Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 10, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-30.00 & 31.00: Lot Split (Beard/Center, pp 599) Page 3 LSP 02-25.00 & 26.00: Lot Split (Haines, pp 369) Page 3 LSP 02-27.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 245) Page 3 LSD 02-12.00: Large Scale Development (Bargo Engineering, Inc., pp 604) Page 3 ADM 02-17.00: Administrative Item (First Church of Nazarene, pp 253) Page 3 VAC 02-4.00: Vacation (Renegar, pp 447) Page 3 PPL 02-9.00 Preliminary Plat (Sam Rogers Addition, pp 401) Page 5 PPL 02-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) Page 7 LSD 02-13.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Municipal Airport, pp 795/796/834/835) Page 18 ADM 02-16.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville, Master Street Plan, pp 488) Page 22 RZN 02-15.00: Rezoning (Garriott, pp 437/438) Page 22 CUP 02-17.00: Conditional Use (Hydco, pp 134) Page 34 Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Approved Tabled Forwarded to City Council Approved Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Alice Church Lee Ward Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Sara Edwards Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 3 Hoffman: Good evening, I would like to welcome you to the June 10, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call all eight Commissioners were present. Approval of the Minutes of the May 28, 2002 meeting LSP 02-30.00 & 31.00: Lot Split (Beard/Center, pp 599) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles and John Ellis for property owned by Cynthia Beard and William M Center, III and located west of Razorback Road and south of 15th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 29.62 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 22.11 acres, 4.42 acres, and 3.09 acres. LSP 02-25.00 & 26.00: Lot Split (Haines, pp 369) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Edward & Lerene Haines for property located at 1921 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.55 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 0.78 acres, 7.22 acres, and 2.55 acres. LSP 02-27.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 245) was submitted by Terri Lynne McNaughton on behalf of Steven Foster for property located at the southwest corner of Weir Road and Salem Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.67 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.87 acres and 2.80 acres. LSD 02-12.00: Large Scale Development (Bargo Engineering, Inc., pp 604) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bargo Engineering, Inc. for property located at 1775 Armstrong Avenue. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 5.14 acres with a 20,000 sq.ft. building proposed for a warehouse. ADM 02-17.00: Administrative Item (First Church of Nazarene, pp 253) The request is to seek commercial design standard approval to change the building materials from E.F.I.S. and stone to brick, split face block and metal siding. VAC 02-4.00: Vacation (Renegar, pp 447) was submitted by Henry Renegar for property located at 925 Rockwood Trail. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.05 acres. The request is to vacate the easement on the west side of 925 Rockwood Trail. Hoffman: The first item of business is approval of the consent agenda. I will entertain motions for the approval of the consent agenda. Does anybody Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 4 wish to pull any of the six items from the consent agenda? Does anybody in the public have any concern on any item on the consent agenda? Estes: I will move that the consent agenda be approved. Shackelford: I will second. Hoffman. Ok, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 5 PPL 02-9.00 Preliminary Plat (Sam Rogers Addition, pp 401) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Road and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial containing 8.36 acres with two lots proposed. Hoffman. The first item of new business is PPL 02-9.00. It was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Sam Rogers for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Road and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial containing 8.36 acres with two lots proposed. staff findings of the proposal is to split into a 4.77 acre parcel which is zoned R -O and a 3.55 acre parcel which is zoned C-1. At the time of the previous lot split, which split the Arkansas National Bank property, the Planning Commission required that all future splits be processed as a Subdivision. There is one condition of approval in addition to the standard conditions of approval. I will go ahead and read that. 1) Planning Commission determination of any street improvements and/or right-of-way dedication for a future street connecting Salem Road and Wedington Drive. The previous Planning Commission approval for the Arkansas National Bank lot split required that the street be constructed when the remaining portion of the property is subdivided. Staff recommends that the street not be built and that the right-of-way not be dedicated at this time. The need for this street will be reviewed and may be required with further development. Tim, do you have any further comment on this one? Conklin: During the lot split that split out that piece of property for the Arkansas National Bank there was some discussion with regard to whether or not there would be a need for the east west street. These tracts of land are fairly small. Meeting with Mr. Rogers, he has no new clients with regard to developing the property at this time. Therefore, we sat down and looked at whether or not it was necessary to build the street without knowing who would potentially be developing this tract of property or if both tracts of property would be developed as one piece. This is fairly small when you look at other developments for shopping centers you are looking at 20 acres typically. For example, if you look at Harps on Hwy. 265, that was 25 acres. Staff at this time is recommending allowing the split and then when we get a large scale development come through all as one project or two smaller large scale developments, at that time we could make the decision of whether or not it needs to be a private drive or a public street. Hoffman: Is the applicant present? If so, please come up and give us the benefit of your presentation. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 6 Harris: My name is Al Harris with Crafton, Tull Engineers. I represent Mr. Sam Rogers. We agree with Planning on eliminating that east/west street at this time. The applicant has no plans at this time for any certain projects. If he happens to sell it they can come back in and if they need a street at that time they could go ahead and plat that. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us at this time? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission and the applicant for further discussion and motions. Motion: Ward: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 02-9.00 subject to the conditions of approval. Staff has recommended that the street not be built and that the right of way not be dedicated at this time. Hoffman: Those standard conditions of approval are just our standard utility comments and those are on our record so I don't think I am going to read those into the record at this time. I have a motion, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any further discussion? I am just going to say that I feel comfortable with this going forward without the street being decided on because we have large scale developments coming through later. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 7 PPL 02-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) was submitted by Terry Carpenter of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical System for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with 8 lots proposed. Hoffman: Item number eight is a Preliminary Plat for Brookstone Subdivision which was submitted by Terry Carpenter of U.S. Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Systems for the property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with eight lots proposed. Background is the subdivision includes the Brookstone Assisted Care facility and the Washington County Health Department. This property was recently rezoned to R -O to allow for medical offices. The property to the north is zoned C-2, to the east is zoned R-1, and to the south is zoned R-2. Currently 64% of the site exists in tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 62% of the site until further development occurs. At the time of future development each tract will be required to meet the minimum 20% canopy preservation requirements. There are five conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: No. Hoffman. I will read those into the record. Planning Commission determination of any offsite improvements to Longview Street. At the present there is only one ingress & egress for this subdivision to Wimberley Drive. The original Planning Commission approval of the Brookstone Assisted Care Facility on May 13, 1998 required the cost of one-half of this offsite portion ofLongview Street be placed in a surety bond. Subsequently, this requirement was overturned by the City Council on June 16, 1998. On March 18, 2002 the City of Fayetteville Street Committee discussed the possibility of the City extending this street to College Avenue. All Committee members were in favor of placing this project on the Capital Improvement Program list which would require approval by the City Council. However, the acquisition of the right-of-way remains in question. City Staff has provided rational nexus calculations in the event that the Planning Commission approves an assessment for this offsite street improvement. The amount of the assessment was calculated to be $71,957.00. See the attached memo from the Engineering Division. Standard Conditions of Approval: 2. All required improvements including street lights will be required to be installed prior to final plat approval. Street lights may be deferred if payment is made to the electric company with a certified check and a copy of the check and paid in full receipt is submitted to the Planning Division. 3. Storm water detention will be required for each tract upon development. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 8 Nierengarten: Hoffman: Nierengarten: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Petrie: Hoffman: applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City+s current requirements. Is the applicant present? Would you tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your presentation? I am Peter Nierengarten, I am an engineer with U.S. Infrastructure. Do you have a presentation for us or would you prefer to just answer questions? We can just answer questions. There are some other people from the hospital here as well to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Tim, do you want to give us any further information before we take public comment? Back when the Planning Commission looked at the Assisted Care facility there was a requirement that Longview Street be completed through this track of land. They did build the street and did cost share with the City of Fayetteville to their east boundary line. One of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval was to put up a guarantee for the future extension of Longview. They appealed that decision to the City Council in 1998. The City Council removed that condition from that approval at that time. At this time staff is not recommending to place that condition on this development. However, once again, the Planning Commission is the one that will decide what the conditions of approval would be for this Preliminary Plat. Thank you. Thanks Tim. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant for discussion. We have a summary of the average vehicle trip generation and if I am reading this correctly, Tim you may want to help me with this but on an average weekday we have 664 vehicle trips per day on page 8.5. Average weekday 24 hour volume is 5,393. 5,393 average vehicles per day. That number seems really high to me and I was trying to find that. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 9 Petrie: Hoffman: Nierengarten: Petrie: Hoffman. N ierengarten: Olmstead: Hoffman. It was determined using this standard ITE computer program. What was inserted into the program was the acreage of the undeveloped tracts so it didn't include the assisted care facility, it did not include the Washington County Health facility and that is the item that the computer program asks for is the acreage and the type of development. Certainly the developer is in their right of submitting their own calculations. Our general practice is to use this computer program to make that determination. Thanks Ron. Do you have any comment on those numbers? They do seem high. We haven't done any calculations and have nothing on paper to dispute them though. I should point out on my calculations of course, I only used half of that number, half of it exiting to the west and half going to the east. Ok, thanks. It seems to me that in light of the possibility for high trip generation that it would behoove the Planning Commission to look again at the assessment for the offsite street improvements and that is under our condition of approval number one. Are you prepared to discuss that? The $70,000 on here, yes, I believe we are prepared to discuss that. My name is Tom Olmstead, I am the general counsel for Washington Regional Medical Systems and I would like to speak really quickly to the requirement that Washington Regional pay for the cost of extending Longview to Plainview and ask the Commission to consider the fact that back in 1998 when this matter came before the City Council, the City Council unanimously agreed to waive that requirement and at the time did require us to build a standard city street to the boundary line of this property, which was done. I think that that fact as we sit here today creates some significant legal issues on the part of the city if they were to go forward and request this additional money from Washington Regional Medical System at this time. Namely I would suggest to the City that under its ordinances having built the standard city street to the property line it would seem to me that there is no requirement under the ordinances that could force Washington Regional Medical System to bare this cost on an adjoining land owner's property. Also, I would point out that we had a meeting with the Planning Division and discussed this several months ago. I believe the City's attorney, Mr. Williams, might be able to advise the Commission on that issue in a little more detail but would ask that you consider that in weighing this request. Thank you Mr. Olmstead. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 10 Williams: I did attend the meeting, I think Mr. Conklin was there also when we discussed this. Obviously we looked back and saw that in fact this same issue had been presented to the Planning Commission in 1998 and then was appealed to the City Council in August of 1998. At that point in time the hospital didn't really want to build the street all the way to the property line. The City Council did follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to require that but the City Council unanimously said they did not have to contribute any money to any offsite development to build a road on somebody else's property. In the interim, when we learned this was being developed there has been some action where the other property owners involved to the east of this property are attempting to get right of way that they can dedicate to the city. The City Street Committee has met and looked at this problem and looked at the situation and said that they believed this would be proper use of the capital improvements sales tax to in fact fund the street if the right of way was all dedicated to the city. They are not going to buy the right of way. In light of the whole history of this development and the fact that they do have a collector size street built all the way to the property line, which can really adequately serve this subdivision, it is a cul-de-sac but it is a very short cul-de-sac at this point, only through their property I think that we would have some potential problems if we tried to require them to donate money to build a road over somebody else's property but more than that I think the City Council, who states the city policy has already unanimously said no, this developer doesn't need to contribute money offsite. I think that at the City Council that was the policy that was stated unanimously and so I would be reluctant to challenge that policy at this point in time. Hoffman: What is the status on the right of way dedication? Do you have any time frames on that? It sounds like that if we could put it in the CIP budget and we had the right of way the concern that I would have would be that we only have one ingress and egress for a rather large tract. Williams: The whole reason it would be in the CIP is that this is a very needed project, no question about it. I think it is not going to be slowed up one bit if there is not any money required of this developer. I think as soon as the right of way gets approved that the City Council Street Committee, this is a fairly small project compared to some of the very expensive road projects. It is not very far, it is in conjunction with the fire station that we have on Plainview, so it is really in the City's best interest to get this done and I think it will be moving forward very quickly if the land situation can be resolved. Of course the land situation is not going to be resolved if you require them to dedicate any money right now because that is another land owner or actually two other land owners that are necessary because of the way the street should be laid out. That is the big problem, we are not dealing with just one landowner, there are actually a couple of land owners there. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 11 Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Williams. Conklin: I just want to make sure that the Commission is aware of this. Longview Street is shown on our Master Street Plan. When the Lewis Brothers property is developed they would be required to dedicate right of way. At that time the determination of building a local street and whether or not the city would cost share as we cost shared with Washington Regional on Longview on this piece of property would be made. There is the ability as the Lewis Brother's property is developed to require the same type of improvements and right of way dedication when that property is developed. Just because we don't have it today doesn't mean we can't get it in the future. I do understand with one way in and out. The traffic numbers you are looking at include the undeveloped tracts of land, collector streets are designed to serve up to 6,000 vehicles per day they have almost that, 5,000. Church: Have there been other cases where we've required businesses to pay for offsite improvements? Williams: We have done that in the past and Tim can list a bunch. We have at the mall where we have worked with developers to build Joyce and improve intersections. It is not totally unique. This is kind of a different situation in that this is on unimproved land, land that is not being developed and that is a more unusual situation. In fact, we couldn't do anything originally because we don't have the land. We would just be holding the money thinking that we're going to get the land and so it is unusual like that. We do occasionally work with developers, especially in a cost share situation, and have had offsite improvements. Is that your memory too Tim that we've done that? Conklin: Yes, and I would agree that typically they are improvements that benefit the development immediately if it is an intersection, or taking a curve out of a street, or lift station improvement, those type of improvements. The difficult situation here is that the land is privately owned and we don't have the ability to even begin to build the street in that location. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Allen? Allen: I wondered if we had any data that showed the volume of traffic in 1998 as compared to 2002? Hoffman: Is that based on the same program? Petrie: Where would the data be collected? On Longview? Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 12 Allen: Yes. Petrie: Ok. I am sorry, if we do I don't have that with us tonight. Hoffman: I remember that discussion but I don't think we used that. Conklin: Once again, on 8.5 you are looking at acres of office park development and coming up with a calculation of 5,393 vehicles average a week daily traffic. A collector street is designed to carry around 6,000 so it is still within those ranges even with the one way in and out shown on there. Petrie: Estes: I am just doing a real quick calculation with the percentage on acreage and working that out with 3.59 acres, which of course it is very hard to make that go back and forth, it would come up with 700 vehicles per day with just the Assisted Care. Of course, when that came through it was the whole piece of property. Just as a comparison, acreage wise, that would account for 700 vehicles per day. I have a couple of comments. This of course is a Preliminary Plat, it is subject to certain conditions of approval. The first condition is our determination of any offsite improvement to Longview Street. This is a new matter that is before us and it should be considered as such. Although it is of course related to a previous matter that we've had before us and the appeal from this Commission to the City Council, it was during that appeal that was brought by Mr. Olmstead's law firm, Burke & Eldridge, that our written material reflects that the statement was made and the request was given that the Council wait until Washington Regional developed the remainder of the property to require the road to be completed. Of course, we are here, the day has arrived and that is what is before us now is that the remainder of the property is being developed. We have a high traffic count, average vehicle trip generation has been presented to us and there is nothing whatsoever in the record to dispute those figures, that causes me some concern. I tell you though, there are two additional matters that cause me even greater concern. That is that there is a fire station that is on Plainview. There is no connectivity or no cross access from Plainview to Longview. What we're talking about are medical services, we are talking about assisted care facilities. If there was any sort of an emergency personnel in vehicles from that Plainview station would have to travel north on Plainview, turn west and go down Milsap and then turn back north and come up and then go in. There is no question in my mind that Longview needs to be connected to Plainview. It is just a matter of time and who is going to pay for it. There was the appeal to the City Council. We know that our offsite assessment on the previous application was unanimously overturned by the City Council, and now if I take it correctly, although it has not been specifically stated by this applicant we're asking to pass on it a second time. First of all, I make the Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 13 assumption that Longview will be extended and connected to Plainview so the logical next step is who is going to pay for that and how is it going to be paid? I think we should very seriously consider the offsite assessment of the $71,957. Hoffman: I have a question for staff. Typically when we do offsite assessments we put a time limit on those. If the CIP project comes through and it is decided that the city would pay for it and the right of way is dedicated, the money can be returned to the developer within a specified amount of time if we put that condition on it. Conklin- We haven't done that in the past. Hoffman: I thought we had on Poplar and a couple of other things. Conklin: Those are funds that we collected for improvements from the developer for offsite. The five year time period came up and they requested their refund of that money. It wasn't due to the CIP project. Hoffman- Could we not put a similar time frame if the Commission does vote on an offsite improvement assessment for this road. Could we not put a time frame on it for expiration? Conklin: You already have a five year time frame for the monies to be spent. If not, we hold a public hearing and the Planning Commission determines whether or not the improvement is going to happen fairly soon or refund the money back to the person that gave us the money or refund the money back to the individual lot owners within the subdivision. Hoffman: I am asking that because the development is certainly an important one for the area. It is going to serve the hospital, it is going to serve a lot of people coming to the area for medical treatment. It is sizeable enough to generate this 5,300 vehicle trips a day so it seems to me that it could be argued the other way that it is feasible that they should pay for the connection or part of it, of Longview. Hoover: I just realized that I need to recuse from this issue. Hoffman: Ok, that gives us seven votes. I am always trying to remember too how many the issue requires since we're short one Planning Commissioner. This just requires a simple majority. Knowing that you have seven votes do you wish to proceed or do you want to wait until we have more votes here? Olmstead: Go ahead and proceed. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 14 Bunch: Mr. Williams, when this went through before and went to the City Council, possibly some of the reasoning for not having offsite improvements so that one facility would not carry the burden of offsite improvements whereas at this point in time we're looking at a potential 28 or 29 acres of development over and above one individual facility. Previously it was just the Assisted Care facility. Now it is more or less a commercial development. Was there any sort of thinking like that in the decisions? Williams: Actually, I don't think that we bought that particular argument that was presented to us by Washington Regional at that time. At the time that it went to the City Council Washington Regional wanted the street only to be built to the driveway of the Assisted Care Facility. They did not want the road completed to their property line as the Planning Commission had demanded. The City Council, including myself as an alderman at that time, went along with the Planning Commission and required the hospital to build their road all the way to the property line and that is when they, in reading what Commissioner Estes stated, we did require them to complete that road at that time. They wanted to wait and not complete the road until the rest of the property developed but we said "No, you have to complete the road to your property line, even now even though only one parcel of property is being developed." I think we took into account the fact that all of this land was going to be developed and that is why we required them to build it to the property line. We simply felt that it was improper to require them to pay for offsite development on somebody else's property. We felt that whenever that other property would develop, that developer just like them, would have to pay to have the road built through. We did oversize the road and I think part of that would be to insure that there would be adequate access into this property even prior to the other extension being completed of Plainview. Conklin: This was built to collector street standards. Washington Regional Medical Center paid for a 28' street all the way from Wimberley Drive to the east property line. They paid the cost of extending that street to the east property line. The City did a cost share to make that into a collector street standard I think the argument that Washington Regional made was they had to pay for a local street on their property, 28' and then they would be paying for a street on someone else's property. I think that is one of the main arguments that was made. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Ward: This is either for Tim or Kit. If we required this assessment to be made, which is about $72,000, which is about $9,000 a lot since there are eight lots. Could that be collected when they were brought for large scale? Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 15 Conklin- Possibly at large scale. Hoffman: That would seem to me to be a more equitable solution. I realize that there is somewhat of an issue of requiring offsite improvements. However, if the street directly serves that subdivision, I believe that is a crucial issue as to whether or not we can require the offsite improvement. I think there is no question that Longview would be not only serving the subdivision, but a needed ingress and egress point for it. If anybody wants to try to turn that into a motion I would sure like it. Is there any other discussion? I am going to try to craft a motion. I will move for approval of PPL 02-6.00 for Brookstone Subdivision and the first condition of approval would be that a pro rated system of offsite improvement funding be enacted at the time of large scale development on a per lot basis and that assessment be divisible by the sum of $71,957 based on each lot and then with the standard conditions of approval. Petrie: Madam Chair, on the $71,000, my recommendation would be we go to the overall cost and when the developments come through then we have a better idea of exactly the number of traffic. Hoffman: I would like to put a not to exceed total number in there though because we've already arrived at this. Then we could prorate it not to exceed when the total lots come through the $71,000. My motion would state then that the offsite improvements be calculated on a pro rata basis per lot not to exceed $71,957. That is my motion. Ward: I will second that. With it, I would like to again ask Kit, our City Attorney, what remedy does the applicant have if we approve it at this level as far as this assessment, they can still take it to the City Council right? Williams: They can do just like they did in 1998 and appeal to the City Council if they disagree with any of your requirements for this plat. Ward: Is there a chance that the City Council could find money to do this project as far as this road? Williams: In fact, the City Council Street Committee, which is basically half the City Council, has unanimously had a meeting and looked at this project and said "Yes, this is a project that we feel will be done by the City." Even though it has not been budgeted yet and it doesn't make much sense to budget it until we know that we can actually have the property dedicated to the city, I would anticipate that if the property becomes dedicated to the City, that it would be a very quick project to be done because as Commissioner Estes has pointed out, this is a very worthwhile project. It Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 16 is close to a fire station. It probably will receive a lot of traffic if it is completed. Ward: Ok. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: Since we have changed this substantially from what was proposed, could we give the applicant an opportunity to comment on the changes? You guys have heard the conversations here. We are now talking about assessing these fees, trying to pass those on to the cost of the lots as they are developed, does that change your objection or position at all? Olmstead: No. Shackelford: Kit, you had stated pretty adamantly that you were not in favor of this due to some legal reasons, have you heard anything here in this conversation that has changed your opinion whether or not we should require these fees? Williams: No I haven't. Primarily I guess my feeling was is that even though this is a different project, as Commissioner Estes stated, I think the general policy was pretty much established by the City Council in 1998. I think it was close enough to this and enough was required of the applicant there in requiring them to build a road all the way to their property line, not just to the project that they wanted to build, that I feel like more from a policy point of view, that the City Council has pretty much already spoken on this. However, we have a lot of new members on the City Council, it is a new City Council so I can't predict what they might do. Shackelford: Madam Chair, based on that, even though I strongly support this project, I am going to vote against the motion as it stands. I agree that the street needs to be built. I have to go with the City Attorney that this may not be the way that we need to fund it and I want to state that even if we do try to fund it this way, we are still dependent upon getting right of way easements from other property owners. I don't see that what we're doing here is going to facilitate the street being built any quicker. Due to that, I will be voting against the motion as it stands. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Let me just try to elaborate on my thinking on the prorating of the funds. The Planning Commission should be in the business of planning and the fact that we do not have a right of way and that we do not have the CIP funding at this time is precisely why I will vote for it. In some way that could possibly help expedite the building of the road. It is a very short piece, I don't look at it for a tract this size as an undue financial burden, the developer would have been Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 17 required to build the entire street that surrounded his property anyway. That is something that he should do and has done and certainly needs to have credit for that. He has an impact on the adjoining streets with the high volume of traffic that is going to be generated by the medical offices so I just wanted to be clear in my reasoning for thinking that we should do the prorating. Does anybody else have any comments at this time? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-6.00 was approved by a vote of 6-1-1 with Commissioner Hoover abstaining and Commissioner Shackelford voting no. Hoffman: The motion passes on a vote of six to one with one abstention. Thank you Gentlemen. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 18 LSD 02-13.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Municipal Airport, pp 795/796/834/835) was submitted by Ray Boudreaux on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport for property located at 4500 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 512 acres. Hoffman: Our next item of business is LSD 02-13.00, which is a large scale development for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport, which was submitted by Mr. Ray Boudreaux on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport for property located at 4500 S. School Ave. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 512 acres. The proposal is for seven airplane hangars with 44 parking spaces and the construction of a new taxiway. The new hangars and parking will be placed in an existing parking lot at the southern end of the airport property. A total of 343 parking spaces are going to be removed. We have eight conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Thank you very much. I am going to go ahead and read those conditions. Areas defined as wetlands by the appropriate Federal agencies shall be protected from adverse changes in runoff quantity and quality from associated land development. 2. The placement of fill shown within the wetland area on the grading plan shall be removed and the grading plan revised to reflect this requirement. 3. The City Planner may approve minor modifications with regard to the number of buildings and the separation between the buildings. A 60 foot separation between buildings may be required in order to meet fire code. In that event the square footages of the buildings and/ or the number of buildings may change. However, the amount of impervious surface will either remain the same or decrease. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Cityts current requirements. 6. Payment of sidewalk assessment in the amount of $8,903.40. 7. Large scale development shall be valid for three calendar years. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 rGuarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements• to Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 19 guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received, if applicable. Is the applicant present and if so would you like to make a presentation? Boudreaux: Yes Madam Chairman, we are here and we think we have presented enough and will just answer questions. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Tim, would you like to give us any further staff report before we take public comment? Conklin: This large scale development is actually two projects. One project is on the east side of the airport. It includes a taxiway which will be built to help serve the USDA Forest Service Waste area when they come in and bring their USDA Forest Service fire fighting aircraft in. Then the other part of the large scale development are some new hangars that will be built towards the south of the current terminal. They are planning on building those, leasing those out, and we have been working with them and with regard to the condition for minor modifications there are some issues with regard to firewall separation and that is why that condition is in the staff report in order for staff to work with the airport and their consultant to make sure that we meet all of our fire codes. Thank you. Hoffman: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this airport large scale development? I don't think I see anybody so I will bring it back to the applicant and Planning Commission for discussion and motions. Hoover: I just want to make one statement and I appreciate all the help that you've given us on this. From subdivision I appreciate you doing all this work and the plans are much easier to understand now. I just want to make one comment in general about city projects that I believe all city projects should serve as models for future development and I hope that you will consider this when you do go through if you do have any extra money that perhaps you could do a little extra landscaping. As a city we do need to be a role model for the developers. Boudreaux: We have spread the hangars out due to the fire code and it is not depicted but we probably will have 60' and the plan is to put grass in there and landscaping. Hoover: Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you very much. This is an Industrial zoned property so I just want to remind us that although we're really not required to put in the Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 20 Jones: Hoffman: Boudreaux: landscaping and meet the parking lot ordinance...could you elaborate on that? You had some plans to relocate some trees and add some trees from agenda session I thought. Yes, the small trees that are in the southern most part of this parking lot we're planning on to either relocate, probably just replace. Working with the City's Landscape Administrator. The time of year that we're going to do it would probably be best to just relocate trees. Then we are also replacing some mitigation trees for several of the 6" trees that are in the existing original terminal parking lot area. I think there are about 30 or 32 trees that we are either relocating or planting, several mitigation trees. I'm not sure that we've discussed it but we have several new businesses coming to the airport, do you want to just run that down for us? Thank you Madam Chairman. Yes I would love to do that. First, we have leased two spaces in this particular development on the west side of the airport. One is Flying Investments, Inc. who is planning on bringing in a corporate style business type service with some Falcon 20 jets, a very nice executive airplane to service the executives that are currently in businesses located in Fayetteville. A second individual has also leased a ground lease in the same area, to put five personal airplanes in for his aircraft plus four others into a hangar. The third hangar that will be constructed initially in this site is the FBO hangar. Fixed Based Operation is what normally operates the airport and a Fixed Based Operation includes fuel service, tie down, hangarage, maintenance, and all different kinds of service that might be expected for an airport to provide to its customer. Currently all we provide as the Fixed Based Operation is fuel service. We do not have any hangarage, we do have some T hangars, but they are all full all but one as of today. Therefore, we need to have a new hangar in order to provide service for overnight parking. That hangar was approved for process by the Airport Board this last week so we will be pursuing that as well. Three new hangars hopefully will be built this building season. On the other side of the airport you have the other part of this large scale development, which is for the U.S.D.A. Forest Service. The Forest Service will be constructing a fire base. They will be operating C-130 aircraft and P-3Oryan out of that site where they will buy fuel and fill up with slurry mix for fighting fires in our wonderful forests that are around here. This site is in the middle of several national forests and is a very, very good location for fighting those fires when they do break out. Those are the two things that are coming right away. Thank you. Hoffman: Sounds great. Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion? Motion: Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 21 Ward: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: I will move for approval of LSD 02-13.00 for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. I think that all this activity down there is good for the citizens of Fayetteville because it seems like it has been a long time coming to start getting activity down there. That is with all the conditions of approval that we have put in place here. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any further discussion? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-13.00 approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries unanimously, thank you very much. Thank you Madam Chairman and thank you Commissioners. Hoffman: Boudreaux: was Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 22 RZN 02-15.00: Rezoning (Garriott, pp 437/438) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Larry Garriott for property owned by John & Louise Sager, Paul & Bernice Guisinger, RD & Kay Kight, Jean Ann Jones, James Guisinger, and Peggy Jones and located north of Persimmon Street and west of 466 Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Hoffman. I had intended at the beginning of the meeting to let you know, and I didn't, that item 10 which is just an administrative item submitted by the City of Fayetteville for an alteration to the Master Street Plan has been withdrawn. Was anybody here that wanted to address the Commission on this item, item 10? If anybody wants to say something about it they are welcome to. Seeing nobody, we are going to go ahead then to item 11 which is RZN 02-15.00 which was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Larry Garriott for property owned by John and Louise Sager, Paul & Bernice Guisinger, RD & Kay Kight, Jean Ann Jones, James Guisinger, and Peggy Jones and located north of Persimmon Street and west of 46`h Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Tim, would you like to give us the benefit of staff's comments before we take the presentation from the applicant? Conklin: Staff is recommending approval. The property is currently zoned A-1, the General Plan 2020 does show this as residential on the land use plan. R-1 zoning allows 40 units per acre. Single family homes are a use by right. It does allow conditional uses for duplexes. Back in 1998 the same request was made to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-4-0, failed to approve the rezoning. That was appealed to the City Council and the City Council denied the appeal on May 5, 1998. Thank you. Hoffman: Is the applicant here? Would you like to make a presentation or just answer questions? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am representing the owner, Larry Garriott on this project. As you noted, our request is to rezone from A-1 to R-1. When I took this job I didn't think that was too far fetched. However, as I got into it I found out that back in 1998 the Planning Commission did tie the vote 4-4 and basically the bottom line was that the request was turned down. In light of this, we did go out there and make a true investigation to find out what we're getting into and determine how many lots we could really put on this property because reading in the newspaper, and as you well know, we are allowed four lots per acre with Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 23 the request of R-1, which would put us up there to around 240 lots. The paper mentioned something like 232 lots, which if I lived out in that area, that would pretty well blow my mind too. I would say "Good grief' That is kind of ridiculous!" We did do a layout on the project to find out what we really could put out there and if you don't mind, I will hand out a real quick layout, just to let you know, so you'll have something to look at. Hoffman. Make sure Renee gets one to put in the record please. Could you explain this please? Jorgensen: This property, I'm sure you've all looked at your packet. It is located at the northwest corner of Persimmon and 46th Street, just west of 46th, north of Persimmon, a % mile stretch each direction. As you can see, we have proposed two entrances off of 46th Street and one entrance off of Persimmon Street. The lot layout in there is kind of a natural one in that we have got a 40 acre parcel and then we have got a 20 to the west. Everything drains in a southwesterly direction. In the southwest corner of that 40 acre parcel we've got a large area that is set aside for a detention pond and then in the southwest area of the 20 acres that is to the west is the floodplain and Owl Creek that goes through there. Drainage basically goes in a west, southwesterly direction so we've got two areas set aside for detention ponds. You can also notice that there is a maximum amount of 158 lots laid out in this thing. This is all we could get in here. I take that back, we could put in more if we went with smaller lots. Lot size dimensions are not on this right here but they range anywhere from 75' to 90' wide on the corners, 110' on the corners possibly, by 135' deep. This comes to about 2.6 lots per acre. Naturally that is well under the four lots per acre that is allowed. This puts us right around .39 acres per lot, which when you compare that with what we could put in, we could put in smaller sized lots if we ended up getting it rezoned to R-1, which is a stretch. Being that there is so much opposition to an R-1 zoning, the owner would like to offer a Bill of Assurance to help move this thing along. Should it get approved, we would like to get it approved subject to this Bill of Assurance. The minimum square footage on the houses is 1,800 sq.ft., which is what they propose, a two car garage, 80% brick houses, fully sodded yards, 7 1/2 pitch on the roof with architectural shingles. We would have to also agree to a privacy fence along Persimmon Street and 46th Street. Because of the traffic that I'm talking about, the type of fence is something more than your standard board fence, shadow box fence, whatever you want to call it. I am talking about precast concrete panels with brick columns or something like that. The one, and probably the most important item, is the 158 lots maximum. To tell you the truth, we don't even know if we can get 158 lots because we still have to go through our drainage calculations to make sure that we can put the detention ponds Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 24 in the areas set aside for this. As you can imagine, that is a fairly complex little process that we have to go through should we get it rezoned. That is going to be one of the next things we do is determine how large our detention area is set aside for these detention ponds. Taking that all into account, we would like to point out that $80 or $85 a foot times 1,800 sq.ft., we are talking about $170,000 houses on up to $225,000 or something like that. We believe that it is going to be a nice area. I have met with Mr. Jowers, being that he does have a lot of the property that surrounds this to the south and to the east, he wouldn't commit whether he thought this was a good idea or not, but at least it is getting a little bit better than what it was before. I also met with Paul Marinoni on this and he was non -committal on it also. Basically, we feel like we've got a good plan here. I know that there has been discussion of drainage. Like I said, all the drainage goes in a west, southwest direction. We do have to limit our post development flow to nothing more than what the predevelopment is and that is the reason for the two detention ponds that are set aside for this right here. If it is approved, we do have to present this layout, as you all know, to the Parks Department to find out if they would like a park in this area or if they would like money in lieu for the Youth Center, which is a strong possibility so we have still got to go through that. Then we will naturally have to bring the Preliminary Plat through the process as we normally do. I also noticed that in the traffic study that Persimmon and 46th Street were designed, I'm referring to page 4 of the staff report, that these two are designed as collector streets and will accommodate 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. They further go on to state that this should adequately accommodate the potential 2,300 trips that a 232 lot subdivision would generate. Like I said, we are going to have quite a bit less than that. That, combined with the fact that on the next page, the Wedington Hwy. 16 is designed for between 17,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day, it states that the additional traffic will not exceed the design capacities for this arterial street. I am sure that residents out there would beg to differ on this and at certain times of the day, there is no doubt in my mind that that could be somewhat tough getting out there on Wedington. I would be glad to answer any questions if you all have any. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Dave. At this time I will go ahead and take public comment Who in the audience would like to address us on this rezoning? If you would come forward and say your name and give us the benefit of your ideas please. PUBLIC COMMENT: Adams: My name is Gary Adams and I live at 760 N. 46th Street. Comment number one, two years ago we went through this same process and the Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 25 Hoffman. Luttrell: City Council postponed approving it because there was no infrastructure at that time to support what was being suggested and there has been no change in that infrastructure. I am just kind of wondering why we're doing this again without any upgrading in what is out there. Number two, each morning when I go to work it usually takes me somewhere between one and five minutes to get on Hwy. 16 as it is now. When you add how many ever people are going to be coming up that street trying to get on Hwy. 16 it is going to be almost impossible. Number three, in the last three weeks there have been three wrecks within a half a mile of that intersection. It is because people are pulling out onto Hwy. 16, which is a four lane highway to about 2/10 of a mile until you get to 466 Street it becomes a two lane highway instead of four lane and people fly through there, they don't pay attention, and without in my opinion, making it four lane out to Double Springs, it is going to be a terrific traffic bottleneck trying to get in and out of there if you make any additional housing developments out in that area. They have done that over the last five or ten years and we are just really kind of full of housing divisions out there. I would appreciate you voting against this proposal. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Adams. Who else would like to come and talk to us about this? I am Oie Luttrell at 4480 Luttrell Lane and to add to maybe what Mr. Adams has mentioned, and Dave Jorgensen, I think I was blown away when I read the paper and it said there is no opposition and no one knew about it and of course I didn't know about it. Such a development as what was listed in the paper was frightening because of the conditions that have already been mentioned to you. Certainly I think we realize that the owners should be allowed to develop this and our concern would be that the property would be comparable and I think all of you can identify with that kind of situation. Most of us out there have invested a little bit more into our property. The smallest house out there that adjoins this is 2,600 sq.ft. of living and heated space plus a double car garage and a good size lot area there with it. These are maybe a little older. The one I mentioned was built in 1969, but they are in good repair and there is still a lot of pride in the neighborhood and we, as a neighborhood just like anyone else, want to go ahead and preserve what we have. Understanding that there is going to be development and certainly the traffic is a problem and it will be more of a problem, and we understand that too I think; but certainly you can see our desires of the safety and concerns that happen with this. Certainly, it was heart warming to hear Mr. Jorgensen mention that at least they were looking back to some larger sized lots because again, that is smaller numbers of homes and the opportunity to have bigger homes which means again that maybe you won't have as much rental and other traffic and Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 26 things like that that are generated that way. I wanted to share one quick situation that I did a few years ago and that was I built that house that I mentioned, the 2,600 sq.ft. house adjacent to the Guisinger property back in the spring of 1969. Mr. Guisinger came out and visited with me when I was a young 28 year old building that house. He was concerned what was going to happen there, just as we are here today. His concern was that he owned the property there, the near sixty acres and there was an old house, the bottom line was he was concerned and I understood that as a young man and built that house as a pretty good size house and a nice home and it has withstood the years. I know that he had plans of course that didn't come through. He had a home on there that he wanted to repair and move there and maybe retire when it came about and it did not come through for him. Consequently, the old house even had to be torn down. There are concerns and that is what we're voicing to you, concerns as neighbors and concerns that again, this is something that is going on in our neighborhood and we would ask that you use good judgment and try to remember us as you would remember yourselves in a situation like that Thank you so much. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Luttrell. Is there anybody else? Cash: Good evening, my name is Arlene Cash. I am at 788 N. 46th Avenue. I have lived there for about one year. I moved to 46th Avenue from the Hyland Park area looking for a community where there was proven concern over the safety of children. I came to my home with a five year old, a nine year old, and a twelve year old. There are several families within five houses of ours where there are young children and young families who have moved here for the express purpose of looking at a community that is of the size and nature that will allow children to cross the street in relative safety. I say relative because of this... we have found cars going up and down that street at 40 or 50 miles per hour going up to Hwy. 16. We have seen tremendous increase of traffic. I have only lived there for a year but there must be some community from where they are coming to get to Hwy. 16 up past the lot that is being discussed today. So many cars in fact that this morning I just sat there and counted and I did wait seven minutes, this morning on a summer morning, to get out onto Hwy. 16 because the traffic coming through at 8:15 this morning. I think about school busses coming down that way. I think about children scurrying across the streets, I worry tremendously about the number of cars that are coming up there, but most importantly when we were looking for a community to live in, we looked at the reports of 1998 and we saw the concern this group gave to having the appropriate infrastructure in place before putting families in homes at that level and that density in that area and I just never would've thought that those concerns would be Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 27 overlooked. In fact, I don't believe they will be overlooked now. I encourage you to look back at why it was not approved in the past, to think about the infrastructure necessary to support that, to understand that young families have moved there in the last three years because of the kind of community that is there and because of the lack of traffic and danger that we feel for our children and ourselves. I thank you for your consideration and really encourage you once again to go there, look at that community, watch the traffic, there is nothing like being there and look at the kids that are crossing those streets and think about the danger that might put them in with the situation. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Ms. Cash. Goff: I am Miller Goff. I have lived in that area for several years now. A lot of things you hear creeping this, and creeping that, and sometimes you don't notice what is creeping up on you. It wasn't this group but another group facing me up there that decided to buy some land in this neighborhood, less than a mile, well in fact, part of the property would be across a street corner connecting southwest and northeast of land that the City already owns for the purpose of building a waste water treatment plant. The road, 46th Street, have you been out there? Did you notice the lack of shoulders on 46th Street? You've only got one street to access on as is planned on at the present time, it is 46th Street. You've got two on 46th Street and one on Persimmon Street, but that is all saying the same thing, 46th Street. If it is possible there needs to be another way to let the people get in and out while we wait on that traffic light that has to happen. With the event of the sewer plant, we are going to get a lot of heavy trucks I am imagining. The street won't take that kind of treatment that is there. Something needs to be done now or else all of what my neighbors have just told you are going to get worse instead of better real quick. I want to compliment Mr. Jorgensen and Mr. Garriott for being somewhat more reasonable than other people have been when property in that neighborhood has developed. I believe that there may not be a vehicle for this suggestion, but I would certainly think that there are people in the neighborhood who would be willing to work with them as a committee on finalizing their plans that would solve the problems, or at least help solve the problem, make them less offensive to the neighbors who live there, if it could be worked out where those people could all work together and then come back and present to you a plan that perhaps has a better chance of being implemented without so much noise. Does that make sense Mr. Jorgensen? Jorgensen: I hear you, it makes sense. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 28 Goff: I believe it is possible that a street could be, another entrance back to Hwy. 16 could happen. I don't know that that is right but the way that the property lays there there is some more property to be developed who knows when that is going to need some access other than there on Hwy. 16 I think a little longer range planning might be beneficial to everybody concerned and this might could be done without as many shouting matches as there is likely to be if it goes on the way it is right now Thank you very much. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Goff. Shirley: My name is Greg Shirley. I live at 718 N. 46th Avenue and there is not a lot that I can add to that. Everything that has been said so far I agree with. I notice that some of the subdivisions such as this that have been built on Hwy. 16 so far tend to empty directly onto Hwy. 16. In this case it would empty directly through our neighborhood basically. Mr. Jowers called me to ask me to come to this meeting and I do know that he is concerned about it as well as the rest of us and I appreciate you all thinking real carefully for us about it. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you. Calico: My name is Clifford Calico and I live at 5180 Persimmon, which just north of us, the property just comes back on the north of our property. Of course it has been stated before, we went through this in 1998, four years ago or whatever, and at that time, we haven't seen the proposed plot as to what is proposed behind our property, but previously they had planned to put a park or something of that nature. In any case, that is neither here nor there. We are retired, we don't have to fight that traffic at 8:00 every morning but on occasion we do have to go out on Hwy. 16 for one reason or another at 8:00 in the morning and it is dangerous to get out on Hwy. 16. It is just as tough to get back on Hwy. 16 because you have to cross the traffic that is coming into town. We don't need anymore congestion than what we've got out there. Now we know that that property sometime is going to sell. The owners have a right to sell it and it is going to sell sometime but we would like to see it developed in such a way that there is a minimum of congestion and better access to it. You said something about maybe there is going to be two accesses to it, one off Persimmon, we haven't seen any of this and don't know what that is but in any case, I just wanted to ask you to vote against this until the infrastructure has been brought up to a level to where we alleviate some of this traffic congestion. You just can't believe how tough it is. I guess we get a lot of traffic that comes in off that 648 through Farmington through there that comes up on 46`h. Out in front of our house we don't get quite as much of that as the Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 29 folks that live on 46th but it is just a continuous stream of traffic in and out of there. We would just ask that you vote against this as is proposed now until the infrastructure is improved. Thank you very much. Hoffman. Thank you Mr. Calico. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this rezoning? Once I close public comment you won't have a chance to come back up here so if anybody else would like to speak. Once I close public comment that's it, we'll just be having discussion between the applicant and the Commission so I just wanted to make sure if anybody else would like to speak now is the time. Ok, seeing no one else, I will close public comment. Dave? Jorgensen: I meant to mention that 46th Street and Persimmon will have to be improved in accordance with city regulations. We are talking curb and gutter and widening, whatever is required by the City and storm drainage. I agree, that right there would be kind of tough to accommodate all of the traffic without the widening and that kind of stuff right there so I just wanted to point that out that that is something that will have to be done. Hoffman: Thanks Dave, Commissioners? Bunch: Tim, could you tell us what designation Persimmon has on the Master Street Plan and also if there are any additional plans on Persimmon and 54th and 46th associated with the Waste Water Treatment Plant project? Conklin: The Waste Water Treatment Plant has not been brought forward to the Planning Commission at this time. It will in the near future. I don't have that information this evening. With regard to the designation, Persimmon is designated as a collector, 46th is designated as a collector. You may recall with the Boys and Girls Club, right of way was dedicated as part of that plat and Persimmon was actually built as part of Lindsey's project off of Shiloh Road, that part of Persimmon so it is on the Master Street Plan to be built. Bunch: So we don't know yet what the plans are for 54th and 46th associated with the trucking from the Waste Water Treatment Plant? Conklin: That has not been brought through the planning process at this time. Bunch: At one time I think there was some mention of a southern route. Conklin: I am not going to guess on that because I have not sat down with engineers and the Public Works Director and we have not brought that through and it Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 30 would just be a guess at this time to make any statements with regard to how they are going to access that facility. Bunch: Thank you. Ward: Tim, on the findings of fact by the staff, could you kind of go over that as far as the findings on rezoning, findings of traffic, and so on? Conklin: Sure. This area that we are looking at potentially rezoning, there was a large annexation that went out to Double Springs Road in 1982 so this area was brought into the city about 20 years ago. Since then, we've seen development occur on both sides of Wedington Drive. We have seen developments are zoned R-1, R-1.5, R-2, typically your single family home development zoned R-1, minimum lot width is 70', 8,000 sq.ft. With regard to the findings that we looked at, this is an area that the City of Fayetteville cost shared to improve Wedington Drive. 1.8 million dollars was our cost share for that. We are spending another million dollars to help with the Boys and Girls Club. This is an area that is being urbanized. R-1 zoning is your typical zoning designation that you see for single-family homes. It is an urban type residential neighborhood that you get. We have recently seen other development on this side of town. Bridgeport, the final plats have recently been approved off of Mount Comfort Road off of 51st Street we have seen a couple more annexations and R-1 development occurring. It is consistent with our land use plan with regard to residential and the urban type of development that we're looking for. Ward: What about the traffic? Conklin: With regard to traffic, we did classify our streets as part of the Master Street Plan update back in 1995, this street is shown as a collector street. It is not currently built to those standards but onsite and offsite improvements would be addressed at the time of development. The traffic with a collector is 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. This is something that we do look at and address It is not designed to be a four lane street, it is designed to be a two lane street, it is a 36' street that allows turn lanes at intersections and allows parking on both sides. Ward: Ok, thanks. Hoffman: I have a couple of questions Tim. Could you tell me which elementary school will serve this development? Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 31 Conklin: Asbell elementary. The school district boundaries are somewhat odd I say that because south of Persimmon it is Jefferson school district. Just as a point of some information that I can give you tonight. Hoffman: It is Asbell then? Conklin: I believe it is Ramey Junior High. Hoffman: Where is the nearest fire station? Conklin- The nearest fire station would be Eagle Street. Hoover: I just want to make a comment. At subdivision, because we didn't know there was any opposition, we didn't ask for the developer to meet with the neighbors and I am a little concerned that since we do have some opposition, it sounds rather friendly like this is certainly going in a better direction than it was a couple of years ago but I am hesitant to vote for this until they do have some communication. I think it is probably not possibly as bad as what they think it might be but I don't know how other Commissioners feel about that. I hate for it to end up being appealed to the Council again and going through that whole process. Hoffman: Have the neighbors seen this plat or no? Jorgensen: No. Conklin: Just a point of clarification, this is a rezoning and it did not go through the Technical Plat, Subdivision Committee process. We do encourage applicants to meet with the neighborhood associations. We do encourage them to register with our Community Affairs office because there is no way for us to know if they are not registered to get that information out to the developers. We are trying to make progress in bringing together the applicants and the neighborhood associations. I encourage any of the neighbors out there that have a neighborhood association to get with Maureen Hoover and we will give you updates to our Planning process. Hoffman: I want to remind the applicant that we have eight Commissioners here tonight and a rezoning requires five positive votes so after you hear the discussion it is your call if you would like for us to table it or not. Motion: Estes: This of course is a rezoning request. Each of the issues which have been so well articulated through public comment will be considered and action Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 32 will be taken when we look at the Preliminary Plat and the Large Scale Development. I certainly agree with each of the individuals that have come forward and provided us with public comment. I share your concerns. The fact is that we participate in a free market economy. I would not want to participate in any other economy. Because we do, private development always precedes the need for public infrastructure and that is exactly what we're dealing with here. We must focus on the fact that this is a rezoning request. The material that we have from staff and the specific findings of fact which we must make in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance tell us that this property is consistent with the 2020 plan, that the site has access to collectors and principal arterials, and that the proposed rezoning is justified in that it keeps with the future land use plan. We are told that the proposed zoning will increase traffic but should not appreciably increase traffic danger or congestion. I understand that that is a subjective finding in that the great majority of you who have offered public comment disagree with that. We are told that the proposed zoning will increase population density but should not undesirably increase the load on public services. Again, I understand that this is a subjective finding and that the great majority of you who have offered public comment disagree with that. We are told that it is impractical to use this land for any other purpose than is presented or permitted under its existing zoning classifications. It is for these reasons that I am going to do the same that I did in April of 1998 when we heard this once before, and that is move for approval of RZN 02-15.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Ward: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Ward. Conklin: Is that subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant? Estes: Yes. Ward: I think that since this has had trouble in the past I think it is pretty unique that we do have a Bill of Assurance already on the table that kind of delineates a lot of the problems that were before and that there are going to be larger lots, a lot less density than what was proposed earlier. With that, I am definitely going to be for this R-1 zoning on this particular piece of property. Hoffman: Is there anyone else? Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 33 Bunch: Since typically the City Council has been taking three readings on the rezonings, this will give adequate time for public comment and also for the neighbors to get in contact with the developer and with the developer's engineer. To expedite the process and to insure that the neighbors and the developers will have an opportunity to talk, I will also be supporting this recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning. Shackelford: Obviously I will be in support of it for the reasons already stated. I would like to address however, the applicant and encourage them to get involved with the neighbors who have voiced these concerns. These concerns will come before us again in Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development and it would be a lot better if we are all on the same page and have addressed those prior to that point. Thank you. Hoffman: I will weigh in. I am concerned about the determination of the increase in traffic congestion and associated danger with that. The fact that Wedington is not four lane to this point is my concern. I do travel that area. I can not support the rezoning request at this time but I do want to say that I think that Mr. Jorgensen is certainly headed in the right direction and I want to be very encouraging about the, I'm assuming, ongoing dialogue that you will be having with the neighbors. I just won't be voting for the rezoning at this time. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-15.00 was approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Hoffman and Hoover voting no. Hoffman: The motion carries on a vote of six to two. Thank you everybody for coming down. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 34 CUP 02-17.00: Conditional Use (Hydco, pp 134) was submitted by Mike Means of By All Means 2, LLC on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located northwest corner of Joyce & Steele Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The request is for additional parking for a proposed restaurant. Hoffman: The final item on our agenda tonight is CUP 02-17.00, which was submitted by Mike Means of By All Means on behalf of Hydco, Inc. for property located on the northwest corner of Joyce and Steele Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately .90 acres. The request is for 33 additional parking spaces over what is allowed by ordinance. Tim, could you enlighten us on this please? Conklin- Sure. This is a conditional use for additional parking over what is allowed by ordinance. This is for a McAlister's Deli. It is located on the northwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Steele. Staff has put together a staff report that does analyze the parking with regard to the ordinance that we use as a benchmark that failed at the City Council and that is at one parking space per four seats plus one space per each employee at the maximum shift. Based on that rule of thumb that would be 61 parking spaces total. They are requesting a total of 55. We also looked at additional parking calculations and peak demand based on a book that we have. Based on that peak demand for Party City, since this is part of one of the out lots in front of Party City, we did take a look at what the peak demand would be if Party City and the restaurant, McAlister's Deli were operating at the same time. We came up with 191 spaces. Together with McAlister's Deli and the Party City, that would be a total of 202 spaces that will be provided on that site. Staff is recommending approval for the 55 spaces based on the following findings. The 55 spaces proposed is less than the minimum and maximum number of spaces calculated with that rule of thumb that we've used for other restaurants in Fayetteville. It is less than the formula recommended by McCallister's Deli, which is one space per every two seats, which would require 92 spaces total. The ratio of parking to square feet at other Fayetteville locations is higher. With this what I am talking about is they have less parking or more square footage per parking space and the peak demand parking study that we use shows that 22 spaces under the current ordinance would not be sufficient based on that study and therefore, they would need additional parking even with Party City's development surrounding this restaurant. That is the reason for our recommendation of approval. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Is the applicant here and would you like to come forward and make a presentation? Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 35 Means: My name is Mike Means. McAlister's concept is not a Wendy's or an Appleby's. It is somewhere in the middle. It is experiencing something like a 30% to 35% growth rate. Mainly that is oriented around it is non- smoking, non -alcohol, it is an upscale environment, it has good broad food menu, quality food. It is wholesome in that sense. It is reasonably priced with no gratuity and you can order and get your order in about ten minutes, which gives people the chance to eat quick or sit and dine casually. We believe that the growth behind this concept is because it is meeting people's lifestyles right now. I believe that you and the community would enjoy the opportunity to have this type of eating available to them. McAlister's is a franchise organization. They have 14 company stores but a total of 89 stores all together so 75 of those are franchises. They expect to be to a hundred by the end of the year so it is growing. I have bought a franchise, which gives me the privilege of using the name, the process that gets the food delivered and then their backroom support and training and those kinds of things. Basically though, I have the risk. My wife Barbara and I are in the business. I would determine it more of a high volume but it is a small business. The other thing is that my son in law who is a long term resident in Fayetteville named Mike Carey, recently was with JB Hunt but had run the Hoffbrau restaurant, and then my daughter, Kelly Carey, who has been with the Ozark Brewing Company, are going to be the managers of this so I would even say it is a family organization. We would ask for your support of the conditional use for us to increase our parking from the 33 to the 55. I have Wade Eades with Hydco with me if you have any questions. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there anybody from the public that would wish to address us on this conditional use? Seeing nobody, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for discussion and motions and to the applicant. Motion: Shackelford: Based on staff recommendations, the findings of facts that were in line with everything else, and the fact that Don Marr is not here to preach to us, I will make a motion to approve CUP 02-17.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford with a heads up for Mr. Marr. Church: I will second it. Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 36 Hoffman: Yes indeed we do see quite a few of these conditional use requests on restaurants and I agree that it is high time that we look at changing our ordinance but it hasn't happened quite yet. Conklin. Staff is working on that. Bunch: Just one question, what impact does this have on the large scale development as far as landscaping plans and also on landscaping islands, will they have a run of 15 parking spaces on the east side. Has this gone before the Landscape Administrator for her approval? Conklin: It has not been run by Kim. The 15' landscape is commercial design standards. They are actually providing more landscaping. If you will recall with Party City they did have a curb cut on the west side, on this side off of Joyce Blvd. coming in, they have eliminated that. That will actually be a benefit that will allow more stacking room for cars entering and exiting that development. It actually increases the amount of landscaping even though there was an access given by the Commission for that location. Basically there are no additional curb cuts. They are using the two curb cuts that were granted, one from Joyce and one from Steele Blvd., and they will internally access this site. That is going to be very important since this is a major intersection. Hoffman: Tim, this is not a large scale is it? Conklin: This is not a large scale development because it is less than an acre. Hoffman: All of the ordinance review is just going to be done by staff and we won't be seeing it back. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-17.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. That is all we have on our agenda this evening. Tim, do you have any announcements? Conklin: With regard to working on the parking lot ordinance and parking ratios, we have postponed bringing forward the shared parking ordinance and staff will propose revised parking ratios. We are going to do this without a committee, unless the Commission would like to have a committee to work on it. We will propose an ordinance to you with revised parking ratios along with the Shared Parking that is 99% complete through the review. That will happen in July and I will make sure Mr. Marr is aware Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 37 of that. I have a couple of announcements. We do have our Planned Zoning District special meeting Thursday June 13, 2002 at 5:30 in room 326. We will have people from Little Rock come up and talk about their Planned Zoning District, a Planner and an Attorney. On June 19th we will be having a Wetlands Workshop that will start at Genesis at 8:30 a.m. and then we will move over to the CMN II Business Park and look at their wetland protection mitigation and delineation. The Corp. of Engineers will be here along with E.G.I.S. and it is free so anybody that is interested in attending that, let the Planning Division know. Bunch: Also on the 19`h of June there is a Planned Zoning District subcommittee meeting, which looks like it will interfere with people attending the Wetlands Workshop. Conklin: We may have to move it at this time. It was difficult to get everybody organized within that week and that was the only time we could do it. The Wetlands Workshop will be very good, especially the mobile workshop on site. Those Commissioners who attend, please dress appropriately, bring your boots. The grass is 3' tall and it is wet. Hoffman: Thank you everybody, we will stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned 7:12 p.m.