much Mr. Brown. Is there anybody else here that would like to talk about this project? Roach: My name is Hal Roach and I live on Vandeventer, which is probably 300' from the lot in question. I just wanted to tell you that I am probably the newest resident to the neighborhood. My wife and I moved there in May of last year and I work with one of the Wal-Mart vendors up in Bentonville and she is a dentist in Springdale. We chose to live in Fayetteville because it is an older neighborhood, and we looked at the other towns in Northwest Arkansas and didn't find the character of Fayetteville. We have really enjoyed living in Fayetteville and we love it. We appreciate you guys serving on the Commission and holding that standard for Fayetteville. I know you consider that in making this decision. I also want to tell you that Rudy is active in the real estate area in Fayetteville and I know he will be in front of you guys again. He has been very gracious in how he has handled this in visiting with us and he came to our Neighborhood Association meeting and has been very cooperative in trying to get our input into the building. My first inclination was to consider him a villain trying to put a duplex in our quiet single-family neighborhood but I just wanted to kind of be gracious. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else from the public? Now we will bring it back to the applicant and the Commission for discussion and questions and motions. Commissioners? Estes: This is a conditional use request and will require five affirmative votes. There are specific findings of fact that we must make. One of those is that Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 40 granting the conditional use will not adversely effect the public interest and staff's finding is that the granting of this conditional use permit will further allow the encroachment of multi -family dwellings into this low density residential neighborhood. A remaining finding of fact that we must make is general compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district and staff's finding is that the proposed duplex is not generally compatible with adjacent properties and other properties within the district. It is for these reasons that if a motion was made to approve this conditional use I would vote against the motion. Hoffman. Thank you Commissioner Estes. Is there anybody else? Hoover: I am in agreement with Commissioner Estes. I am for diversity in neighborhoods, diversity in lot size, diversity of use in multi -family but I think here in this neighborhood we already have an existing neighborhood that has multi -family going along the perimeter edge of it and I don't think that it should come any further in. I drove the area over there and didn't see any duplex or multi -family within that area. It reminds me of the conditional use we gave in Wilson Park for duplex. The neighbors were in favor of it. That was actually on the perimeter of Wilson Park and I think that that makes a huge difference in looking at this. I wouldn't want to see a sprinkling of multi -family going through a single-family development. I think that when we go through and we see new developments come in with diversity of land use, multi -family, single-family, usually they are on the more major roads like Gregg Street if you were starting a new development I don't think you would be sprinkling them within the development. I will be not voting for the duplex. Allen: I also drove by the area yesterday and I agree with the staff and the comments of my fellow Commissioners that this would be an inappropriate use and will not vote for it. Shackelford: I guess I want to take a moment to play Devil's advocate here. Obviously listening to the neighbors there are some very definite concerns about this use in this area. One of those concerns is the introduction of rental property to the neighborhood. I just want to make sure that we have it as part of public record that just because we decline the conditional use for a duplex, the applicant has the opportunity to build two houses that may still end up as rental property within this neighborhood and have that effect on the neighborhood. The second thing that the neighbors also brought up was traffic being an issue. By approving a duplex and with the limitations of two bedrooms per duplex we can limit the size of growth here to four bedrooms for the overall property. If we allow the applicant, or if we decline this and the applicant develops rental property on this he can build two three bedroom homes as rental and have six bedrooms that I think Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 41 would generate more traffic. I just want to make sure that we are thinking through the entire process. Just because we decline this is not going to be the end of the effect on this neighborhood. I just wanted to make that statement and kind of throw that out for discussion as well. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. I have a question for the applicant, I wonder if you could come back up. I too drove through the neighborhood and there is a really nice mixture of different styles of houses and it is nicely wooded, a lovely area. I too did not see duplexes. You made a statement earlier on in your presentation about saving some trees or some economy scale if you put duplexes in verses two homes. When I looked at that lot the trees kind of looked like they were medium sized and evenly scattered. I wonder if you could address that a little bit more for us. Hatcher: Basically two individual houses take up twice as big of footprint so you end up having to destroy a lot more trees to get two individual houses than you do a duplex. Hoffman: The floor plan that you have shown us looks like a standard duplex like you would see in pretty much any other place. I think that one of my concerns, since this is a conditional use, it is not a use by right, would be that it would be more of a cookie cutter appearance than what is out there in the neighborhood. There is such a wonderful variety of different looking homes and I wondered if you had looked into any architectural alternatives that might combine to save neighborhood identity, save trees and make it not look like a duplex, which is possible. Hatcher: I did specifically ask the property owners that I talked with if there was anything I could do to change the duplex that would make them in favor of it and universally they said no so I did not work further with it. Hoover: One comment. Looking at the footprint of this duplex, is that 43' the entire over both of them? Hatcher: No, it is 86'. Hoover: Ok, well usually when you have topography and trees it is easier to pull the buildings apart to get them placed between the trees and I think a large footprint like this, usually I would say yes. The higher density the better. You could save more trees but to get higher density on this would need to go two stories. This is a really large footprint. If you would have brought to us two single-family homes verses the duplex to see which trees we were saving, I might be more willing to consider the whole thing. Since all I have to look at is this my guess is that this is not going to save a Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 42 whole lot of trees that I see out there. Hatcher: There are about 26 trees, one of which has a 10' circumference, four or five are 8' in circumference and all the rest of them are smaller to give you an idea. Does anyone else have anymore questions? Bunch: Yes. Concerning the parking, am I reading this correctly where you have a double garage for each duplex and then four stacked spaces on top of that? Are you saying six per side? Hatcher: Yes, because the street is so narrow that I don't want anybody parking on the street. It is just impossible to get through there. Bunch: Basically at a ratio of three parking places per bedroom? Hatcher: Right, to allow for company and everything. Bunch: What market do you anticipate using this for as rental property if you would need six spaces per bedroom? Hatcher: I am structuring these as more of condos. They are a duplex because there are two units in the building. I will be structuring them actually as a condominium deal. The rental market that I was going to go for was more college professor, 40 or 50 year olds that decide they don't want to take care of a yard. That market, because I feel that very few college kids want two bedroom units, they are expensive. Shackelford: I know that we are putting the horse way before the cart, but if we were to consider approving this, staff has recommended three conditions of the approval. Have you read those and are you in agreement with those three conditions? Hatcher: Yes. You might read them back to me a little bit just to refresh my memory. Shackelford: Structure shall contain approximately 1,550 sq.ft. heated space for each of the two units for a total of 3,100 ft. Each unit shall have a two car garage. Each unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms. Hatcher: No problem whatsoever. The tree thing, the way it is right now, the footprint of the building that I've got drawn is about 7,500 or 8,000 sq.ft. so there is about 21,000 canopy is what that percentage is. Approximately 70% canopy is what I would be retaining the way that it is drawn. If I build the two houses it will destroy about 14,000 to 15,000 sq.ft. of canopy so it is approximately double. That is partly your comment, the Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 43 Allen: terrain has a lot to do with it. If it were a flat lot it would be a little bit of a different situation. I just wanted to, regardless of what we do here Mr. Hatcher, I wanted to commend you for efforts to work with the neighbors voluntarily to try to get with them to see if you could come up with something. I appreciate that. Hatcher: The neighbors are all very nice. I understand their concern about the neighborhood. I would've liked to have convinced them that what I was trying to do was in their benefit but I don't think I accomplished that. Thank you. Ward: The only take I have on this, I think that there are a lot of advantages with the upscale duplex but I think that the two homes on the property will have a much better chance in the future of having owner occupied, especially probably the front home, it could be the back one, compared to even an upscale duplex. I guess if somebody came in with a Bill of Assurance that these were strictly for sale, that each unit was a condominium type situation and both units would be sold then that is maybe a little different story. I could see that we would be saving a lot of trees, we would be dealing with the narrow lot and the narrow street and so on, it would probably be more helpful. Since there are no duplexes on Lawson I will probably go ahead and vote with the majority here at this point. There are a lot of advantages for the upscale duplexes though. Hoffman: I will go ahead and weigh in on the side of deciding not to go with duplexes simply for the reasons that I have previously stated. One question about sidewalks, your dog walking reminded me that I believe if any development occurs, whether it is duplex or single-family, that we have a sidewalk requirement or a variance procedure now in place. Tim, has that passed? That passed but has it been 31 days? We recently revised our sidewalk ordinance. Conklin: I apologize, what was the question? Hoffman: Sidewalks whether it is single-family or a duplex. We have an ordinance in transition between working with half to put a sidewalk in and there are no sidewalks there, it is just ditches. Conklin: That actually went to City Council last Tuesday night and it passed. Hoffman: The thing that I am just bringing up is that regardless of what the outcome is is that you will have more options available to you with regard to not constructing the sidewalk because of the recent changes to the ordinance. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 44 Marr: Does anybody else wish to address this? I think it is pretty clear and everyone has pretty much stated just about every issue of this. I guess my question is do we want a motion to deny or are we waiting for someone to not give a motion to approve and I think there is a difference on that being what could come forward in the future. Does the applicant understand that we need five? Hoffman: We need five votes and if you fail to receive these five votes, if there is a motion made to deny then you can appeal it to City Council. If we don't make any motion then it dies for lack of a motion I'm not sure what happens. Commissioner Estes would you like to tell me since I am so new to this job? Estes: It could be brought back within one year is that correct Mr. Conklin? Conklin- That is correct, there is a one year time frame where it can't come back to the Commission. Hoffman: Ok. Whitaker: It sounds like the one year restriction wouldn't apply to Mr. Hatcher since he would go the route of two single-family dwellings and no longer even have to come back here. Hoffman: Ok, well I will call for motions. Motion: Marr: I move for denial of CUP 02-12.00. Hoffman: I have a motion for denial by Commissioner Marr, do I hear a second? Allen: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: I guess since I began the conversation as the Devil's advocate looking at this, my take on it is that I am still not convinced that a high end duplex wouldn't be less change to the neighborhood. I think we could generate less traffic count, I think that we could basically facilitate that. However, I am in agreement that we don't have the information that we need to make that decision now so I will be supporting the motion. Hoffman: Ok, thank you very much. Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 45 Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to deny CUP 02-12.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman. The motion to deny passes on a vote of eight unanimously Thank you all for your time. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 46 Hoffman: Grubbs: Hoffman: Motion: Estes: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Roll Call: Hoffman: The next item on the agenda tonight is RZN 02-10.00 for Mid-America, which was submitted by Richard Grubbs on behalf off Mid-America Management Company for property located in the 100 block of Appleby Road, west of Northwest Nursing Center. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately .14 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report which we have. Would you please state your name and do you have a presentation? Rich Grubbs with Arkansas Commercial Real Estate and no, I am just here to answer any questions. Ok, thank you Mr. Grubbs. Is there any member of the audience that wishes to address us on this rezoning? I will remind everybody that a rezoning is a recommendation that would be forwarded to City Council, either pro or con at their next regularly scheduled meeting. I will bring it back to the Commission for motions or discussion. This request is to rezone a strip of land approximately 20' x 310' that was removed from a parcel and added to an adjacent parcel in a recent lot line adjustment. It is landlocked. I see it as an administrative matter almost and would move for approval of RZN 02-10.00. I have a motion to approve RZN 02-10.00 by Commissioner Estes. I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-10.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries unanimously with a vote of eight to zero. Thank you very much. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 47 RZN 02-9.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next items are two companion items which are RZN 02-9.00 and RZN 02-12.00, which are rezonings for Archer, which was submitted by Julian and Jane Archer for property located a 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.1 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. The second companion item, I will go ahead and just go through this, is a rezoning submitted by the Archers for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 18.80 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Tim, would you like to enlighten us on this before we start? Conklin- Madam Chair and members of the Commission, this is a result of the applicants, Julian and Jane Archer, bringing forward a building permit to establish and build a new barn on their property. During the discussions, and we also did a site visit, we discovered that there were no longer horses on this property. This property is very historic, it is a large property up on top of what we call Markham Hill. During our site visit we did note that there is an existing barn, there is an existing corral on the property so there is evidence of horses on this property over many years. However, it has been approximately 3-5 years since horses were on this property and therefore, we are not allowed to allow the reestablishment of horses without down zoning the property from R-1, Low Density Residential, which is four