Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ADM 02-21.00: Administrative Item (Dramin Hardwood, pp 640) Page 4 ADM 01-49.00 (H) for Coyote Trail Subdivision Page 5 ADM 01-49.00 (N) Silverthorne Subdivision Page 8 ADM 01-49.00 (0) Wellington Place Subdivision Page 9 LSD 02-18.00: Large Scale Development (KFC, pp 520) Page 10 CUP 02-19.00: Conditional Use (KFC, pp 520) Page 17 CUP 02-22.00: Conditional Use (BOA, Inc., pp 563) Page 19 RZN 02-21.00: Page 23 RZN 02-22.00: Page 43 Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 251) Rezoning (Shackelford, pp 558) RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning (Nickell, pp 445/446) RZN 02-18.00, 19.00, & 20.00: Rezoning (Mill District, pp 522/523) Page 45 ACTION TAKEN Approved Refunded to Property Owners Refunded to Property Owners Refunded to Developer Approved Approved Approved Fwd. to City Council Fwd. to City Council Pulled at applicant's request Tabled Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Bob Estes Alice Church Lee Ward Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Matt Casey Dawn Warrick Tim Conklin MEMBERSABSENT Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 3 Estes: Welcome to the Monday, July 22, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. As the first order of business I would like to welcome our newest Commissioner, Alan Ostner. Mr. Ostner joins us for the first time this evening having recently been appointed to this Commission by the Fayetteville City Council. The next order of business will be to call the roll. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were six Commissioners present with Commissioners Hoffman, Hoover, and Shackelford being absent. Estes: The next order of business is approval of the minutes from the July 8, 2002 meeting. Are there any additions, amendments, changes, or comments regarding the minutes from the July 8, 2002 meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. We have two conditional uses on the agenda this evening. A conditional use request requires five affirmative votes. Those conditional use requests are listed on the agenda as item #4, KFC and item #5, EOA, Inc. Because there are only six Commissioners in attendance tonight I want to make this announcement at this time and give the applicants the opportunity to pull from the agenda item #4, KFC conditional use and item #5, the EOA, Inc. conditional use. Both of these will require five affirmative votes and you only have six commissioners present this evening. I make this announcement at the beginning of the meeting so if there is anyone here that is interested in providing public comment on these items and they are pulled you will know at this time. Conklin: Mr. Chairman, the rezonings will also require five affirmative votes. Estes: I'm sorry, we have several rezonings. Thank you Mr. Conklin. Rezoning request, item #6 by Dixie Development and rezoning request #7, Shackelford, and rezoning request item #8, Nickell, and rezoning request item #9, Mill District. Each of these will require five affirmative votes and you only have six Commissioners present this evening. Does anyone wish to pull any of these items from the agenda? Pancake: Mill District Neighborhood Association would like to table until next time. Estes: Is the applicant present for item #9, the rezoning of the Mill District? Conklin: The City of Fayetteville is the applicant. We were going to make a recommendation to table this item this evening. We do have a short presentation on where we are at and what we plan to bring forward to the Commission in the future. Just a brief presentation at the end of the meeting just to update. We did notify the residents and property owners within this area and there may be some here that would like to express their views and concerns with regard to this city initiated project. Estes: Ma'am, would you state your name for the record please? Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 4 Pancake: My name is Colleen Pancake and I am the chair person for the Mill District Neighborhood Association. Estes: Ms. Pancake, I can not speak for the Commission as a whole but I would imagine with the applicant's request that it be tabled that it will be tabled. Pancake: Thank you. Estes: Are there any other applicants with conditional uses or rezoning requests that wish to pull those items from the agenda? Hill: I am Bob Hill and I represent the owners in item #8 and I think we need to table tonight. Estes: Item #8 at the applicant's request will be pulled from the agenda. Again, we do that because it will require five affirmative votes and there are only six commissioners present. Is there anyone else on either of the conditional uses or either of the rezoning requests? The first item of business is on our consent agenda. It is ADM 02-21.00. It is submitted by Pamela Cantrell on behalf of Dramis Hardwood Floors for property located at 2275 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for a refund of sidewalk funds put in escrow. This has been placed on the consent agenda. Is there any member of the Commission that would like to pull this item from the consent agenda or is there any member of the audience that would like to pull this item from the consent agenda? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll on the consent agenda please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 6- 0-0. Estes: The consent agenda passes by a unanimous vote of six to zero. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 5 ADM 01-49.00: Administrative Item (Hamestring Creek Sewer Escrow) Planning Commission determination of disposition of funds in escrow account collected through an offsite assessment for Hamestring Creek basin force main. