Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 02-15.00: Administrative Item (Varvil, pp 524) Approved Page 3 VAC 02-3.00: Vacation (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) Page 3 RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning (Nickell, pp 445/446) Page 5 RZN 02-14.00: Rezoning (Kesner, pp 99) Page 6 LSD 02-14.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) Page 9 CUP 02-14.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) Page 34 CUP 02-16.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) Page 40 PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) Page 42 CUP 02-8.00: Conditional Use (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) Page 57 Forwarded to City Council Tabled Forwarded to City Council Approved Denied Approved Tabled Tabled Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Church STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick Chuck Rutherford MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 3 Hoffman: Good evening, welcome to the May 28th meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Before we call the roll I have an announcement to make. We have one item that was pulled by the applicant, that is ADM 01-28.00 that will not be heard tonight. The other understanding that I have is that the applicant for RZN 02-8.00, which is the Nickell rezoning, that the applicant will be requesting that we table that. The applicant will be coming forward to do that I believe. Those two items will not be discussed tonight. If you are here on those you may contact the Planning Department to find out when they will be heard again. That being said, I would like to go ahead with the approval of the minutes from the May 13`h meeting. Do we have any additions, deletions or amendments to those minutes? Hearing none, those will stand as approved. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were six Commissioners present with Commissioners Shackelford and Ward being absent. Consent: ADM 02-15 00• Administrative Item (Varvil, pp 524) was submitted by Nancy Varvil for property located at 531 E. Rock Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is for a partial refund of sidewalk funds put in escrow. VAC 02-3.00: Vacation (Fayetteville School District (Leverett), pp 443) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates, P.E. on behalf of the Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is to vacate Eagle Street right of way. Hoffman: Items two and five are our consent agenda. Number two is ADM 02- 15.00, which is an administrative item for Nancy Varvil. This item is a request for a partial refund of the sidewalk fund put in escrow in the amount of $3,582. The second consent agenda item is VAC 02-3.00, which is a vacation for the Fayetteville School District for Leverett Elementary School. This is property located at 1124 W. Cleveland. The request is to vacate the Eagle Street right-of-way. Does anybody on the Planning Commission wish to pull these items from the consent agenda? Is there anybody in the audience that would wish to address or otherwise discuss the items on the consent agenda? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll for consent agenda? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the items on consent agenda were approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 4 Williams: Madam Chairman, does your approval on item number two indicate that the Planning Commission has determined $630, which was the amount determined by the City Council to be the rough proportional share, is the amount that the Planning Commission has agreed upon? Hoffman: That is correct and that leaves the remaining balance to be refunded. Williams: Thank you very much. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 5 RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning (Nickell, pp 445/446) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of J.C. & Alma Nickell for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Hoffman: Under new business, item three is RZN 02-8.00, would the applicant please come forward? Hill: My name is Bob Hill, I am with Nickle Hill Group. I represent J.C. and Alma Nickell and we are asking that you table our rezoning request until two weeks from tonight. Hoffman: I will entertain a motion. Estes: In accordance with the applicant's request, I move that we table RZN 02- 8.00. Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 02-8.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Hoffman: The motion Karries unanimously, we'll see you in two weeks. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 6 RZN 02-14.00: Rezoning (Kesner, pp 99) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of John & Janet Kesner for property located at the northeast comer of Crossover (Hwy 265) and East Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.80 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Hoffman: Item four on our agenda is RZN 02-14.00, this is a rezoning for Kesner which was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of John and Janet Kesner for property located at the northeast corner of Crossover, Hwy. 265 and Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.80 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Estes: It will be necessary that I recuse from this item. Hoffman: Is the applicant present? Smith: My name is Raymond Smith, I am the attorney representing the Kesners on this application. Hoffman: Mr. Smith, do you have a presentation that you would like to make to us or do you just prefer to answer questions? Smith: Briefly, this is to rezone approximately 2.8 acres. It is located at the comer of (Hwy. 265) Crossover Road and E. Zion Road. The reason for the request to rezone this property is that it is under a contract from the Kesners with Scott Berna of Berna Nelson Funeral Home subject to the rezoning approval by the City to construct a new funeral home there at that location for the one that is presently located south of the mall. It will have a crematory in it which will remain A-1 and the remainder of the property will be rezoned to R -O, Residential property. Hoffman: Thank you very much. We toured the site on our agenda session and I was wondering if staff had any background for this. Conklin: This proposed site is immediately north of the Elks Lodge on Zion Road and Hwy. 265. The funeral home requires R -O and the crematory is required to be in A-1. They are requesting the R -O zoning to establish the funeral home. Hoffman: I realize that we have a couple of Commissioners absent and I do believe that a rezoning does require five positive votes and there are five Commissioners here. Let me make you aware of that. Would you like to continue with this hearing or postpone it? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 7 Smith: Hoffman: Bunch: We would request to continue this hearing. I will take public comment. Is there anybody here that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. A question for staff. Tim, on the A-1 zoning, is that more or less a floating zoning to be determined where the crematory is built or how do we address that on the public record? Conklin- They provided us a legal less and except that part where they are planning to build the crematorium. This is a little unusual because the zoning ordinance specifically states crematoriums in A-1, this property is A-1. Then the zoning ordinance specifically states funeral home in R -O. There is not much latitude to move around. It is very specific as to what can be in A-1 and R -O. That is why we are looking at rezoning this to R -O and leaving this area A-1, which allows for the crematory. Allen: Conklin: Allen: Hoffman: Smith: Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: I wondered whether or not you have heard from any of those people that live in the surrounding area one way or the other? We have not heard from any of them. Ok, thank you. It is my understanding that the home adjacent to the property is the seller. That is correct. Since we haven't had a funeral home come up since I've been on the Commission, usually where are they placed? The most recent one we have is the one on Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road, Beards Funeral Home, that is located in a C-2 zoning district. We have Moore's over here on Center Street and Nelson is out by the mall. It sounds like they are usually in a commercial zoning. I am just curious if a funeral home doesn't impair a residential subdivision from going in here. The Planning Commission did rezone the front portion of Stonewood Subdivision R -O just north of this site, a half mile up or so. R -O zoning has been established in that area along Hwy. 265. To answer your question, I am not sure what the most ideal location is. I have to question sometimes having one in a regional commercial shopping center in Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 8 Fayetteville. I know that was established a long time ago but whether or not that is the most appropriate use at that location. Hoover: I guess I should consider that it will have to come back through large scale development correct? Conklin: That is correct. At that time staff will address issues with onsite and offsite improvements and specifically with regard to Zion Road and curb cuts onto Zion Road and Hwy. 265 where improvements will be necessary in that location. Motion: Bunch: I move that we recommend RZN 02-14.00 for approval to the City Council. Hoffman. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, I will go ahead and second. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-14.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Hoffman: The motion Ka es on a vote of five with one recusal Thank you very much. Smith: Thank you. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 9 LSD 02-14.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville School District, pp 443) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 5.41 acres with 61 parking spaces proposed. Hoffman: Item number six on the Final agenda is LSD 02-14.00 for Fayetteville School District which was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of the Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland. This property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 5.41 acres with 61 parking spaces proposed. Seven is CUP 02-14.00 and eight is CUP 02-16.00. Staff findings are the Arkansas Highway Department is widening Garland Avenue, which will affect the existing parking situation for Leverett Elementary School. Because of this, the elementary school is proposing two new parking lots. One parking lot will be located north of the school along Garland Avenue and the other parking lot will be located west of the school on Cleveland. The Cleveland Street Parking lot will be a relocation to the school 19 Currently 16% of the site is existing canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 14% of the site and utilize onsite mitigation for canopy that is to be removed. The recommendation is approval subject to all of the conditions. We have 12 conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Hoffman: I will go ahead and read these into the record 1) Planning Commission approval of the conditional use for parking in addition to that allowed by code. The maximum number of spaces allowed by code is 43. The proposal is for 61 spaces. 2) Planning Commission and City Council approval of a street right-of-way vacation. There is existing right-of-way running through this property that must be vacated by the City prior to the issuance of any permit. 3) Planning Commission approval of a variance request from UDO §172.01(C.)(3) which requires a one-way aisle width for 45 degree parking stalls to be 12'. The request is for an aisle width that varies in size from 21.3' to 23' in width as shown on the plans. Staff is in support of the additional aisle widths as shown on the plans due to the school bus traffic pattern. 4) A Conditional Use must be approved prior to the relocation of any school related activities in the R-1 zoning district. 5) A decorative fence or other approved barrier shall be placed around the storm water detention basin. 6) Approval shall be granted from the adjacent property owner for the proposed detention pond discharge quantity and location. If written approval cannot be obtained, the storm water discharge shall be designed to match pre -developed discharge conditions or the storm water shall be routed to the Garland Avenue right- of-way with the approval of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 10 Department. 7) A parking lot permit is required prior to any grading or site work beginning. Is the applicant present? Karr: I am Roy Karr, Associate Superintendent of the Fayetteville School District. I am here to answer questions on all three of the items. Hoffman: Ok, do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Karr: We don't. Everyone has a copy of our plans but we would be happy to do a presentation if you want. I think I would rather discuss any concerns you may have. Hoffman: Ok. Tim, do you want to give us some background? Conklin: Madam Chair, with regard to the large scale development, our Sidewalk Division has reviewed the plan this evening and one comment to add on as a condition is in regard to the sidewalk along Hall Avenue. Their recommendation is for a sidewalk to be installed along Hall Ave. Chuck Rutherford is here if you have any questions of him. We have a large scale development that is relocating the existing parking lot to behind the school. The school district has requested that the parking lot be relocated into the existing location of the playground. The playground will be relocated to the comer of Cleveland and Hall Avenue. There is an existing employee parking lot in that location. That will be utilized for the playground. There is also a small parking lot off of Cleveland Street that will be constructed which will be used for sick child pickup and then there is a turn off on Cleveland Street that will allow parents to come in and pick children up and drop them off for sick child and ADA. What you are looking at this evening is a large scale development addressing, because this is over an acre, the relocation of the parking lot, a conditional use for the playground in the R-1 zoning district and a conditional use for the additional parking spaces over what is allowed by code. Hoffman: Is there any member of the audience that would wish to address us on this? I do not see any so I will bring it back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. Estes: Chuck, is it your recommendation that the sidewalk along Hall Avenue be on both the west side and the east side of Hall Ave.? Rutherford: Just on the east side. Allen: I wondered how many parking spaces are currently available. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 11 Karr: We had 21 spaces from Garland that is being wiped out and we had 24 spaces on the west side. Allen: For what reason do you contribute the necessity for that many additional spaces? Karr: Growth in the district. We closed some elementary schools so that district has increased enrollment which required additional staffing. We currently have 45 staff members in that building. Another reason we need that space is if you have been in an elementary school the first month of school when a preschooler or kindergartener starts to school, that mom is not going to just pull up and open the door and let the child out. They have got to have some way to park that car and walk that child to the kindergarten classroom. It is that way in every one of our elementary schools and as long as I've been in the school business, it is jut the way that it has happened. That additional parking space is for our clients, which is our parents. Allen: How does this compare to other schools say maybe Jefferson School. Karr: Jefferson and Washington are much smaller enrollment but Jefferson for example, has two parking areas. We've got one that is right across the street on Sixth Street, right across from our first grade classrooms, that can easily handle thirty parking spaces. The other is directly behind our school on the south side, we have about 20 parking spaces there and we have about 12 parking spaces around the gym, which is on the east side of the building. That is comparing the number of staff members, Jefferson has a lot more parking spaces. If you try to compare Jefferson to Leverett, you have more of an establishment which requires more parents. Another thing too, Leverett is one of our polling places that takes up a lot of space during school hours whenever we are polling. Hoover: Did you mention how many spaces Washington Elementary had? Karr: We put in a new cafeteria last summer. We added 12 more parking spaces along with the additional 31, plus they have parking along Highland Street, which there are 20 some odd parking spaces there. We route our parents to the back of the building now. Our busses go along Highland. Our parents go along the back. Hoover: I still see parents along Highland. Karr: It shouldn't be because it is congesting the area where we were trying to get our busses. When we were remodeling and added the cafeteria, I Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 12 know the Mayor's office got several phone calls from the people that lived in that area for us turning that into a one way at that time. We are trying to be good neighbors and trying not to tie up that street. Hoover: Did you say Washington has 30 parking spaces and then you added 12? Karr: We added 12 next to the new cafeteria. Hoover: So you are talking 42 there that you exit off Forest? Karr: Yes. Hoover: Then is there remote parking somewhere? Karr: Just on the side of the street on Highland. Remember, Washington is our smallest enrollment school, it has less staff members. I forgot to mention this earlier, we do have the Auto Zone parking lot across the street on Highland. Hoover: You do own that parking lot? Karr: No, they allow some of our parents to park at Auto Zone. Hoover: Is that a shared parking agreement? Karr: No, it is nothing, just we're doing it. We may not after tonight though. I might add that there is about a year and a half of planning with parent groups and teachers. The teachers wanted something a little different than what parents wanted. What you see tonight is a compromise from all the groups that we worked with. The city folks, what they wanted on Cleveland. We are trying to help our neighbors over there with the drainage. We inherited a horrible drainage problem from the University of Arkansas because everything comes off the parking lots at the University and Cleveland has no curbed streets and no storm drainage. With the work that we're going to get on Cleveland Street, curbs, street and drainage will help a lot of the drainage that is coming on our property now. With all those groups it has been a year and a half of really hard planning and compromising and what you have here tonight is not something that we just threw together overnight. It had input from our parents, our faculty and I think it is very defendable how we have got it laid out. Hoffman: Do you have approval from the adjacent property owners for the detention pond drainage? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 13 Karr: We have not. That is the next thing we will do. Hoffman: Is that person here tonight by any chance? Hoover: The very first thing on my mind is this parking on Cleveland and why isn't there parallel parking on Cleveland to begin with. Tim, is the street wide enough, is this a possibility? Was it discussed or did engineering not like the idea? Petrie: There is currently a capital improvement plan to widen Cleveland adjacent to the site and plans have been completed for sometime. The real hold up is working out the details for the Garland Street widening with the Highway Department. We didn't want to get in there first and everything then gets torn out. That project is due to start this summer, the widening. Hoover: Is there parallel parking included in that? Petrie: I think it is being widened out to a standard 28' wide street where you can parallel park, although it is not the best. It is like a regular subdivision. Karr: Right now across the street from us is the parking lot for the University of Arkansas. When the kids come off of Garland they are zipping into that parking lot and it is impossible to parallel park on that street, even when they widen it, because of the traffic on the east and west coming off of Garland. There is not going to be very much area to park. Hoover: I guess I don't see how traffic and parallel parking relates, how that makes it impossible to parallel park. Karr: The latest plan that I saw, there on Cleveland Street, students are turning into the parking lot. When you put a parking lane in there there is no room to park on the side of that street. Conklin: I drove by it about an hour ago. On Cleveland Street on the north side the street has been widened and cars are pulling off the street to pick up children. I am not sure that there is additional asphalt right in front of the school. On the south side of the street there is a right hand turn lane dedicated to people turning right onto Garland. There is no parking on the south side. On Hall Ave., you may be able to park some cars on the west side of the street where it is curbed. However, I don't believe you could park cars on both sides of the street. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 14 Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin - Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Conklin: Karr: Hoover: Karr: When we have the sidewalk improvement, is that also curb and gutters on Hall? It is currently open ditch. How wide is Hall Street? I did not measure Hall Street but just when I looked at it about an hour ago, you may be able to park cars on one side but you probably couldn't park cars on both sides. What I am trying to get at obviously, is rather than paving the entire city with concrete, we already have concrete with the street, why don't we parallel park and have overflow parking? I see this from watching the events at Washington Elementary everyday. A lot of those teachers are parallel parking on the side street and it also helps slow down the traffic, makes it safer to walk when you are on the sidewalk, you've got a buffer there between the sidewalk and the street. I am curious about whether or not this was explored. The current design I don't think would work with parallel parking because you have a drive through lane that you will need to keep open for visibility. You have a new parking lot being built. People coming in and out of the parking lot need to have visibility. Just looking at this block from the north side, I don't think you are going to be able to achieve any on street parallel parking. Do we have to have this indention and cut down all the trees? Is that from the city? I hate to refer to Washington again, but the busses pull right up there on Highland, it is not a very wide street. This was all planned by the time I saw it. That was some of the staff and our parents. Highland Street is not Cleveland and it is not Hall. Kids coming into the University, it is packed. One of the things they wanted was to get those busses off and protected when they offload from Cleveland. It is just a different environment with traffic from Highland to Hall. There is also going to be a streetlight at Cleveland and Garland right there. So I assume that is going to stop a lot of traffic and make it a lot safer. There is a light there now and it still doesn't solve the traffic problem now. When it gets backed up they dart back over to Hall Street and zip up Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 15 Hall Street to avoid the traffic light. Hall Street is so narrow that there is no way, we talked about moving a parking lot over on that side, but it is such a narrow street we can't pull a bus out and turn on that street, that's how narrow Hall Street is. Hoover: So you are saying that the indentation is there, you don't want busses to go up in front of the school, you just want them to go to that north side. Karr: We've got a spot on the north and south side for our busses. The south side is the only accessible part of that building we have for handicapped. We set that indention in there for busses with handicap and cars that have handicapped children because there will not be enough room to handle that traffic on Cleveland and the amount of traffic that is on Cleveland. Hoover: This indentation, I don't see why you can't have both, the parallel parking and somewhat of an indentation, at least just for busses. I guess I was really confused why you need an indentation and a 3' concrete aisle. What is the 3' concrete aisle? Karr: That is the City's request. We did not question the concrete aisle. Conklin: I can't answer that question. Once again, there was a meeting. Just for the public and Commission, Mr. Karr, if you could walk us through how you came up with this again, this pull off and how it is going to be used and why you need this pull off from the south side and how you are going to get your parking lot with your dedicated bus lane on the north side. They are a little confused I think with regard to where busses are going to be dropping kids off on the south side or are they going to be dropping kids off on the north side. Karr: As I mentioned earlier, that south side is the only way to get to that building for handicapped. We have that so if they are lined up for busses that are carrying wheelchair and handicapped students and parents that are pulling in there that have wheelchair students. The north parking lot is mainly for faculty. If, at some point in time, we need to use that to pull busses in we can. It is just an additional area that we've got set aside for our handicapped. Hoover: I'm sorry, did I get confused? You said on the north side the whole driveline is just for busses. Karr: You are confusing that current area in there right now that we were just talking about where the two handicapped spaces are, that is strictly for our voting precinct. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 16 Hoover: The lower area though. Karr: The lower area is just for our faculty and parent parking. Conklin: Your busses are going to be pulling into that area because you have it dedicated for busses. That is where the bus riders will be picked up and dropped off, is that correct? Karr: Yes. We can't take a bus through there with handicapped kids. The drive at the south will be for that. Hoover: How many busses do you have? Karr: We have four busses. Allen: I have some concern that it seems that we, as a Commission, sometimes make concessions for the City or the school district that we would not necessarily make for others in the city and I wondered what the thoughts of my fellow Commissioners were about that. Hoover: I have an issue with that. If I was looking at this as if it were a regular development like a retail center, and looking at the number of curb cuts, there are three curb cuts on Garland. If we were having a retail center here we would only allow one curb cut because that would be a safety issue. I am really concerned about why there are three curb cuts in that short period. Yes, I wondered the same thing. Hoffman: I am going to weigh in on some of that. I find the plan to be confusing. I know that you have had three different groups having input into this so I think that has contributed somewhat here. The issue of curb cuts for a school is really difficult for bus needs and other needs. Hoover: But it doesn't have as much traffic. Karr: This came up Sharon in your letter that you sent to me. I went out and looked at Wal-Mart. We don't have the privileges that a retail center has. Retail stores have asphalt parking in front of the building. We have got kids, we have got playgrounds, we've got playgrounds for kindergarten and first grade, playgrounds for third and fourth, they are all separated. We don't have that privilege that a retail store has. They have access, I will give you a good example, Fiesta Square. They have three off College, that used to be an old Wal-Mart store there. If you go to the back of it Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 17 there are two accesses in the back so you've got a total of five entrances and exits. Hoover: You need to use more current data. Karr: Ok, the new Wal-Mart out south, they've got two off the highway, off Sixth, but because the area is just all parking, they can go off the side roads and have cuts off the side roads. We can't because of playgrounds. Our playground is going to be on Hall Street so we need to have fencing along Hall and Cleveland where the playground is going to be. We can't have access to getting out along there. Hoover: I can see that you have more land lock issues but I think that we have had some more ordinances in place since some of them. Speaking of the fencing, is that on the plan? Karr: Itis something that we have said from day one that we were going to put a wrought iron fence along Hall in that area to make it real attractive. Hoover: Where exactly will that be? Will it hook up to the School off Cleveland? Karr: It will go up to the parking lot there off of Cleveland and it will go down the street and then down Hall too. Hoover: I am sorry that I missed agenda, somebody probably explained some of this. Was accessibility onto Hall Street not possible? Karr: As I told you, it is so small we can't even pull busses out on that street, it's too small. Hoover: I guess there is no way to make a radius line to be able to turn down a narrow street? Conklin: You will have to ask their professional engineer that designed the project that question, I don't have the answer. Karr: Part of this was also to accommodate our neighbors that were not wanting the traffic dumped on such a small area where it is all residential. Hoffman: What would be the effect to you if we approved the large scale development without the conditional use permit for the additional parking spaces and tried to make it work another way? I am hearing some serious concern on Sharon's part. I would just like you to address that. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 18 Karr: Would you repeat that please? Hoffman: If we approved the project but without the conditional use for the additional parking spaces and asked you to go back to the drawing board. I just want to make it more clear, is that what I'm hearing you say? Hoover: Yes, one issue is that this extra parking request I find more than necessary and I don't know why we can't accommodate that with some off-street parking or some remote parking. That is one, do you want me to list? Hoffman. Yes, I am trying to ask real questions but I am trying to be real clear about them. Hoover: The second issue very clear is that I really don't understand cutting down the maple trees on Cleveland. I know two of them don't look well but the other ones look pretty good. I just don't see that if that is not a necessity to do, if they can unload safely there, there is a streetlight there. I am just not sure that this is the only way to do this. Adding a concrete island is certainly not what I think we would be for. Karr: I would encourage you to go over there and look at that because I don't think that you are well informed about that situation over there. Parents are very, very concerned about the safety of those kids. That is why they wanted to pull off of Cleveland. Hoover: Could you do a pull off that is maybe further down or in combination with the drive into that parking lot rather than taking all of these trees? Does it have to be right in front of the door? Karr: You need to understand, and we worked with Kim Hesse on this, what we are doing is saving all of those trees on that lot that we purchased off of Hall Street and by not putting any parking in that area we are saving all of those trees. Those parents know that those trees are going to go but they are just as excited about replanting trees in that area and saving all of those that are going to be in their playground that they have never had before. They haven't had trees on their playgrounds before. Again, I need to tell you that it is a compromise by so many parties here to make this work. It is something that the school needs to move on. If we delay this anymore. Folks, we would be just as happy to have been left alone. We didn't want to see Garland widened. We weren't interested in a boulevard, we weren't interested in a 10' walking trail but all this got pushed on us. I've got parents and I've got a staff that are on my case because we better have something ready to go because they are going to start tearing up Garland when school starts on August 19`h. If we have anymore delays we can't Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 19 get our part done. The Highway Department is willing, and they have already told us that if we go ahead and get ours done they will give us temporary drives into our parking area but time is a critical factor for us to get this done. If we have to go back to the drawing board it has already cost us more with engineering fees to accommodate the neighbors, the faculty, and the parents. I am just worried about the time factor. It will be a total nightmare August 19th with Garland Street torn up and we don't have some way to park cars and get parents and busses into that school. Hoover: Where is the lot that you bought? Karr: It is the Lee Brown property there on the corner of Cleveland and Hall. It has got beautiful trees, one of the largest hackberry trees in Northwest Arkansas. We got excited when we got that because we took that old house out and we are going to put our big toys over there in that parking lot to save those trees. That is the first time that Leverett will have a playground that has got trees. We were willing to sacrifice that and save those trees there and cut those trees there on the south end and replant smaller trees to get our drive there on the south side. Hoover: So the playground equipment is going to be on the corner of Hall and Cleveland? Karr: Yes. Hoover: Is that noted on the plans anywhere? Karr: It shows the conditional use so we can move the playground equipment there. Williams: It does say playground area. Hoffman: I would like to ask Mr. Williams, I briefly mentioned what would the effect of having approved a large scale development without a conditional use requested in the conditions of approval. Can you enlighten me about what that would mean? Williams: I am not really sure what that would mean. I did want to let the Planning Commission know that I just came from the City Council agenda session, that is why I was a couple of minutes late, and the Mayor announced at the agenda session that he had been in contact with the Highway Department and they are going forward with the Garland Street widening. I know that there is a real time pressure on everyone involved to try to get this project done before the next school year. That would create a real nightmare if it Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 20 is not done. The only other thing that I might want to say as opposed to Washington School where off-street parking is possible. You are right next to the University here. If you have off-street parking college students will be using it up. I don't think that we can restrict public places just for your staff or parents that want to be there. It would be first come first serve, just like all the other parking in town. I think off-street parking would probably not be a solution in Leverett just because it is so close to the University, the pressure on parking that is at the University, if anybody has ever tried to park around there, you realize that all those lots that are close to the University get filled up. I am sorry I can't answer your question about whether you can approve this large scale development without approving the conditional uses for it. I don't know what the answer for that is. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Church: It seems like, and I could be wrong, that every time we do a development of some kind, this question is for staff, that there are exceptions asked for as far as the parking code. I guess I am trying to get a handle on is our parking code accurate. Is this the number of spaces allowed for most schools? Is the exception just for this one particular location? It just seems like we are always looking at exceptions. I am wondering if it is outdated. Conklin: With regard to the parking waivers we typically see are for restaurants. That code clearly doesn't work for restaurants. We have to give a waiver every time, if we didn't we wouldn't have any new restaurants in Fayetteville. What happened with that code is that we always had a minimum number of spaces but never a maximum. In 1995 or 1996 we set a maximum number of spaces. We didn't realize there was a problem with that until we set the maximum. With regard to schools and recreational facilities, parking keeps on coming up with regard to the demand of how many cars. There are probably not as many kids walking to school and there are a lot of people picking kids up these days. I am not sure, I haven't looked at the national standards. It is interesting. There is a book that we have down in the Planning Division that has parking ratios from across the country. They vary all over the place. It is one of those situations that is going to depend on how many students are in the school and where the school boundaries are and whether or not kids can walk to school which is going to dictate how many parking spaces you need. It is important to also look at where the school is located and I think Commissioner Hoover brought up a very good point with regard to on street parking. We have Garland Avenue which you will not be able to park on when you go to the school. You have got the University that we Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 21 talked about which any on street parking spaces may be taken up during the same hours as the school. I think each site has specific needs. Other than that, I am not quite sure of how to answer your question if the code is outdated or not. It is something that we can certainly look at. Hoffman: I would like to do that. I know that there has been some discussion about it in the past for restaurants and so forth. Estes: I share some of the concern that has been voiced by my fellow commissioners regarding the fact that Mr. Conklin and his staff were not involved in the planning process of this large scale development. However, with that said, I will move for approval of LSD 02-14.00 and my motion does include approval of the variance request from U.D.O. § 172.01 (C) (3) for an aisle width that varies in size from 21.3' to 23' in width as shown on the plans and for a sidewalk along the east side of Hall Avenue as an additional condition of approval. Hoffman: That would be condition number twelve? This is contingent on item four which would a conditional use approval for the relocation of any school related activities in an R-1 zoning district. Estes: Yes, that is correct and that is included as a condition of approval, item number five. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Do I have a second? I will go ahead and second the motion. Bunch: Does that motion include anything about fencing since this is a large scale development project and it doesn't appear to be on the drawings. It has been mentioned but there is no definitive statement that it is part of the proj ect. Estes: Item number five, a condition of approval, requires a decorative fence or other approved barrier shall be placed around the storm water detention basin. Bunch: The extension that I was questioning was along Cleveland and along Hall as described in the presentation but that is not shown on any of the documents or drawings. Hoffman: Does the applicant wish to make an affirmative statement about that fence? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 22 Karr: Estes: Karr: It is a playground area. All of our playgrounds are fenced and it will be fenced. I would like to make a comment about the sidewalk on Hall. That is going to be a wrought iron fence on Hall and that was not mentioned whenever we were talking about sidewalks and all in this large scale development with the city but since we are going to be putting a fence along Hall and part of Cleveland there wouldn't be a need for sidewalk there because there is not going to be any access to the grounds with that fence. The reason to include in my motion a sidewalk along the east side of Hall Avenue is because that is what Mr. Rutherford had recommended. I am a real strong proponent of sidewalks. I cannot imagine not having a sidewalk on Hall Avenue and around Cleveland contiguous and adjacent to an elementary school. Our biggest problem is when we made this settlement with the Highway Department it was for $200,000 and everything we add now is over what we're getting for our property. We held out, actually we weren't even going to agree to it until we were asked to by the University of Arkansas and the City on this situation. Anything that we add to it now is going to be above what we are getting. We are the ones that are being forced upon by the Highway Department and other entities. Hoffman: I can appreciate your position on that but I am in strong agreement with Commissioner Estes because our city sidewalk ordinance applies. Unless you can prove a hardship. We do have an appeal that was recently added to our sidewalk ordinance that does give you an avenue to appeal that based on a number of items. You can visit with Mr. Rutherford at a later time but the sidewalk ordinance certainly to my mind benefits not only the children that attend the school but the parents that are walking the kids to school and just any number of people. It is a high pedestrian traffic area over there and I can't either imagine not having a sidewalk where we have an opportunity to put one in. Karr: Have y'all seen Hall though? It is a ditch all the way down to Wedington on both sides, a major ditch. It is going to be extremely costly to put a sidewalk in that area and it is going to create more drainage problems on our neighbors south. Hoffman: There may be a way in your waiver request, if you do request one, to get a narrower sidewalk that would work with the topography of the land. We have done that before. We have worked around trees, we've done all kinds of things. I would say that an added dose of common sense might be in order there too. Is there anybody else? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 23 Bunch: A couple more questions before we vote on the motion. I see that there are two bike racks added. Nowhere on the drawing that I found are there any existing bike racks. Can you please elaborate on that? We are trying to encourage people to walk and ride bicycles and that sort of thing it seems like two bicycle racks, even though that is what is called out in the ordinance, seems inadequate. Unless there is a considerable amount existing. Karr: I am sure that the parent organization over there will be glad to add more bike racks on that. Right now we don't have that much bike traffic in that area because of the traffic on Garland. What little bike traffic we have comes on the east side of Garland and it is very little traffic that we have on bikes in that area. I can see when we four lane that with the major light I doubt that parents will be encouraging more bike riding in that area. We will be glad to add as needed. Bunch: It seems rather inadequate to only have space for four bicycles at an elementary school, especially one that is considerably larger than other schools as you mentioned earlier. Karr: Y'all have got to remember that Leverett is not so much a neighborhood school anymore. Most of the kids are bussed or parents bring them in that area because of the traffic of the University. It is just unbelievable. Bunch: You said you have four busses a day, does that include the busses that have to use the south access for handicapped or is that four busses that would be using the north? Karr: Just four regular busses, not including our handicap. Bunch: So that is four that would use the north parking lot and then how many busses do you have that will use the access? Karr: It will depend on our student population with the need for wheelchair accessibility. Allen: Sir, I wondered how closely you worked with staff in the development of these plans. Karr: Oh, listen, I don't know if Tim has told you, but for a year we have been working with the City from the Cleveland Street, we worked extremely close. We have had Chuck Rutherford, Kim Hesse, we have walked that place a dozen times saying this, this, and this. It sounds like what I am Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 24 hearing tonight is that we haven't been working with the City on this. The City has been working with us from day one on this thing and I am surprised to hear that it is not because the City is the one that is wanting some additional things like walking trails and things like that that we have worked with on. We certainly have worked with the staff on all of this. I certainly don't want the Planning Commission to think that we haven't. Allen: It just seemed to me like some of these concerns that we have could have been fairly easily rectified. Conklin- To respond, I don't want to get into a huge debate about how much we're working together with each other. However, the meeting I went to, and I can't speak for Kim or Ron or Chuck, this is the plan I saw. I remember asking you why the parking lot change from Hall Avenue to Garland and your response was the neighborhood would rather have a playground than a parking lot on Hall Avenue. Then we had a lot of discussion on the turn out on Cleveland and we asked about that. Perry Franklin had some concerns about how it was used. That was something that the teachers wanted I think that is how that occurred. With regard to if you have concerns about physical layout, decision making process of where the playground is, where the parking lot is, and where the turnout is, those decisions were made through the Fayetteville School District's process of meeting with the teachers and with the public. Karr: Yes and that was based on our meeting with y'all about where you wanted the walking trails and the moving the utilities on the south end of Cleveland. All of that we were working together on. Conklin: We did work together on Garland Avenue and the City did request that a boulevard be installed and a 10' multi -use trail be built which has pushed Garland Avenue into the existing parking lot. Just to clarify that, with regard to the current layout, that was planned with the teachers and the P.T.O. and the school district. Before you vote on it just some clarification so when staff goes out to the site to make sure the conditions are met, the fence that is going to be around the playground, it is a wrought iron metal fence on Hall Avenue. I am curious about the height of that. Then on the north side along that single family home what kind of fencing there would be and then on Cleveland Street what kind of fencing there would be to completely enclose the playground with that type of fence so I will know exactly if there is a chain link fence in that location and there is the wrought iron fence in that location. That is kind of what I would like to see. That is a question for you Mr. Karr if you could answer that this evening. Just clarify what kind of fencing there is going to be. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 25 Karr: Conklin: Karr: Conklin - Karr: Conklin: Karr: Conklin: Karr: Conklin: Karr: Conklin: Bunch: I have all along said that we were trying when we removed the old house that was there and cleaned up that whole lot the idea was to move our playgrounds around those large trees and we even went through Parks and Recreation, were able to move the big toys off the old Bates school to that area. All of that was meant to be an enclosed, attractive playground where we can put our big toys for the kids and that we were going to put a wrought iron fence around that area. We haven't addressed the fence at the back. We have a chain link fence on the north part of our playground right now. I am not sure if we need to do anything more with that than a chain link fence. I guess I am looking at the current parking lot, teacher parking lot. There is no fence along that ditch. Yes there is. There is a fence between that parking lot and that single-family home? Yes. What kind of fence is that? It is a chain link fence that is existing. So the only new fence will be the wrought iron fence on Hall and then on the south side along Cleveland would be what? The east side of Hall and part of the north side of Cleveland. Would be wrought iron fence, ok. Six feet tall? I am not sure the height. Kids have a tendency to climb and we haven't decided what size to use on it. I would be more than happy to work with you. St. Joseph's Catholic Church had some concerns about children impaling themselves on the wrought iron fence so you might have to have it specially made if you have the same concern of children climbing that type of fence. For the record would the fence extend on Cleveland from the corner of Hall down to the parking lot that has about ten spaces in it, would that be the extent of it? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 26 Karr: Bunch: Karr: Yes. See, we want to close off any kind of access to Hall Street with kids over there playing. We don't want kids running out on Hall Street. Normally when we have a large scale development these things are included on our plans and descriptions and it makes it a lot easier rather than having to go through waiving our hands to say this goes here and this goes over here. I understand. I apologize for that. A lot of these things came along after we were trying to work through the changes that the Highway Department made, the City made, and the University made. Between the Highway Department, the University, and the City we were waiting for them to work out their problems with what they wanted on Garland. As a result, we tried to hold out because when I tell you we only got $200,000 from the Highway Department, that not only has to build our parking Tots, which we no longer have on the east side, but it also has to move playground equipment and remodel the building area. Removing the office area down to the south entrance because our main entrance to that building for years has been on the east side. Now we are going to have to shut that off because of the widening of Garland and move everything to the south. A lot of that money is going to move that Principal's office and the reception area and all of that into the main area when you come into the south end of our building. Our money is real tight and that is why I am trying to plead with you to not keep running the tab on us. We are trying to do everything we can with that $200,000. Hoffman: I have a couple of comments to make. Obviously I seconded the motion so I will be supporting your project. I would say that given the constraints of this existing site and the fact that you are having as much area taken from you, that is the primary reason that I will support the large scale development. I do think that when you have too many cooks in the kitchen it sure can spoil the broth. Karr: I have not enjoyed it at all. Hoffman: It looks to me that that is what we're faced with tonight. I live quite close to the school and I see the traffic congestion problems everyday and live with that and live with the student traffic from the University. I see this as a compromise at best but one that I think should go on forward. I am in agreement with you on that. I would encourage the planting of more trees as children's projects and neighborhood projects and things like that to mitigate over and above what you've done. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 27 Karr: The Fayetteville School District has planted, along with the support of Kim Hesse, over 200 trees in the past year on our property at Holt and McNair and we continue that partnership with planting these trees. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? Bunch: Yes. Speaking with Mr. Karr prior to the meeting, we're showing two handicapped places in an area that is supposed to be accessible for the polling precinct and a comment was made that those need to be relocated from the north side of the parking lot to the south side to be more accessible for the precinct since that is the primary purpose I believe of having those. Karr: That is not a problem to move that over. It is a convenience closer to the precinct. Bunch: Conklin - To be more in compliance with ADA, that is just a housekeeping note to move those to the south side of the parking lot. Commissioner Bunch, when I went out there last week, I did note that the ADA spaces are on the south side already, striped, marked and painted. They are already there on the south side. Hoover: I do wish that the City would consider the parallel parking even though I know that the University is there and that they will be using some of the spots. When you have a street like that that you want to slow down traffic you really do want parallel parking on it. Also, the University plans for all of this south side of Cleveland, all of that is going to be parking lot for the University for the north quadrant housing and all of that. I mean I think that really the school probably will have access to some of those places if we could ever get that going. The other question that I have that we didn't discuss, am I understanding it right, the parents are supposed to drop-off on the north side? Karr: Yes. Hoover: What is going to keep them from dropping off on the south side? When they see traffic going in there and a line what is going to keep them from just going up to the south side? Karr: We have it in our other schools and they are cooperative with the staff. The staff has supervision during certain times and there are going to be teachers out there all the time. Just like our other schools, McNair and Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 28 Holt, there are certain areas that we designate for drop-off of students and the parents cooperate with us on it. Hoover: I really do have sympathy for you on this whole thing. I know working with committees can be difficult but I really do think there are some safety issues with these three curb cuts on Garland. I know that you have explored possibilities, I just find it hard to believe that you have to have that huge extra driveway for four busses everyday, that there is not another way to accommodate the busses that would be much cheaper in the long run, much more economical. I definitely have issues with the extra parking. I know that this has been a long road to travel to get to this point so I really apologize for not being in support of what you've done. Karr: I need to apologize to the Commission here. We probably should've laid out the plan a little bit better and there probably wouldn't have been all this confusion and questions. I will assure you, I have one of the parent groups tonight that helped work through the plan and all, one of our P.T.O. officers here. We thought we were doing everything that we needed to do. We thought we were working closely with the City. I admit we should've included more things into that plan as it materialized but we were so frantically working and having to change daily with the Highway Department. The deal was on and off, on and off. They kept taking the deal off the table and we never really knew if this thing was ever going to materialize. Then all of a sudden, it came upon us that school is about out, school is going to start August 19th and they told us that the Highway Department is going to get bids in April and May and Garland is going to be torn up. That is our only access to Leverett right now. We were desperate to try to get something as quickly as we can and get it to the Planning Commission to get it through. Bunch: Before we vote on the large scale, one clarification on the parking that we will probably see in CUP 02-14.00, it states in there that there are currently 70 parking spaces which is not the number that you related to us earlier, and that the reconfiguration is a net loss of nine spaces down to 61. That may have some bearing on some of the confusion for the parking associated with the large scale development. Those numbers in our staff report are not the same that you gave us earlier as far as existing parking spaces. Karr: Let me get Geoff up here to respond to those numbers. Bates: I am Geoffrey Bates with Crafton, Tull. Sara Edwards called and counted some more spaces I guess or found some of the existing spaces. To tell you the truth, I am not exactly sure what the number is right now. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 29 Warrick: The 70 that is mentioned in the staff report comes from Sara and myself surveying the site, driving the site, counting the existing spaces. We did include those spaces that are identified and that have been referred to as the polling place parking spaces because when we were on the site they were being utilized as parking spaces. Those are immediately north of the building. There were approximately 25 spaces in that location, 25 spaces in the existing lot off of Hall, which is being proposed to be eliminated and then also an existing 20 spaces that are diagonal spaces and pull through spaces along Garland, which will be eliminated with the widening project. Bates: Warrick: Bates: We didn't count the ones off of Hall, that is where we made our mistake. That is how we came up with the total of 70. Another reason that we have two entries off of Garland is that they are one way. In order to get the busses through there it has to be that wide. You can't get them to swing back around because of some of the terrain. I don't know if you've seen how steep that mountain side is out there but it was due to the terrain and to be able to get a bus to swing around through there. Hoover: Did you try any scenarios on Cleveland, having the bus drop off on Cleveland but further away from the intersection? Bates: Some. There just wasn't a whole lot of room. There are all kinds of existing utilities down through there. They are still working on relocating those. The reason that pull off is so big is to allow for three busses to get in there and be completely off of the street. Hoover: On the south side? Bates: If they didn't they would be sticking out into Cleveland Street. Hoover: You have room for three busses to stack up and you have a total of four busses coming everyday? Bates: Yes. Hoover: I am really confused then. Why do you need this drive on the north if they can drop off on the south? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 30 Karr: The south is mainly for handicapped accessibility. We have two or three busses for handicapped in there. Hoover: Are those full size busses or smaller? Karr: Some are 36 passengers, some are 60 passengers, some are 15 passengers. When we pull in to let one child off at Leverett we may have other wheelchair kids that are going to another school. Bates: We really did think this through, we didn't just throw it together. Hoffman: Ok, is there anybody else? By the way, I see a gentleman raising his hand, if you are a member of the public I have closed public comment so I'm sorry. Bates: I have one more comment You were talking about the parking lot across the street, for the University. I am pretty sure that they are putting a dorm in there, aren't they going to close those parking Tots and put all dorms? Hoover: They are putting a dorm in there but it is going to be parking all the way from Garland all the way over to the next street, whatever that is. Bates: Won't that just increase the traffic even more on Cleveland? Hoover: They will all be accessible from Cleveland. There will be traffic on there, yes. Bates: We were really worried about safety concerns too that is why we wanted everybody to get off the street. I have got a three year old daughter and when I take her to school I would open up the door and get her out and walk her in. I don't want to be walking up and down a busy street, I would rather be off. Hoover: If you really want to be ideal, it seems like you would use Hall then, that is totally a quiet street. Bates: There is a huge drainage problem on Hall. Hoffman: Again, a site with a lot of constraints on it seemingly. There have been some good questions raised on all sides, I have to say that. Is there anybody else? We have a motion and a second and this just takes a simple majority. This large scale development, as I understand it, let me ask our City Attorney again. If this passes but the conditional uses that follow fail Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 31 because we have to have five affirmative votes, what happens to the large scale? Williams: The problem would be that the school system has pretty much drawn up their large scale development on the condition that the conditional uses are being granted and their parking can be made. I guess that they could attempt to build their large scale development without the parking lots but that would be a problem. Which lots are they not going to build? Hoffman: Then I would assume having been on Subdivision Committee before, if the Planning Commission approves something that you don't want I have seen projects have to go back through the Subdivision Committee with revisions. That would be what I assume would be the process. I am just wondering before we ask the question. Williams: The actual large scale development that you would be approving couldn't be built without the conditions so I don't know how they would go forward and build the large scale development when they can't do it. The stuff that you're looking at wouldn't come out the same way. Hoffman: That is what I am saying, a revision would come back through the Subdivision Committee and this would be a null and void idea or something. Conklin: Condition number one states that subject to the approval of the conditional use. If you don't approve the conditional use you are not meeting this condition and it would be coming back as a new project. Hoffman: Since we have two Planning Commissioners not present and you are aware then that this large scale development would not be valid without the conditional uses, do you want us to still proceed with the vote or do you want to table it? Karr: When would be the next time? Time is just critical. Hoffman: I understand. Warrick: The second Monday in June. Karr: We couldn't have it ready by August. I would just assume to take my chances right now and go back and say no it is not ready. Hoffman: Then I will add that all of this is appealable to the City Council, is that correct? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 32 Williams: It is a very difficult appeal process for a conditional use to be appealed to the City Council requires both of the aldermen in your ward and a third alderman all to bring the appeal to the City Council. It is the most difficult thing to appeal from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Conklin: I want to make sure that what we vote on tonight has the potential of passing. If the conditional use doesn't pass maybe there can be a condition that staff could approve a modified plan with the number of parking spaces allowed by code as a minor alteration or modification to the plan. If the concern is the excess 15 additional parking spaces. They, as you heard from Mr. Karr, the pressure is on to get the parking lot built before school opens up in the fall. Estes: Conklin: Estes: Mr. Conklin, do I understand correctly that you are proposing that condition of approval number one be amended or modified in some way? That is correct. I would not as the movement on the motion, I would not be in favor. The reason is that this applicant has brought this before us. The conditions of approval were established by the Planning Department and we have had notice, we've had public comment, and we have had a presentation by the applicant. We have a motion and we have a second and I would call for the question. Hoffman: Before we do that, I think Tim's idea has merit because we are hung up on parking and traffic. Would you not accept something that might be if the conditional use does not pass that might be a recommendation say in conjunction with our Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin? Estes: I have some issues with this large scale development. They have been well stated and well articulated by my fellow Commissioners and I see no need to be repetitious or redundant at this time. I was the movement on the motion, the motion was to approve as prepared and I would call for the question. Hoffman: Ok, anybody else? Church: I just have a question, I want to make sure I understand. I can vote for the large scale development and then it is still contingent upon whether or not the conditional use passes right? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 33 Hoffman: That is correct and that has to have five affirmative votes. The large scale only has to have the simple majority so that would be four of the six Commissioners. The conditional use then has to have five and I suppose it could be tabled separate from the large scale development. The large scale could stand and you could still table the conditional use if you requested. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-14.00 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Hoover voting no. Hoffman: The motion Karries on a vote of five to one. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 34 CUP 02-14.00: Conditional Use (Leverett Elementary School, pp 443) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull, & Associates Inc., on behalf of Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 5.41 acres. The request is for 15 parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code. Hoffman: Our next item is CUP 02-14.00, this request is for fifteen parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code, the recommended motion is that staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. 1) Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying large scale development. 2) Only two ADA accessible parking spaces will remain in the area adjacent to the gym and cafeteria portions of the school once the new parking lot(s) have been installed. This area will be utilized for ball courts, deliveries, and solid waste service only and not as a general use parking lot. The applicant has been advised of A.D.A. requirements. The applicant is responsible to ensure that these spaces meet A.D.A. requirements, are available during school hours, and to ensure the children's safety within this area. 3) The applicant shall install a sign at the parking area closest to the building on the north side stating that the area is for ADA parking and deliveries/service only in order to prevent general access to that area which will serve as a hard court play area for children. Tim, do you want to elaborate any further? We have pretty much discussed this. Conklin: The conditional use request is for the fifteen additional parking spaces that is over the maximum number allowed under our current ordinance. Hoffman: On page 7.3 we have findings that we have to make and I would urge the Planning Commission to go ahead and be specific if there is a movement for this conditional use to make specific findings of fact according to pages 7.3 to 7.5. Does the applicant have any further presentation that you would like to make at this time? Ok, I will take public comment on this item, this is a conditional use for the fifteen additional parking spaces. Karr: We have forty-five staff members, I may have said that before. Hoffman: I know the one gentleman came down after watching on T.V., if you have a public comment or if you have a comment that pertains to this item, not the large scale development but just the overage on parking. Bunch: In our staff report it says we have 51 employees and you said 45. Karr: We have crossing guards that are there that aren't there all day but they still need parking spaces while they are there, I didn't include that. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 35 Hoffman: Yes Sir, if you will tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your comments. Lesner: Good evening, my name is Joe Lesner. I live at 1794 Ora Drive. I currently have two children enrolled in Leverett, next year I will have three. In regards to parking, that is just an extreme necessity there for the staff and everybody else. Just as a concerned parent I want to emphasize that point. The other point, I do agree with Ms. Hoover completely about keeping the tree. Yes, there is that empty lot where there was a temporary building earlier. I encourage you to look at that possibility of loading those busses down where that temporary building was that has been removed. I do think it can be done. It may take a little bit out from what they purchased but I think you have a turn out there away from right in front of the school and you can still have gradual walk way up to the school and also if we can keep that tree on the corner of Cleveland and Garland, it is a beautiful tree, I hate to see that leave. My kids love that school and I just want to make that concern. Hoffman. Thank you so much. Would anyone else like to address us? Davis: I am Jenny Davis, I'm at 1935 Archer. I am the P.T.O. President at Leverett. I have two kids currently there. I have been involved since the beginning of this since they first started talking about widening Garland and had a definite interest since I had children there. I have worked real closely with Roy Karr and really encouraged all the parties to try to get together because we knew it was going to involve City, School, State Highway Department, and we knew that when it came down to wanting to move dirt and get the job done that it was going to be a complicated effort to get everybody on the same page. Roy Karr has just worked tremendously hard with the staff and with all the P.T.O. and parents that had concerns. Probably the number one concern that we've had has been the safety issue of our kids. I have actually had an accident pulling out of the current parking lot that we have from a University student because we had busses stopped on Cleveland and the University student plowed right into the back of me. What we have right now has not been an ideal situation. Knowing that we were going to be forced into losing the current parking lot and parking spots that we have, our pull in drop off area for the kids, we knew that we had to be real sensitive to safety issues of getting our kids and our parents in and out of there. We want to have enough parking spaces, nobody wants more concrete than we have to have but yet we want enough parking spaces not only for our staff but we look at parents as staff members as well. We constantly want to have as many parent volunteers as possible. If we have parents that come up and there Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 36 are no more parking places, obviously, they are not going to stick around to volunteer at the school. We are just trying to address all of the issues and I think we've done a pretty good job of it. We have had more people than we can count that have walked all around the entire circumference of our school trying to figure out a way to keep trees, to protect the children, to provide enough parking spaces, and to answer all the questions that staff has about safety issues. I would just encourage you to trust that we have tried to address the issues that we know have needed to be met as far as City planning rules and all the things that we maybe don't know about. In the end, we have tried to address safety issues as the most important thing for our kids and for our parents. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Ucalono: Hello, my name is Joe Euculano. I live at 3155 Woodridge Drive and I also work with the Leverett P.T.O. organization and just want to echo the points that were made. We have worked very diligently with Mr. Roy Karr and his staff in order to try to come up with a compromise proposal in order to provide for the parking that we've been talking about in this conditional use as well as with the utmost concern for children and the safety of our children. I just want to let you know that I don't think we want to take away trees and we don't want to over concretize the parking lots that we have and make more concrete than we need to but we do have a great need for parking around Leverett. As some of the items that were already identified, Leverett School is a very different situation in terms of lots of parent drop-off for children. It is not the kind of school where there is bicycle traffic and things of that nature. If any of you have tried to ride your bicycle up Cleveland hill, children from fifth grade on down would have great difficulty in doing that. I think that what we're trying to do is to try to get as much parking as possible for our parent volunteers, for our faculty and staff who are working in the school. We certainly want to be sure that the safety of the students is there. I think that the gentleman, a fellow parent who is concerned about the drop-off of children with the busses, I respect that consideration. However, I think that the plan that we have put together is a compromise that provides all the safety features that we can for the busses that are coming in there to be able to accommodate those three or four busses at a single time as well as the handicapped parking and sick child kinds of needs that we have talked about. Moving the bus traffic to another location is really not an option, it is an option that we had considered, but it is not one that would be viable based upon the consideration that we've given in numerous hours and countless walks around the building with a number of people. I urge you to give this full consideration. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 37 Hoffman: Thank you. Is there anybody else? I will close public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant for discussion and motions. Estes: Karr: I have a question of staff. This was an issue that was developed by Commissioner Bunch earlier in considering the large scale development. In the material that we have we are told that the request is for fifteen parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code and then over in the background, material prepared by staff we are told on the property at this point there are 70 parking spaces, the applicant has proposed to reconfigure and install a total of 61 spaces with this development. While this is a net reduction, the number of proposed spaces still represents 15 spaces more than the City's parking lot ordinance. Then we are told that this equates to a requirement of 36 spaces and an allowance of 43 spaces with the proposed 61 spaces the applicant is then requesting this conditional use permit to allow 18 spaces. Here is my question Mr. Conklin Is it 18 spaces or is it 15 spaces? Is it 61 spaces or is it 74 spaces? I just want to know what we are being asked to do with this conditional use. Before I vote on it I just want to know what I am being asked to do here. Perhaps the applicant or Mr. Bates or somebody from Crafton, Tull & Associates can help us. I can tell you that we are satisfied with 61. I think where the confusion came is we currently have an existing parking lot playground just north of our building and taking out those spaces and only leaving two there for handicap precinct voting will take care of those numbers. We are satisfied with 61. Estes: I know you would be but 36 plus 18 is 54 and that is what you've asked for and yet then there is the with the proposed 61 spaces. Hoffman: You get the additional20% automatically for 43 so 43 plus 18 is 61. Conklin: Eighteen is the correct number, not fifteen. Estes: Ok, so back over here on the front it should read that the request is for 18 parking spaces. Conklin: That is correct. Estes: Mr. Conklin, what we're being asked to do then is to approve 18 parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code. Conklin: That is correct, it should've been 18 instead of 15. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 38 Estes: Thank you Madam Chair. Hoffman: Tim, since there were 70 spaces before the reconfiguration of Garland, would that not give them some kind of a vested interest or a grandfather? Conklin: Those are completely being eliminated. Hoffman: But they are used now and they haven't been unused for six months, could we use that clause to avoid the conditional use? Conklin: We did not look at it that way. We looked at what the current code requires for parking since it was being completely eliminated and calculated that based on one space per 1,200 of classroom space plus 20% over that gave us the 43, 61 spaces are proposed so 18 spaces are being requested for the conditional use. Hoffman: Again, I am going to be in favor of this with all of its problems. Having been on the P.T.O. board of my son's school a few years back, I understand the importance of being able to get those volunteers in and get them to work. I would urge the rest of the Planning Commission to consider that there were 70 spaces there. Motion: Estes: Our ordinance requires one space per 1,200 sq.ft. of classroom space, this equates to a requirement of 36 spaces for this physical plant for this facility. The best evidence that we have that that is not adequate is that on the property at this time there are 70 spaces. The request as I understand it is for 18 parking spaces in excess of that allowed by code which would still be less than the 70 spaces that currently exist and are currently servicing the physical plant. It is for that reason that I would move for approval of CUP 02-14.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve CUP 02-14.00 was denied by a vote of 3-3-0 with Commissioners Hoover, Allen and Church voting no. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 39 Hoffman. The motion fails on a split vote of three to three. Your conditional use is denied. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 40 CUP 02-16.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville School District (Leverett), pp 443 was submitted by Geoffrey Bates, P.E. on behalf of the Fayetteville School District for property located at 1124 W. Cleveland Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.98 acres. The request is for a playground (Use unit 4) in R-1. Hoffman: The final conditional use which would be CUP 02-16.00, which was for the property which is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .98 acres. The request is for a playground (use unit 4) in a R-1 district. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. 1) Compliance with all conditions of the accompanying large scale development. 2) Any changes to this area of the site which result in the installation of additional impervious surface or grading will require review and approval from the Engineering Division with regard to compliance with Grading and Drainage regulations. 3) The existing curb cut which provides access to the existing parking are in this location shall be removed and an continuous curb installed. Conklin: Madam Chair, since you denied the conditional use, I would like to add the condition since we are moving the playground over, just so it doesn't get lost in any future approvals with regard to the fence, if you could add condition number four with regard to the wrought iron fence located on the west side of Hall. Hoffman: You want it to say installation of the wrought iron fence of a design and height to be determined between the applicant and staff on the east side of Hall and north side of Cleveland. That is condition number four. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Planning Commission for discussion, motions and so forth. Karr: It says on an existing curb cut which provides access to the existing parking in this location shall be removed and a continuous curb installed. Hall doesn't have curbed streets. Hoffman: That is probably just talking about the driveway, that is standard terminology for that. Is that right Ron? Petrie: Is there an existing driveway to the residence that has been removed? Karr: Yes. Petrie: I think that is what that was referring to. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 41 Conklin: Yes, there is no curb removal of the driveway so there is no longer any access to that parking area, which I am assuming you would do with the playground being there. Hoffman: Karr: Motion: Estes: We can just change curb cut to driveway if you would like. Ok. I would move for approval of CUP 02-16.00 subject to the stated conditions of approval with the addition of condition of approval number four that condition being installation of a wrought iron fence north of Cleveland and east of Hall with dimensions and materials subject to the City Planner's approval. Hoffman. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Bunch: If the mover will entertain the removal of continuous curb installed since there is going to be a fence there and there would be no need for a curb, which would be an added expense on a project which has considerable burden already, if Commissioner Estes will accept that deletion from item three then I will second it. Estes: The movement accepts the amendment to the motion. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02- 16.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Hoffman: The conditional use for the playground passes unanimously. Thank you gentlemen. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 42 PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D. , pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue & Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.28 acres with 6 lots proposed. Hoffman: The next item on our agenda is PPL 02-4.00 which is a Preliminary Plat for Ash Acres P.U.D. which was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Ave. and Woolsey Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.33 acres with six lots proposed. This is a Planned Unit Development with six lots proposed. A private street will be provided ending in a cul-de-sac for emergency and sanitation vehicle access. The property is surrounded by R-1 zoning. There is currently 40% of the site in existing tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 25% of the site in tree canopy. The requirement in an R-1 zone is 25%. Recommendation is approval subject to the conditions listed. Allen: Before you continue, I wanted to tell you that I will recuse on this item. Hoffman: Thank you very much. We have nine conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: I will go ahead and read those into the record. 1) The tree preservation area shall be clearly shown on the plat and shall be dedicated as a tree preservation easement on the Final Plat. 2) Planning Commission shall specifically grant a density bonus pursuant to UDO • 166.06. This property is 1.33 acres and is zoned R-1 which allows for five units by right. The applicant is requesting a total of six units or a density bonus of one unit with 35% of the site remaining open space. The Planned Unit Development portion of the UDO has been attached at the end of this report. 3) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use allowing for a tandem lot for Joseph Kilgore. The property owned by Joseph Kilgore to the south is being granted an access easement through the Ash Acres development to his property. Until recently, he owned property all the way to Ash Street, but sold it to the developer of this subdivision which created the need for the tandem lot approval. 4) The private drive shall be constructed to public street standards. 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 Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 43 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 City+s current requirements. 7) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $2,350.00 (5 additional units @$470). 8) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum four foot sidewalk and six foot green space along Ash. 9) Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year. Before we start talking about this I have a question for Tim. Does a P.U.D. require five positive votes or a simple majority because we only have five voters here. Conklin- A simple majority. Hoffman: Ok, so you would need three out of five. Do you wish to continue with this discussion or do you wish to table it? Rudasill: The owner wishes to go ahead. Hoffman: Will the applicant tell us your name and give us the benefit of your presentation. Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill. I am with WBR Engineering representing the owner, Rob Stanley. The owner is here if you have any questions of him directly. What we are proposing here is a six lot subdivision on 1.33 acres. To give you a little background on how we've laid it out, the lot that is on the east side, there is a 30' strip that goes back to a .58 acre tract which is the east half of this property. We proposed a single residence on that half acre. It will be a 2,000 sq.ft. 30% brick structure with a two car garage to back against all of the residences that are along Woolsey and along Ash. Then he has proposed on the other half acre or 6/10 of an acre, there is an existing house on that which is currently a vinyl sided house, 1,300 sq.ft., he proposes to place four units in behind that; 1,500 sq.ft., two story buildings with two car garages, they will be 75% brick. The lot sizes will be 40x100, which is comparable to Mr. Kilgore's lot which is 60x100 when you take out his parking area which would basically be an extension of Ash Acres. We have extended this road through to him, put a cul-de-sac at the end to accommodate trash trucks and emergency vehicles per the request of the Planning office. Also, one other buffer that will be in here is a portion of the 35% open space and the tree preservation that will be located along the east line and the southeast corner. We will preserve all that wooded area and the grassy area between that and the existing residences as open space and also tree preservation. I guess that is all I have for now. Conklin: I do want to point out that we did hand out a petition and three emails that we received. The petition was submitted to our office around noon today. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 44 It has signatures from the Woodland Neighborhood Association in opposition to the P.U.D. and then the emails we received also had concerns with regard to the neighborhood association. Hoffman: Did you count how many signatures are on this petition? Conklin: No I didn't count but I can count those and let you know in a couple of minutes. I would like to point out to the Commissioners that this is a P.U.D. and under Chapter 166.06 of our Unified Development Ordinance to be approved as a P.U.D. What I am reading to you is what is on pages 9.3 and 9.4, at the very bottom of 9.3. To be approved as a P.U.D., "A P.U.D. must comply with the provisions of the section and must achieve all of the following purposes: More efficient use of land; more efficient use of public facilities; more usable open space through structure grouping and other design techniques; and preservation of appropriate natural physical features." It does talk about for approval you have to make findings about access and off-street parking and sanitation, utility screening, signs, yards and open space. I point that out to you as you hear from the public this evening and the applicant. You do have to look at that ordinance and make those findings one way or the other with regard to approval or disapproval of the P.U.D. They are also asking for a density bonus. That is in condition number two. They are saving 35% open space. This ordinance was amended a few years ago to allow the Planning Commissioner, it is your option now whether or not you want to grant that density bonus based on the additional open space that is preserved as part of a P.U.D. so that is an option that you have and you will have that decision also to make whether or not to grant that density bonus in condition number two. That is all I have, thank you. Hoffman: I have a question before we get started. What is the difference between the 35% open space that is being proposed by the applicant and if this were developed as a normal piece of property with five units on it? Conklin: 30% open space so 5% additional open space. Mr. Petrie has counted the signatures and there are 58 signatures on the petition. Hoffman: That was quick counting, thank you Ron. Petrie: I can't say that they were not repeated. Hoffman: Ok, did you have anything else that you wanted to talk about before we take public comment? Rudasill: Not right now. I will address the questions as they come up. Hoffman: Ok. Is there any member of the public that would like to discuss this with Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 45 us? Come up, say your name please and give us the benefit of