units per acre to A-1, Agricultural, which is two units per acre single-family homes. That is why it is before you. It is fairly unique, we don't see this happen too often. Our current zoning ordinance does not have a provision for horses within residential zoning districts. That is something we may want to consider in the future but at this time the only way to reestablish horses back on this property would be rezoning this to A-1. They have offered a Bill of Assurance, it is in your packet. That Bill of Assurance talks about not allowing commercial chicken houses, feed or hog production, trailer parks, cemetery, crematorium, mausoleum, hospital, and convalescent homes. They are removing some of the more objectionable uses from the A-1 zoning district as part of the Bill of Assurance which has been offered by the applicant. That is all I have. Hoffman: Can you tell us what other uses might be included that might be permissible under this zoning that they did not exclude in their Bill of Assurance? I am thinking of animal related enterprises and I don't know if we have it in our packet under the use units. While you are looking that up I will go ahead and call on the applicant's representative. If you could Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 48 give us your name and go ahead and give us your presentation. Winston: I don't have a presentation. My name is Winston and Winston and I live on the top of Markham Hill. Dr. Archer asked me to come and represent him. I have talked to him about the issue and I am really here to just answer any questions if I can if you have any. Hoffman- Ok, thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this item? I don't see anybody so I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. Hoover: I have got a question for staff, maybe just because I've never looked clearly at a Bill of Assurance. Shouldn't we be filling out item one and two with what the property shall be limited to? It seems to me it opens us up to a lot of things. Conklin- Number three states specific activities will not be allowed on the Petitioner's property including...that is how it reads. This is a form that we give to the applicants to get into a form that is enforceable by the City of Fayetteville. That is how they filled it out. Hoover: We don't fill out item number one? Conklin: We can't ask for a Bill of Assurance. We give them a standard form and they fill it out, which states the activities will not include commercial chicken houses and the other items that were listed. Hoover: So usually when we get a Bill of Assurance it doesn't have all the items categorized. Warrick: In many situations an applicant will offer to limit the uses to a certain thing and in other situations they will offer to allow a certain thing on the property. It is basically up to the applicant as to how they choose to make an offering to the City with regard to restrictions. In this case they have chosen to restrict certain uses as opposed to limit to a certain thing. Hoover: Does that open us up to other uses that we are not thinking about? Conklin: I will read you what is in unit six. Agriculture, agricultural uses and services, Farm: Crop -Egg -Truck, Services: Hay baling, smoking, curing and selling of smoked or cured poultry and livestock, Sorting- packing and selling fruits, vegetables and flowers, Threshing. We removed cemetery, crematorium , mausoleum, Institutional Use: hospital, convalescent home. Unit Seven, animal husbandry, animal farms for show, breeding and training. Farms with livestock, livestock services, animal hospitals, Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 49 shipping of livestock, training of horses, veterinarian's treatment area, recreational use, guest ranch, riding stable, rifle range, rodeo ground. Hoffman: I can't imagine that we would be having a rifle range up on top of the hill. I think that probably violates some other city ordinances. Hoover: What about a fairground? Conklin: Rodeo ground. The applicant's representative is here. He has been told what the Archers will be using their property for. Basically the Commission had some concerns with regard to some of the additional uses. If you are authorized you can limit those uses further. Winston: I am not authorized to limit it any further. Some of those things that you just mentioned were new to me. Ward: Tim, why couldn't we just do a conditional use for horses? Conklin: We don't have that allowed in our code at this time. This comes up, it is interesting the number of farm animals the Planning Division has had to deal with over the years. We removed a llama, a goat, some turkeys, chickens. We haven't had too much experience with Vietnamese potbelly pigs, a bee hive, we had a horse up on South Country Club Hill, an addition with a regular back yard, wood fence, looking over the top of the fence. It is an issue. Certain areas are more appropriate than others. I guess my initial comments were that maybe this is something that we do need to look at with regard to residential zoning districts. We do have a large potential subdivision coming to the Commission off of Hwy. 265 adjacent to Hyland Park. There is existing horses in that area, it is zoned R-1 and their plans are to leave that boarding stable within that R-1 as an existing legal non -conforming use. However, it does pose issues with regard to horses in R-1 neighborhoods. Estes: Mr. Conklin, would you consider removing a little female black lab named Katie that digs a lot? Would you do that for me? Conklin: If I go out there and I can tell it is a kennel I can get it removed, if not, no. Ward: In their application letter they basically got to the point that they are building a 15 horse stall barn, which tells about pattern and color and that kind of stuff and also that they will have no more than 20 horses on this property. They kind of offered a lot of assurances in their application letter. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 50 Conklin: Motion: Estes: Marr: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Marr: Hoffman: Hoover: Whitaker: They did not fill out that form in that manner. I would be more than happy to talk with Julian and Jane Archer regarding the concerns. I know they are in a hurry and I am not asking you to forward this if you would like me to talk to them further about that. The two rezoning requests before us, if we take dispositive action it will be forwarded to the City Council, our action is advisory only. This is just to restore the use as it previously existed. For those reasons I would move for approval of RZN 02-9.00 and 02-12.00. I will second. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Marr and I will add that in agreement I went up to the property today and I can remember back when it was a horse facility and it seems that that is a great use for it to get replaced. With that being said, if the staff could possibly work with the applicants on these other concerns as it goes forward through the process, before it gets to City Council. Sure, we will do that. I would like for the record to be clear which item you are voting on. We are going to vote on them separately. We have a motion on both but I will go ahead and vote separately on each. Can I ask the motion and the second if that is ok to split your motions or did you intend to have them go forward together? The movement will separate the motions into two different items, RZN 02-9.00 move for approval and then RZN 02-12.00 move for approval. Thank you. Commissioner Marr? I will second that. Renee, would you call the roll? I have a question for our City Attorney because I want to understand. The letter that we have submitted with the Bill of Assurance, does that have any legal binding? It would not because it is below the signature, it is not part of the Bill of Assurance. The signature boxes here are known as subscriptions on the Bill of Assurance. Anything coming after that would not be considered as Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 51 part of it. Those letters I think were just for your information and to explain to you what the purpose of the request was. They would not be part of the Bill of Assurance. Hoover: I am going to have to vote against this. I am not against what they are proposing to do but I don't feel comfortable without this in the Bill of Assurance. Hoffman: Conklin: See, that is yet to be determined until it gets to the City Council. There is still time to nail it down. That is my opinion. I will call Julian and Jane Archer and ask if they will reverse how they are doing the Bill of Assurance to what is allowed on the property to more reflect what is in the letter. Talking with them they were a little shocked when I went up there and could not find any horses running around that after all 800 years of having animals up there they had to go through this process. I am fairly confident that in talking with them I can get them to draft it in a manner that is consistent with the letter that they provided. Hoover: And that can be done before the Council meeting? Conklin: Yes, I will call them tomorrow. Shackelford: Just a follow up question for Mr. Whitaker. I had a conversation about this form with Mr. Williams in the past and it has been mentioned in this meeting that we can not require Bills of Assurances, they have to be offered. Can we go back at this point in your opinion and tell them what we want to see on the Bill of Assurance? Are we not opening ourselves up? Whitaker: I think this may be hair splitting but sometimes it is subtlety that is the essence of the whole thing. You can't say "Unless you agree to do this we won't approve your rezoning." However, there is nothing wrong now that they have offered these to saying "Well, how about this?" That is the give and take in the preliminary The conditioning of the acceptance of the rezoning upon demands, which they would be if you termed it that way is a different story than an even handed arms length negotiation between the parties about what would work for both. If what I am understanding Mr. Conklin is proposing is really just clarifying what is already here. Rather than using the exclusive language or channel, number three, it would go to, excuse me, that is inclusive in a list. Number one would be exclusive and state the following is all that will be there. I think that is a fine enough distinction where you are really just trying to get detail, you're not trying to exact new demands on the applicant. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 52 Conklin: Just one other aspect to this Bill of Assurance. When they met with City staff we did not tell them they had to do a Bill of Assurance. They asked us how, this rezoning how they could help alleviate some of the neighbor's concerns. We mentioned to them that other applicants have used a Bill of Assurance to avoid having concerns over some of the uses allowed in zoning districts and so that is exactly what I would be trying to do is to express to them some of your concerns and say "Is there any way?" I know what they want to do. They have plans and they have it all drawn up. They would like to have some horses up on that piece of property. Thank you. Hoffman: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously and it will be forwarded to the City Council at their next meeting. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 53 RZN 02-12.00: Rezoning (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian & Jane Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is to rezone to A-1, Agricultural. Hoffman: Our next item to be up for motions or discussion is the companion item RZN 02-12.00, do I hear motions or discussion? Estes: You have motions. Hoffman. Ok, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-12.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. Everything is carried unanimously and you will be having both items at the next City Council meeting. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 54 RZN 02-11.00: Rezoning (City of Fayetteville, pp 834) was submitted by Ray Boudreaux of the City of Fayetteville for property located on South School at Drake Field. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3 acres. The request is to rezone to I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Hoffman: Our final item on our agenda tonight is RZN 02-11.00, which is a rezoning for the City of Fayetteville which was submitted by Ray Boudreaux of the City of Fayetteville for property located on South School at Drake Field. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately three acres. The request is to rezone to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. Staff recommends the approval of the requested zoning based on findings included as a part of this report. Tim, can you enlighten us on this one please? Conklin: Sure. There is an existing tract of land at the airport, approximately three acres that is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. We have been working with our Airport and Economic Development Director, regarding a proposed new city project to build hangar space in this location. It was discovered that at the time the rest of the airport was rezoned from A-1 and C-1 to I-1 a few years ago this small piece of property was left as C-2 so the rest of the airport is currently zoned I-1. That is why we have brought this forward to you. At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Ray Boudreaux, our Airport and Economic Development Director, he can give you more information regarding this proposed project that he is working on. Thank you. Boudreaux: Thank you Tim and Madam Chairman. I think that what this is, as Tim indicated, is kind of an administrative oversight like Commissioner Estes said earlier. Whenever the entire property was rezoned Industrial it just was left out somehow or else it was acquired after it was all done. What we are going to try to do down there is a large scale development and we kind of farkled up the application so we are back in regrouping and getting that done right. We want to make sure that we are following the proper procedure but this is part of the process as well is to get the zoning changed. I humbly request that change. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the audience that would wish to speak to this matter? I don't see anybody so we will bring it back to you and to the Planning Commission for discussion, motions or more information. Motion: Ward: I assume this is going to be more hangars? Anything we can do to revitalize the airport would be fantastic and I will go ahead and Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 55 recommend approval of RZN 02-11.00 for rezoning for the City of Fayetteville three acres at Drake Field. Hoffman: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Ward. Allen: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any further discussion? Bunch: I realize that this may be putting a cart a little early, but this lot is covered with trees, how are we going to address that? I realize that this is just a rezoning and when this does come through on large scale some of the city departments have been rather deficient in the past about following the same procedures that we require developers to follow so I just want to make sure that we are aware that tree preservation issues will be covered on this. Boudreaux: Those are really nice ones too. I would love to have them in the backyard of my new place however, we are going to move them out of those little squares where they are, which they are really not doing very well and put them along the road, they will be really nice there. We are going to preserve every one that is alive. Some of them that have been planted in those little squares are not doing very well but we will move them around. Hoover: I have a few questions for staff. Is I-1 the only unit use that an airport can be in? Conklin: The airport was rezoned a few years ago with the idea of developing that airport ground with additional industrial airport related uses. At that time Allett Little was the Economic Development Director and we brought that forward to revitalize the airport. We are looking at light manufacturing type uses. Ray Boudreaux probably could give you more information on that but those are the type of uses that are allowed in I-1, heavy commercial light industrial, which allows that light type manufacturing. Boudreaux: Can I also add a little something? In addition to that it has got hangars in there so you need to have I in order to have hangars. However, I might add that airports sometimes have their own zonings since they are special, they are a little bit different, they don't develop like residential or industrial or commercial. They kind of develop like special use of some kind and where I just came from it was called airport and airport support, the two zoning specifications on our airport. This I works and if that is what the City and the staff have recommended and wish it to be that is fine. It works fine. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 56 Hoover: I guess what I have concerns about is this I-1 will go up to the road to School Street. There is no buffer between it and a major thoroughfare. Boudreaux: It is already there Ma'am. Conklin: That is correct and this is consistent with the remainder of the airport all the way north of the property. Hoover: I guess I am having a hard time visualizing a hangar up there in front, up in front of the building. Are there going to be more hangars up there and will the next step be to put a hangar where the rest of the parking lot is? Boudreaux: This is very premature. This is way, way premature. Bunch: We will be looking at a LSD when it does come through? Boudreaux: Yes Sir. Hoover: Staff, in an I-1 zoning on a LSD what are the requirements in general for landscaping, for screening, that kind of thing? Conklin: The site design standards still apply but the commercial design part, the architectural review part does not apply for industrial buildings. There will be landscaping along School Street. Boudreaux: And sidewalks. Hoover: That is a tree every 30' correct? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: Is there a master plan for the airport on where the rest of the hangars are going? Boudreaux: Yes Ma'am, would you like to see that? It is not complete and I can show you. To explain how airports are done, typically airports have to comply with state and federal aviation regulations. Because of that, anything near or around the airport is a little bit different than other industrial or commercial or residential development, it just has to comply with different things. What we typically have to do, and what is required by the FAR is that we have what is called an airport layout plan and a five year master plan. The idea is that if you want to get any money from the federal government for your improvements, you have to be in the NPIAS, which is the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, and that is where your five year plan is. And, they require anytime that you have an airport Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 57 landing strip that allows public to use that space that you have an airport layout plan. I can show it to you, it doesn't have everything on it. Hoover: I guess if you could just tell me, are there going to be any other hangars along 71B, that is my big question. Boudreaux: There are lots of other hangars on 71B. Hoover: I mean proposed in the future. Boudreaux: Yes. Hoover: I do want to see those plans then. Boudreaux: The idea is to have a plan for the next five years. This is your airport terminal here. This is the ground that needs rezoned. The first area to develop is here. We are reskinning these hangars along 71B along the road right now. Those are really ugly hangars, really ugly! I am not into ugly! We are reskinning those. We have got 50/50 money out of the state and we are spending some of our money and spending some of the state money. We are going to pay to reskin those. There are going to be more hangars. Hoover: Is there more going back where the rest of the hangars are? Boudreaux: These are already built except for this one and you know your forest service? This is for that. Bunch: What about sidewalks along 71? Boudreaux: Yes, we need sidewalks. There are kids walking to school along 71 going to Greenland. Hoffman: Can I get you to step back up to the microphone now? Mr. Boudreaux if you could pass the plans to the other side but I want to keep you at the microphone so everything can be heard. Sometimes the logistics just don't work. Bunch: I would like to question sidewalks and also if we are getting various money coming in, normally our city when we do rezonings or various things, at that time we call for sidewalks where sidewalks are not existing. What is the deal on putting sidewalks in? Boudreaux: That is in the large scale development Sir. This is just the rezoning request but we will be doing that. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 58 Conklin- With regard to the sidewalk issue and we've talked about this with Mr. Boudreaux, back when we built T hangars on the east side of the airport there was a formula that was derived that money was set aside into an account to build sidewalks in the future. I am not sure when you say there will be sidewalks if we are talking about, are you building the sidewalk in front of the entire airport at this time or are we putting money into this fund? Boudreaux: Conklin: Bunch: Hoffman: Marr: Hoffman: Roll Call: Hoffman: We are contributing to that fund to get those done. I just want to make sure that everybody understands that, that we as the City are not planning to build a sidewalk at this point in time. With regard to the other ordinances that they have to comply with, they will comply with all city ordinances with regard to grading, stormwater, subdivision, large scale development. We have been in contact with Mr. Boudreaux, the city has hired a local engineering firm to do a large scale development to bring that project through. Yes, it will comply with our city ordinances. One of my concerns is because anytime something comes before us we have used that as a mechanism to trigger getting sidewalks and we have sometimes leaned fairly heavily on people and put a big dent in their budgets and I just want to make sure that the city is applying the same rules to itself that we are requiring of other entities. We have in the past. I remember several airport developments that did. With that being said, since we have a motion and a second on the floor, unless there is any further discussion... I have one more question. Do we actually have any type of current commitment for these hangars? We have one for two? Ok, thank you. Ok, is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-11.