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item #1, it is old business. ADM 01-49.00, Hamestring Creek Sewer Escrow, Planning Commission determination of disposition of funds in the escrow account collected through an offsite assessment for Hamestring Creek basin force main. Mr. Conklin, could you give us some background information on why this is before us this evening and why this is on the agenda as old business? Conklin: This is on your agenda as old business due to the fact that these items were continued from a previous meeting because there were no representatives from these developments. This is a request from staff to dispose of money that was collected for a force sewer main out along Wedington. At this time that project is not going to be built. The new sewage treatment plant changed those plans and therefore this is back on your agenda. Ron Petrie is here this evening with our City Engineering Division. He has more information on these developments if you have more questions regarding them. I would like to point out to the Commission that on the previous developments you did refund the money back to the property owner. The property owner was that at the date of the Planning Commission decision. Just remember as you review these and make your considerations and recommendations on how to dispose of this money that the previous ones were all given back to the current property owner. Estes: Is Mr. Sanderman or Ms. Sanderman Agee present? Mr. Conklin, may the matter proceed without a representative present? Conklin: That was something that the Commission thought was needed at the last meeting or the last time we considered this. I think it is ok to go forward if there is no one here to represent these particular developments. I don't know if our City Attorney has something to say about that. Estes: Mr. Williams? Williams: Mr. Chairman, I think we do need to go forward even without either the developer or the property owners here. This money is being held in escrow but the project is no longer needed to be built and we need to refund the money and make that decision even if we don't have any presentation by either the developer or the property owners. Estes: Thank you. Is any property owner present who would like to make a presentation? Yes Sir. Would you come forward, say your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 6 Schmidt: Mike Schmidt, I am one of the developers for Silverthorne Subdivision. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Schmidt: I would just like to make a couple of brief comments. I think what Mr. Conklin said, if there was no project to be started, no money would've been taken from us. Therefore, the money should be given back to the developer, not the property owners I think there were some comments made before that we passed the $200 onto each lot or each house, that is not what we do. We can only go by the appraised value of the lots and appraised value of the house. That $200 is just basically gone for us. We feel that we should get it back. I have talked to most of the people I have sold my lots or houses to and they are all in favor of us receiving it back. I brought one of our customers with us. He bought eight lots from us and he is for us getting it back. Estes: This item is listed on our agenda as the Coyote Trail Subdivision. Schmidt: There are three different ones I believe. I am Silverthorne Subdivision. Conklin- Silverthorne is your second staff report. The first staff report is Coyote Trail and the third one is Wedington Place Subdivision, which is a commercial subdivision. Estes: Ward: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to provide public comment on this particular item? If so, would you say your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions, discussion, and motions. Commissioners? You don't want me making motions because I have voted against most of these as we have gone through except where the homeowners did show up and say they were definitely entitled to the money and had paid it. I know that the majority of the Planning Commission has been in favor of returning it to the current home owners or the property owners but I personally have not been in favor of that. You will have to get a motion from somebody else if you want to get this approved. Estes: Ok, is there any other discussion? Motion: Bunch: I move that on ADM 01-49.00 (H) for Coyote Trail Subdivision that the funds held in escrow be forwarded to the current property owners. Alan: I will second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Allen. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Bunch, does your motion incorporate any specific findings of fact regarding the determinations that must be made regarding the refunds? Bunch: Mr. Chairman, I would refer to our previous meeting where we had similar cases. This one was tabled because no one had shown up. We did take public comment in the past on similar type residential subdivisions and I will let the record speak for the findings. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Allen regarding ADM 01-49.00 (H) is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to distribute the funds in the escrow account to the current property owners of Coyote Trail Subdivision was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Ward voting no. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to one. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 8 Estes: The next item is ADM 01-49.00 Silverthorne Subdivision and we have heard comment from the developer regarding this item. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on ADM 01-49.00, Silverthorne Subdivision? Yes, would you come forward please, state your name and give us the benefit of your comments? Dudley: Yes Sir. My name is Sonny Dudley. I was a builder in Silverthorne Subdivision. I bought eight lots. Speaking on behalf of the developers, I know for a fact that they do not actually upgrade the prices of these lots to cover this cost for them, they have to put this money forth in the first place. I agree with them that they should get the money back. I do believe that. Estes: Motion: Is there any other member of this audience who would like to comment on this item, ADM 01-49.