your opinions. Shock: My name is Lara Shock and I live at 1842 Green Valley Avenue, which is just east of this development, a street over off of Woolsey. First let me apologize for waiting until this late stage in the planning process to address my concern about this development. It wasn't until our neighborhood association was formed that I was fully aware of this Ash Acres proposal and the impact that it would have on our neighborhood. When my husband and I decided to buy a home in Fayetteville it was for many reasons. We looked at several starter homes in preplanned neighborhoods and were turned off by their impersonal designs and lack of trees. When we found the home on Green Valley it just felt right. It was a home, a large lot, trees, sidewalks, quiet, little traffic. It is diverse, friendly and quiet. There are people that still live in the houses that they built some thirty years ago when the neighborhood was just being developed. We have singles, we have couples with new babies, we have college students, retirees, any type of person you can imagine probably you can find in our neighborhood. Recently there have been a couple of major developments in our area which have brought the need for a unified voice when it comes to issues impacting the stability and uniqueness of our neighborhood. We feel that the density of the proposed development is inconsistent with our average lot size, layout and the flow of our neighborhood. While we are not against development of the lots, we would like you to take into consideration the number of dwellings that they are asking to put on such a small lot. Also, consider the fact that the majority of the homes are owned as opposed to being rented, which I know they are planning to rent these at the onset and maybe sell them long term. We feel that our neighborhood has natural boundaries. Of course, Sycamore to the south, Gregg to the west, Township to the north and College to our east. Therefore, we are asking for your help in protecting and preserving our well established, quiet, beautiful piece of Fayetteville from this type of development. Ask yourself, would you want this in your neighborhood as it stands now or across the street from your house in such a well established neighborhood. We come before you tonight, as you know, with not just a few signatures from people that are totally anti - development, but 57 signatures and that must say something to you about this. I am just asking you to prove tonight that this facet of city government truly works for the people who will be most impacted by your decision tonight and that is the residents of Woodland. I hope you take that into consideration when they are asking for this density bonus. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to address us on this? I will bring it back to the applicant and the Planning Commission for further discussion, motions and so forth. Commissioner Bunch? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 46 Bunch: Bill, when this thing came through Subdivision Committee quite a number of times, it was never mentioned that these were two story. We are showing like 1,500 sq.ft. footprint and a 1,500 sq.ft., on the drawing it says 1,500.... Rudasill: Livable space will be 1,500 sq.ft. so there will be a garage below the livable space. Bunch: So the two story portion will basically only be over the garage, is that what you are saying? Total size of the footprint is 1,500 and then the total size of the dwelling unit itself, heated space, would be 1,500 also? Rudasill: Yes. Bunch: Except for that unit 6 which would be 2,000? Rudasill: Actually he can answer this better. He just made this decision last week as far as the two story but it will fit within the footprint that is on those drawings. Actually there may be more upstairs and less downstairs but it will be within that footprint of a 30x50, it will actually be maybe a 30x42 with 1,500 sq.ft. heated spaces and basically a 400 sq.ft. garage, 20x20. The footprint will actually be smaller than what is shown on that plan. There will be less impervious space. Bunch: Thank you. Church: It seems like there is a lot of opposition to the project and I am wondering if you had an opportunity to meet with any of the neighborhood association. Rudasill: I did not have an opportunity to meet with them. However, I am a resident that lives within eye shot of this development and yesterday I was sitting on my porch and I watched her walk from house to house and right by my house to get her signatures. I have an issue with that. If there is an association everyone should be involved. Also, the adjoining streets which are behind my house have no view of this, which is Green Valley Drive. The streets that have direct access and direct view of this are Woolsey and Ash. The rest of them are blocked by houses in between on Ash there is currently a duplex directly across the street, which is rented. There are apaitments on the comer of Ash and Gregg which are currently rental. There is a new development being developed adjacent to this where actually we show a R-1 property, which has been zoned to R-2 off the southwest corner, it is currently being developed. If you drive by there now it is where they have cut down all the trees and have access onto Gregg. There will be rental properties in there. The house that is in the Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 47 cut out there, that is owned by and the person that lives there does own it. There are several houses along Woolsey across the street from my house that are rented. Not necessarily the people that are living there and have direct access and direct view of this property that are on this signature list. I can tell you there are only probably 15 houses that will have a view of it. The drive situation, the new access will provide a proper access to Mr. Kilgore's house. Currently he has an 8' gravel drive that runs between two rows of trees and you can barely get in there. We are going to improve that situation. Number two, this drive is almost as far down on Ash Street as it can get which is down near the apartment entrance so there is no congestion of these units coming into Ash. There are no other driveways to the west of us so it is a good situation as far as access down to Gregg. The plan will provide for the one unit on the east side of this lot, which like I said, is % acre which is comparable to all of the adjacent lots that are there. In a transition to this new R-2 development that is being built, we would propose that they are single-family residences, they are not apaitments, they are single-family, two car garage homes. They will be 75% brick, which is a much higher quality home than actually what is right next to it. They are older homes, they are well kept but they are vinyl sided and they are on comparable lot sizes as far as the bigger lot. The smaller lots, Mr. Kilgore's lot is fairly small considering where it is located. Like I said, those lots will be abutting that R-2 development so it is a transition point. That is basically all I have. Hoffman: Thank you Sir. I just want to say that public comment has been closed. I am sorry, we just have one opportunity for that so... Shock: Is there any way to rebut even though it is not factual? Hoffman: No, I'm sorry. The Commission and the applicant now are discussing. Commissioners? Hoover: I have a question for staff, just in general. My knowledge of P.U.D.s is not very in depth. We don't have any statement or finding or anything like that. What do we look for in a P.U.D.? Conklin: I went over those on 9.3. More efficient use of land... Hoover: More efficient use of land would be one finding. Conklin: More usable open space, preservation of natural... Hoover: Do you want to address those in general to this project? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 48 Conklin: Staff had some concern with regard to preservation of natural features. When they were shown they weren't preserving the minimum percent tree canopy. They went back and modified that and preserved the tree canopy. They are having smaller homes on, I'm not sure if they are smaller homes, smaller lots within this and clustering the homes together and saving the 35% open space. The majority of the open space is in a contiguous area back to the east. This is a Planned Unit Development. We haven't seen too many Planned Unit Developments of this scale. When I say this scale I mean the size of acreage. Typically we have seen larger subdivisions be approved as Planned Unit Developments. We have even seen multi- family apartments being built. An example is the Cliffs It is zoned R-1, a density bonus was allowed prior to the ordinance, even with the passing of the last phase that was approved and apartments were built in an R-1. It is on a case by case basis. A 40' lot is probably a little bit smaller than historically we've seen in Fayetteville. We typically see a lot of 50' lots, 5,000 sq.ft. lots in Fayetteville. The question you have to answer is it more efficient use of the land, are they preserving natural features and resources and other findings that are in there. Hoffman. Thank you Tim. I will go ahead and weigh in on the purpose of a P.U.D. as I see it and ask you a couple of questions related to the more efficient use of land. If you are allowed five units by right and you are proposing six and only saving 5%, or adding 5% green space, that to me doesn't seem to be an equal equation in the scheme of the development. That is one concern of mine. The second is that the structure grouping doesn't seem to be a grouping, it seems to be just a line that looks like a row house sort of development along that one side. When you look at it in context with the neighborhood, they are structures of different varying degrees of quality and some are kept up, some are very small, some are older, some are very nice. It is a diverse neighborhood. How do you see this as fitting in with that neighborhood. Can you answer my question about the 5%? That is my first question. Rudasill: Take into consideration two things when you look at that. Number one, the 5%, we are providing an additional 5% of green space and also, we are still preserving 25% of the trees for an R-1 development. We have been able to do this and still have a density bonus whereas we would have less open space and less trees preserved, which is a priority of this Commission from what I understand based on previous conversations on other projects, trying to preserve trees on corners where they are going to put a road and stuff like that. The other item to take into consideration is that it makes a much more efficient use of the property for economic purposes. Number one, he has some offsite improvements that he must do. He has to bring water to this property and provide fire protection, Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 49 Hoffman: Estes: which currently is not very good in this area. That is one option that will benefit this. When he does this he will have to bring fire protection to this street and to this area. Currently there is a 1 ''/2" line on Ash which needs to be upsized for this development. The transition from what is happening on the east side of this property to the west side of the property, we are providing a buffer, we are providing a home zone that will transition into that R-2 development very well. That is basically all I can address. Thank you very much. The property is 1.33 acres, it is zoned R-1, this allows for five units by right. One of the findings which must exist for us to approved the P.U.D. is that the dwelling unit density shall be the density allowed in the zoning district in which the P.U.D. is being planned. That is the five units. That brings us then to the bonus density which is being requested. I share your concerns that an increase of 5% in the green space does not equal one additional bonus unit. It is for those reasons that I will not be making a motion and will not be voting in favor of this proposal should a motion be made. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Bunch: I have a question for staff in an unrelated area that I may wait on that question if anyone else has any others that are related to what Commissioner Estes just said. Hoffman: I would just like to ask you if you looked at other ways to increase the open space from above the 5% figure. I have been on the Commission, I think Charleston Place was one of the first P.U.D.s that came through. Granted, that is a different size and scale but we've had bonus densities based on much larger green space areas being provided than what you are proposing. Rudasill: Well there is an additional green space that could be provided but it basically goes into the detention area that was required. We originally tried to put the detention down by the street in an underground facility, that was not feasible. Therefore, we backed off. We actually eliminated one unit from this. They originally wanted to put a detached garage with a studio apartment above it and we eliminated that to provide for the detention area that is required in the southeastern portion of this property. There is some area there that could be added to a green space but it would be in a detention area that would be potentially damp. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 50 Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Rudasill: Petrie: Conklin: Rudasill: Petrie: Rudasill: Bunch: Petrie: Bunch: I don't think our ordinance will allow us to use a detention facility as green space can it? It has some limitations on it with regard to the flood frequency in which you can count towards it. Is it possible to re-engineer this to maybe be able to count it Ron? It is a dry detention basin, it rains and then it goes away. In non -rain periods it is dry. It is usable as a green space. You can use it as it is designed now. Tim is looking it up. It is a percentage of the land you can use. Land within the floodplain ten year frequency and wetland may be counted no more than 50% of usable open space. Which, essentially we could include quite a bit more area than what we have because the detention basin doesn't even take up 50% of the open space. It would take up maybe 1/3 of it at the most. Their other options would be to place it underground which they have previously explored and determined that wasn't feasible. The cost to do that is just exuberant. The question I had previously is more in tune with this now. It had to do more with the relocation of the detention area from the downhill side down by Ash Street to this uphill side. Obviously this will have less water in it than it would have had had it been on the downhill side. The question for Ron is are the post development flows going to be adequate with this design? It looks like the drainage water will be held in the detention pond will come right down the road and then go to a proposed inlet box. Does that come later in the process where you look at those numbers? We have looked at the preliminary numbers and they work. Certainly we have additional studies to do to approve the plans. The theory behind it works. As long as you get enough water in this upper basin to detain it you can hold the water that would affect what is being discharged down stream. The key to it is just to make sure you have enough water in the up hill side. Basically what this detention pond is collecting is this water that is coming off the neighbor's properties. Up in the very uphill corner of this it is Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 51 actually not doing a whole lot for this particular development, it is basically collecting water coming off the neighbors, is that not a fact? Petrie: That is right. As long as they can prove what is leaving the site is going to equal predevelopment then it is something that we will allow. Bunch: Ok, thanks. Rudasill: I can help address that. Basically, whether we collect the offsite water or not, that water still comes to us, we still have to pass it through us. The ultimate design is based on everything that comes to us. What we're doing is we're collecting this water on this end of the basin and detaining it and releasing it at a much smaller value and letting this run off so it balances the end result. Bunch: Rather than wait for all of it to get to the downhill side you are just catching it when it first comes on the property and then distributing it. Rudasill: Yes. Hoffman: Commissioners, any further discussion? After having driven through the neighborhood my other concern that I voiced previously is that the preservation of the neighborhood character is of course important and we have evidence of a large number of people signing a petition and having organized their neighborhood association. I think that the neighborhoods seem to find that the encouragement beyond the major streets are the problem with adding greater densities in what is essentially a single-family style neighborhood. The development that you are referring to is one of those that was approved 15 or so years ago that didn't have an expiration date. Conklin: That was approved in 1993. Hoffman: Approved in 1993, I'm sorry. Now we are adding a one year expiration date to make sure that we can keep track of those types of development. That in my mind is an issue as well. I don't like to turn down development, I think it is important for our city to grow and to have development but I also have to weigh that with the best interest of the neighborhood that it is going in and I find the additional unit with the only 5%, we haven't got any real numbers on the detention pond, I just find that to be inequitable. For that reason I won't support a motion or won't make a motion for approval on this either. Does anybody else want to weigh in with their opinion? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 52 Hoover: I have a question for Staff. How far away can a detention pond be from a structure? Petrie: From a downstream drainage pipe system? Hoover: From a house. Petrie: Ok, I'm sorry, 20'. I measured that off and it appears that they are meeting that. Hoffman. Ok, I would like to call for a motion. Stanley: Good evening, my name is Rob Stanley. I want to address a concern that you had about the houses in a row there. My thinking was that the apartments are going in right on the house that exists there now and the apartments that are going in right next door to me back up to my backyard. Part of my thinking in these two stories was to partly help block the view of that. That is one reason why I changed that. Also I changed it because I thought these would be nicer units. These are going to be landscaped and sodded and nice looking units. I really believe it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Those houses in a row there will help provide, I think, a nice buffer to the rest of the neighborhood. We are going from multi -family to single-family. Then on the other side of the road I am just putting one house there and preserving the majority of my green space. That tandem lot right now if I were for example, to go in and put one house back there, theoretically I could go chop down those trees and just use it as a single-family residence. What I'm offering is to preserve all of that beautiful wooded tree area back by that detention pond forever. Also, the green space that goes to the west side of the lot that runs all the way back down to Ash there. I really think with having those on that side of the road and then one single-family there providing all of that green space and those trees it is really going to mean that all the neighbors over there are not going to have to see the apartments. The trees are going to remain. There is very few there that are going to see any of this development right now. If I were to go just build two houses on each of those tandem lots you would still have a lot of the effects that you are going to have only I am asking for the additional unit. Hoffman: Should I infer that it is your intention then that if this for some reason should fail, you've only heard from two of us, that you would do just that and that would be to maximize the potential by separating the houses and chopping down the trees? Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 53 Stanley: I don't know. I may be forced to sell it. Financially if I can't put a certain number on there, it is going to cost me between $50,000 and $75,000 to build this road and do all the water and all that just to develop this for these units and I can only absorb so much per unit or it doesn't even become a worth while thing to do. If I didn't and I sold it, yes, I'm sure someone else would come in there and build a couple of houses. I don't know what they would look like and what they would do to it. They would have a gravel road there, an 8' gravel road that is overgrown to deal with and certainly I think it would be cost prohibitive I think for one or two houses there to build a road and build all the waterlines back and everything. I am not sure. In order for me to afford to do it I've got to have a certain number because I have to divide all that cost between those houses. I hear the concerns that the lady brought and I appreciate that in that neighborhood. I really believe, and I've built other houses in Fayetteville and they are nice. They are 3/4 brick, they have sod landscaped yards. I am going to maintain the lawns myself'. It will not be up to the people there. At least as long as I own them I think it will be an added benefit. I think it will look nice and I even think it will increase the property values of the houses around there. I certainly don't think it will drag them down by any means. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Bunch: Bill maybe you can explain this or possibly Ron. One of the concerns that has been expressed had to do with the layout with all the facilities in a row. Was that not pretty much predicated by the overhead electric line and is that one of such a voltage that it has to remain overhead rather than being underground? Rudasill: No, the overhead line that runs through the property will be removed. That will be going underground. All the utilities through the subdivision will be going underground. That is just a service line that runs back to Mr. Kilgore's property and we are putting that underground along with installing the water and sewer. Bunch: Rudasill: A lot of these trees that are coming out are basically from widening the road? Basically from putting the road in to access that as a requirement for emergency access, and/or trash access. The road was prescribed by the Planning Department as far as it has to be 20' wide, it has to be built to city standards. We are going to put a concrete street in there and a cul-de- sac at the end, which took up a lot of space was a requirement to be able to get trash service all the way back in there. Originally we had proposed Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 54 that those owners would Karry their trash down and put it in an area down near Ash and that was denied by the Planning Department for this cul-de- sac so that the trash trucks could actually drive up in there, turn around and come back out. Hoover: I think I do agree that this is a nice buffer between the apartments and into the residential neighborhood but I think with the opposition from the neighborhood and they have only increased the green space by 5%, I don't think I would be in favor of the density bonus. I am not in favor of this but maybe with less density I would be. Hoffman: It wouldn't have to come back before us with less density, it would just be a use by right. Does anybody else want to weigh in? You have now heard from three of us so it is still your option to table this if you would like to do that. Rudasill: He would prefer to table it now. Bunch: My comment on this in relation to the tabling is that since the neighborhood association made a comment that they came into the process quite late if this is tabled are you requesting us to table it or are you just withdrawing? My suggestion would be for you to get with the neighborhood association to give them a better opportunity to explain what has gone on here because this one has been in the system for quite some time. There have been considerable changes made to this. It has been a long process and what we're looking at now is the result of quite a few months of work and trying to satisfy the various conditions. The drawing that we have before us now is considerably different than what he had when it first started. Rudasill: Another item that I would like you to consider. I believe there is a letter in that packet that is a letter from one of the adjoining owners. She was under the impression that it was going to be apartments. It is going to be single-family residences. His long term intent is to sell these units. It is going to be to sell the lots. We would like to go ahead and table this. Maybe we can sit down with the neighborhood association, show them what we're doing, show them what we plan. There has been some mis- communication, they were informed right towards the end of this process as far as communication between the two, I don't know that the opportunity has been there. Like I said, some people were bypassed. Granted, I was the engineer, she may have known that, she may have gone by me because she knew I wasn't going to sign the petition but Mr. Stanley is also an owner in that area. Granted, he is the developer but he does have a house in that area and he does have some say. I would not, Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 55 and I'm sure Mr. Stanley is not opposed to meeting with them, showing them what we're doing, showing them what we plan. The basics behind it is whether we put five units in there or six units, we still have to build the same amount of amenities. The road would have to be the same, everything would basically be the same but he can't build it without that extra unit, it is just that simple. The financial end of it is not there so he would have to go to something that is nowhere near as nice. Bunch: One of the assets that we were looking at in Subdivision on this was with the newly initiated development next to it that had been laying fallow for quite a number of years without a sunset clause, one of the things is that this was a good buffer between the R-2 development and the neighborhood. It seems that if the neighborhood were to take a look at the drawing and take a good look at this and then bring it back to us. My question is do we need to bring it back to Subdivision or do we need to bring it back to Planning Commission? Hoffman: At the risk of sounding like I am asking for too many delays, I do not like to delay projects either but I don't like doing Subdivision work at the Commission level. It could then still have some problems. If you can do the Committee work before it gets back here I think that would be the best idea to hash out this with the neighbors and so forth at Subdivision Committee level. When is the next Subdivision Committee meeting that they could attend Tim? Conklin: Thursday. Hoffman: I don't know if they would be able to get with the neighbors by then. Conklin: I don't have that schedule. Hoffman: We would certainly make every effort to speed along whatever process could be speeded. Rudasill: To address one other issue. As far as the green space savings, we placed the detention basin in there and did not adjust the property lines that were accommodating the detached garage so that green space requirement would probably go up to 40% or higher. Hoffman: That would help but knowing the numbers would help too. Rudasill: Ok. Hoffman: I will entertain a motion. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 56 Motion: Bunch: I move that we return PPL 02-4.00 for Ash Acres P.U.D. to Subdivision at the next available opportunity on the calendar and also it would give opportunity for the developer to meet with the neighborhood to present it before it comes back to Subdivision. Hoffman: I have a motion to table by Commissioner Bunch, do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table PPL 02-4.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-1 with Commissioner Allen abstaining. Planning Commission May 28, 2002 Page 57 CUP 02-8.00: Conditional Use (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located at 243 & 245 Ash Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Hoffman: The motion Karries on a five to zero vote. We have the same issue on CUP 02-8.00 since the tandem lot is a related item... Rudasill: Could we go ahead and address that? There is an issue there, Mr. Stanley has already purchased the property so something needs to be put in place for Mr. Kilgore to have his house the way it exists now anyway. Conklin: Just looking at the conditions, it talks about the easement that was going to be dedicated with the plat. I prefer to table it so we can work on those conditions. The conditions are not appropriate since the plat has not been approved. It does not address what we would normally address if we looked at it independently from the subdivision. Staff's report is incomplete is what I am trying to communicate to the Commission. My recommendation is to table it. Hoffman: Ok. Do I have a motion? Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion to table CUP 02-8.00. Church: I will second it. Hoffman: I have a motion and a second by Commissioners Hoover and Church. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 02-8.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-1 with Commissioner Allen abstaining. Hoffman: The motion Karries on a five to zero vote. Tim, is there any further business or announcements? Conklin: No. Hoffman: We will see you all at the next meeting then. We stand adjourned. Thank you all.