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thank you. The motion carries unanimously and will be forwarded to City Council. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 59 Hoffman: We have one final item on our agenda, which is an administrative item. Our final item on the agenda tonight is an administrative item which is a discussion of the sewer assessment fund. This says there is to be a special Planning Commission meeting to be held on April 29`h at 5:30 to determine the disposition of funds that were collected for offsite improvements to the sanitary sewer in the Hamestring Creek Basin. The need for these improvements has been eliminated due to the new sewer treatment facility and associated collection system. Ron, would you care to briefly go over this with us? I know we talked about it at agenda session. I would like for those that are possibly watching to be put on alert that this is coming. Petrie: Over the last few years the City has been collecting approximately a $200 fee per lot for subdivisions and commercial developments located in what we call the Hamestring Creek basin. That basin is primarily to the west of I-540. There were 15 developments that were assessed. Several subdivisions and a few commercial developments and we have sent public notification to all of the lot owners in those subdivisions, all of the developers of the projects. This was to make them aware at the meeting the Planning Commission will have three options with the escrow funds. One, they could return it to the developer. Two, they can distribute it to the current lot owners, or three, I'll read this one. With the written consent of the majority of the property owners who have purchased lots in the subdivisions to direct that money in the escrow account be utilized for a different purpose which will specifically benefit the neighborhood. Again, that was approximately a $200 charge per lot. Hoffman: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Does anybody have any questions? Bunch: A question of staff. Will we be getting additional information on this prior to the meeting so we can review it or will we have an agenda session and make sure we get proper public notification? Petrie: It is my understanding that we will be having an agenda session Thursday at 3:30. Conklin: I have directed my staff to put press releases in boxes for public notification today. With regard to agenda session I think it will be important to have an agenda session tour. There is a second item on your agenda, it will be the Shadow Hill subdivision and a request for a private drive from Old Wire to Colette. I think that it is important to go out there and see. If you do not want to have an agenda session let me know, maybe the Chair can let me know if you decide you don't want to have one. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 60 Hoffman: We will take a look at that before. Is there any other discussion on this administrative item? If not, I have an announcement that I need to make and then we will see what you have. I think I was supposed to appoint a Subdivision Committee tonight because their terms are expired as well. I am not prepared to do that but what I would like is to ask the individual Commissioners to consider if they can serve on the Subdivision Committee and call me prior to, I would say call me by tomorrow or Wednesday and I will appoint a Subdivision Committee for this Thursday and we will publicize it as we can. Ward: We don't have a meeting this Thursday. Hoffman: We don't have a Planning Commission meeting before the next Subdivision meeting though. Bunch: The special meeting will be before our next Subdivision Committee. Hoffman: Ok, well in that case, if you are interested in serving on the Subdivision Committee please contact me and then we will go ahead and make those appointments at the April 29th meeting. Thank you. Are there any further announcements or business? Conklin: Sure. The Planning Division, along with Engineering and Landscape Administrator, will be hosting a development review workshop. That is this Thursday at Genesis for those who are interested in learning about the development review process in Fayetteville. We will be going over the revised development manual and handing that out. We will talk about what it takes to get through the process here in Fayetteville and what to do after you get your project approved and that is from 8 a.m. to noon at Genesis and it is free. Of course, there will be a special Planning Commission meeting next Monday night. Those two items, the refund and Shadow Hills subdivision. Then, I would like to get with the Chair and talk about possibly setting up another Planning Commission meeting to talk about our 2002 work program since I placed on the 29`h this special meeting with Shadow Hill and our refund for the sewer assessments. I think it is important to go over our 2002 work program and see where we are at. A couple of things have changed since last December. Two of my Planners in my office will be out on maternity leave for a couple of months later this Summer, Fall. That is going to really put a hold on many of these projects other than current planning that we are working on so we might have to readjust some of our time lines within that work program. That is all that I have. Hoffman: Ok, well we will work on a date for that. Possibly not on a Monday night, maybe we could do it on another date and just announce it ahead of time. Planning Commission April 22, 2002 Page 61 If there is no further business we will stand adjourned. Thank you very much.