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, or motions. Commissioners? Bunch: Going by past record of the information that was given and the various distribution of costs as were discussed in our previous meeting, and this item was also tabled because no one had shown up and given any evidence one way or the other on it, I will go on past record and move for distribution of the funds held in escrow to the current property owners for ADM 01-49.00 (N) Silverthome Subdivision. Estes: Allen: Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, do we have a second? I will second. We have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to distribute the funds in the escrow account to the property owners of Silverthome Subdivision was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Ward voting no. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to one. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 9 Estes: Conklin: Estes: Ward: Estes: Motion: Ward: Estes: Church: Estes: The remaining item is ADM 01-49.00 for Wedington Place Subdivision. Is the developer present? Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide comment on ADM 01-49.00, the Wedington Place Subdivision? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, and motions. Commissioners? I would just like to point out that on page 1.17 there is a letter from Clary Development Corporation requesting that the money be refunded back to them as the original subdivider. Thank you Mr. Conklin Commissioners? I did believe that on this particular commercial subdivision, which is a little different than some of these residential that some of these lots were already sold and under contract before there was ever even an assessment on this particular commercial project, that is according to the letter. That is why I would be in favor of giving it back to the developer. Are there any motions or any discussion Commissioners? I will make a motion for ADM 01-49.00 for Wedington Place Subdivision that the findings of fact are that the assessment will be returned back to the developer, Clary Development. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? I will second it. We have a second by Commissioner Church. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to distribute the funds in the escrow account to the developers of Wedington Place Subdivision was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of six to zero. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 10 LSD 02-18.00: Large Scale Development (KFC, pp 520) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jon Dyer of K -Mac Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by Ermel Fox and located at 1860 W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.11 acres with a 3,145 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Estes: The next item on the agenda this evening is item #3, this a Large Scale Development. It is submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jon Dyer of K -Mac Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by Ermel Fox and located at 1860 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.11 acres with a 3,145 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Staff recommendation is approval of this Targe scale development subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) Planning Commission approval of a requested conditional use for additional parking. Under the current parking ordinance, 17 spaces are allowed. The applicant is proposing to provide 28 spaces. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. The applicant is proposing a 60 square foot freestanding sign that is setback 50 feet from the right-of-way. 3) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 4) 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. 5) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace along Sixth Street. 6) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 7) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; 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 Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Love: I am Mark Love, not Jerry Kelso. Gerald Oney is here, he is the contractor for the project. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 11 Estes: Ok. Mr. Love, do you have any presentation that you would like to make or would you like to make yourself available to answer questions for the Commission or what is your pleasure? Love: I will make myself available. We do have sketches here if that is your pleasure. Estes: Alan: Love: Oney: Alright, thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested large scale development? Seeing none, I will bring this matter back to the Commission for discussion, comments, motions, and questions of Mr. Love, the applicant's representative. Mr. Love, I drove out to look at the site over the weekend and I noticed that there is another Kentucky Fried Chicken within a very short area away from that one and I wonder if you would explain to me why you aren't going to be locating in that building and why the necessity for another one. I cannot make a comment on that but I think that Mr. Oney can. He knows more about it than I do. My name is Gerald Oney and I am the engineer and also contractor for K -Mac Enterprises. I have built approximately 90 of their projects over the last 15 years. That particular location, the area in Northwest Arkansas went into bankruptcy less than a year ago. K -Mac, who is the Taco Bell franchisee for this area, picked up those KFC stores. They also have KFC stores around the Fort Smith area and some in Oklahoma. That particular unit is tied up in litigation and it may not be available. It could be available in six months, it could be available in 18 months. There are a lot of things about it, #1 it is not a very good building; #2 it doesn't meet the new design criteria that KFC uses whereby they do not use the buffet system anymore; #3, the cost of the facility is prohibitive. Plus, we don't know if we could even buy it within the next 18 months to two years. We can't afford to sit there and wait and assume that this thing would get through the bankruptcy litigation so that we could buy that building. That particular structure does not meet the parking requirements that we would like to install. Also, the cost of renovating that building to go with what we call the 2002 concept KFC would be so prohibitive that it pays us to build a new facility instead. Thank you. Estes: Commissioners, are there any other questions? Commissioner Ward? Ward: I would like to go ahead and kind of talk about commercial design standards and make it out to the public about what you are going to do, colors, materials, and so on. Nancy, for your information I noticed up in Springdale yesterday that they are tearing down the old KFC up there. It is almost totally on the ground now. The one on 71Business. It is a pretty expensive building and they just bulldozed it. A lot of times these older buildings don't really meet the needs of the newer buildings. I know the Mazzios pizza we had out on North College, which I Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 12 thought was a very nice building, the next thing I know they bulldozed it and built a Wendy's out there. That is not abnormal. If you would just give us an idea of what you are building out there and does it meet the same criteria that the one on North College that was just finished a couple of years ago does and all of that. Love: Again, I will have to get with Mr. Oney to explain the materials and structure. Oney: First of all let me explain to you why we have this one and someone else has the other one. That is not the same company that I represent that has the one on College Avenue. There is an area done by miles of what franchisee can pick up certain stores. As a result of this bankruptcy we picked up the store on Sixth Street, we also picked up the store on Walnut in Rogers. We picked up the store on Eighth Street in Rogers, which we recently remodeled but that was a newer building and we were able to do that. As a matter of fact, it just opened up a couple of weeks ago. We also picked up Siloam Springs and Bentonville. In both of those cases those buildings are not sufficient for us to redo them. We are building new buildings from scratch at those two locations. The structure that we are doing is what we call a 2002 concept. We use synthetic stucco. We also use a canopy system around the perimeter and we use a regular concrete block, which that is a sample of the block there, around the base, that is the brown that you see. We use two colors of synthetic stucco. We use a darker color here and this is the lighter color that we would use around the perimeter. This is the darker color that you see here and here and the block color that is used around the base is that color. The canopies are the standard KFC bright red and white and then we use the colonel's mug on the tower. The elevations are the same thing. You have a canopy over the top of the drive-thru and a canopy system over the top of the windows and the entry way. Ward: I will ask our staff, does all of their signage on the building meet our standards? Conklin: The Code Enforcement Division will review that. I believe it probably will meet the code, I haven't verified that. I would like to point out that they are showing a pole sign in front of the building. Also, with the colonel's face on there. Ward: Why don't you discuss the sign with us a little bit and why you think the sign is needed? Oney: Well, first of all, one of the things is that as a franchisee we are required to have a freestanding sign as part of our franchise agreement. Now, there are certain locations across the country where we have encountered and are only allowed to use monument signs. In that case we have abided by those ordinances. It is a franchise requirement and we do it. Normally we would put up a 30' high sign and it would be 90 sq.ft. This particular sign is 60 sq.ft. and is only 21' high. It is setback 50' where normally we can set it somewhere in a 20' to 25' setback point. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 13 Ward: Oney: Ward: Estes: Allen: Oney: Allen: Oney: Allen: Conklin: Estes: Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: It seems like the last time I looked at it, it looked like the colonel's face on the pole sign and on the building were almost going to blend in together. This is what our sign looks like and you can see that that is a full portrait on the building and this is cutoff slightly but it is enlarged. The way this sign will sit is perpendicular to this particular face so that you would see it going in an east/west direction on Sixth Street, where this is just strictly a front view only. This only occurs right on front of the tower. Again, it is a KFC requirement. We don't have the alternative to revise that. We must live within a certain standard that they have for their buildings so that is why that is set up that way. Thank you. That is all the questions I had. Thank you Commissioner Ward. Is there any other discussion or any motions? Sir, when you were talking about "picking up" the building on Sixth Street, what did you mean by that please? You were listing some buildings that you had "picked up" and I don't know what you meant by that. Bought. I thought you had said you had "picked up" the building on Sixth Street and I was wondering. Excuse me, we acquired I should've used, those franchise rights. When I say "picked up" that means that we acquired the franchise rights to be able to build that building and that noone else could occupy that building. We acquired the franchise rights, that is what I was saying. Ok, thank you. Mr. Chairman, staff has been working with a potential user of the existing KFC building on Sixth Street. We have met with them two or three times now and I think you will see a renovation to that building and a new use at that site. Is there any other discussion or motions? A question for staff. You say you are dealing with someone, does that mean that it is not tied up in bankruptcy? I am not sure. It has a for sale sign on the front. 1 am just wondering what the timing is on this. We have been told tonight that it is held up in litigation. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 14 Conklin- I didn't question their financial arrangements or about litigation. They have met with us two or three times with regard to renovating the building and reusing the site with a different type of use. I just bring that up because if you have been out there and you have looked at it something does need some attention out there on the site and the building and hopefully we can get that cleaned up. Church: Just a question of Tim. It appears to me that in the recent time that I have been around that we haven't allowed a lot of pole signs. Is that the case or have we approved some in the past few months? It seems like this is kind of an exception to what we have been doing. Conklin- We did amend our ordinance to encourage the use of monument signs. J.D. China next door used a monument sign in order to have the sign closer to the street. You have a 10' setback and you are allowed that 6' tall sign, 75 sq.ft. As you can tell, to meet the sign ordinance your pole sign this height has to be pushed back and it can't be up just along the street. I think we have seen the use of more monument signs because it is easier to get a larger sign closer to the street. I do remember that Burger King does have a pole sign also at that location. We have allowed some pole signs in the past but we really do try to, especially in areas where we have monument signs already, require monument signs in those areas. However, in this area I am aware that there are pole signs that have recently gone up. Allen: Oney: Estes: Motion: Ward: Ok, I want to try again on this. I would like clarification on whether or not this property is for sale or tied up in litigation. There is a for sale sign in front of it and yet you said that it couldn't be bought within maybe 18 months. I don't know that for sure. Roughly three months ago when we went to talk to them about those properties it was in litigation. At that time we made the offer and tied up a contract to go to the other location. Also, even if it was not we would not occupy that building because it isn't large enough, nor does it meet the parking requirements and we would have to scrape that particular building to make it work. We would have to start over. That site doesn't meet our minimum requirements of what we would want to do. Is there any other discussion or any motions? I appreciate all of your presentation. I do know that most of those older sites do not work for the new concepts and the new chains. They are all the time changing things out and making things better and newer. I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 02-18.00 for the KFC with all conditions of approval. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 15 Estes: Ward: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 02-18.00. Commissioner Ward, does your motion include a determination of compliance with commercial design standards including the requested signage? Right. With all conditions that the building does meet our commercial design standards, which I believe it does. I would've probably been a little more for a monument sign out there since the restaurant right next door did a monument sign but I think it is going to be hard to see that sign to be honest about it. It is going to be a small sign, 60sq.ft. setback 50' from the road and only 21' high. It is almost going to be hid I think behind. I think a monument sign would be better but I think it is their choice. I don't think we have the right to demand one way or the other. There are other pole signs up and down that road that we have allowed recently like Blockbuster and Burger King, those are just a couple that I can think of real quick. I feel like that if that is what they ask for then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't allow it. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Ward. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 02-18.00, is there a second? Church: I will second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Church. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-18.00 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to one. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 16 CUP 02-19.00: Conditional Use (KFC, pp 520) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jon Dyer of K -Mac Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by Ermel Fox and located at 1860 W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.11 acres. The request is for additional parking for a proposed restaurant. Estes: Love: Estes: Motion: Ward: Conklin: The next item on the agenda is the companion item, CUP 02-19.00 was submitted by Mr. Love of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jon Dyer of K -Mac Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by Ermel Fox and located at 1860 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.11 acres. The request is for additional parking for a proposed restaurant. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use for a total of 28 parking spaces subject to the following conditions. 1) Compliance with all conditions of the Large Scale Development approval. Mr. Love, do you have any comments you would like to provide regarding this conditional use, why you want a total of 28 parking spaces? We had the room to put them in and I believe that a staff comment was that apparently the city is working on a new parking standard and that under the new standard, although it doesn't apply to this site, under the new standard we have the parking that would be required under the new standard. That is not the reason that we have them. The reason that we have them is that we could get that many spaces and the more the better in this case. Thank you Sir. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested conditional use that is a request for 28 parking spaces? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Commissioners? I would like Tim or Dawn to go ahead and talk a little bit about our new parking ordinance and what it would require and what this is asking for. Sure. Under our current ordinance it is one space per 200 sq.ft. plus 20%. That would allow 17 parking spaces. Under the rule of thumb standard that we have used for a number of years looking at these conditional use requests, we looked at one space per four seats plus one per employee at the largest shift. That would allow at a minimum 24 spaces, at a maximum 29. Under our ordinance that the city Planning Commission forwarded on July 8th to the City Council, that requires one space per 100 sq.ft. of restaurant area. Using that ratio the minimum number of parking spaces off-street parking spaces, would be 29. They are actually one short based on our new ordinance once that passes City Council. It is fairly in line with what we are seeing restaurants require as required parking to be able to Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 17 operate successfully in Fayetteville. Thank you. Estes: Are there any other comments or motions? Ward: Since this is the companion item I will go ahead and move for approval of CUP 02-19.00 for KFC with all staff comments. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-19.00, is there a second? Church: I will second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Church. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-19.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of six to zero. Thank you Mr. Love. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 18 CUP 02-22.00: Conditional Use (EOA, Inc., pp 563) was submitted by Kathleen Randall on behalf of EOA, Inc. for property located at 1225 Wood Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is for an educational center (use unit 4). Estes: The next item on the agenda is CUP 02-22 submitted by Kathleen Randall on behalf of EOA, Inc. for property located at 1225 Wood Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is for an educational center (use unit 4). Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin. No. Estes: Those conditions are 1) No more than 25 children to be served by the Center. 2) A minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided plus parking for employees on the largest shift. One of such spaces shall be ADA accessible. 3) Dumpsters located on the property shall be properly screened and the location to be reviewed by Planning and Solid Waste. 4) Screening of the play area shall be provided in accordance with § 166.10. 5) All signs shall meet the regulations of Chapter 174 Signs of the UDO. 6) Provide 2,000 square feet of designated outdoor play area with 75 feet separation from adjacent structures. 7) When funding for paving has been acquired, request parking lot permit prior to paving. 8) Outdoor play space, screening, dumpster location to be shown on site plan for building permit applicable to renovate the structure. If no building permit is required for the renovation work, Planning staff shall review a site plan with the Certification of Zoning Compliance application prior to occupancy of the structure. 9) Any outdoor lighting installed in the future shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 10) Compliance with Building Safety and Fire Department inspection requirements. 11) The conditional use shall expire one year from approval date if no action has been taken to implement the conditional use. 12) Install a 4' wide sidewalk prior to occupancy. Is the applicant present and if so do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Randall: I apologize, I have never done this before. I do have a couple of questions and I thought that I will just put it on the table where we are. We will go into the building and make some changes. Estes: Would you say your name please for the record? Randall: I am sorry, Kathleen Randall. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Randall. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 19 Randall: My question was on the sidewalk. Is that on the front of the building? Conklin: That is along the street. Randall: Ok. Again, I have never done this before. I wonder if we couldn't put a time frame around that. Right now we don't have funding for it. We are going to be installing a playground and some other things that we need to do to get the children in there as quickly as possible but I was wondering if we couldn't work on that for a few years. Estes: Conklin: Ms. Randall, the condition says prior to occupancy so that would be the operative event, occupancy. Mr. Conklin, do you have a comment? This condition actually was brought to our attention at agenda session. The City of Fayetteville recently passed the new sidewalk ordinance amendments and it stated in there that conditional uses do require sidewalks so it was something that was added to the conditions of approval for this request. We typically like to see all the improvements done prior to operation so we can go out there and make sure all the fire code and building code requirements are met. I am not sure if we can vary that or not. Maybe Kit can tell us if we can but I wouldn't be opposed to allowing some time if they want to look for some funding sources for this sidewalk. Williams: The way I understand the ordinance is that you can if you want to as a Planning Commission place this as one of the conditions of approval. It is not required just because it is a conditional use that you require sidewalks but it certainly gives you that authority. That is why when it was brought up at agenda session it was placed as one of the conditions is because I think that that is what the Planning Commission was indicating. You thought that there should be a sidewalk along Wood Avenue since this is going to be a facility frequented by children. It is up to the Planning Commission. I don't think that it is actually required but it can be as a condition of approval. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Mrs. Randall, do you have any further presentation or comments? Randall: The only thing I wanted to comment on is the size of the playground. We will only have 17 children using the playground and the other eight children are infants and they won't be out. It will probably be in a very small area and then it would be a covered deck and there wouldn't be running around. If we can adjust that according to the number of children that would actually be using the outdoor play area and still keep it at the 80 sq.ft. We would do that anyway for licensing. If that would be alright? Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 20 Estes: Randall: Estes: Randall: Estes: Hornback: Estes: Conklin: Hornback: Estes: Hornback: Conklin: Williams: Hornback: Are there any other comments? The only thing is that we really need to get into this building. That is one of the things about the sidewalk. We are losing a facility at Bates School and we have 17 children that will need services and so we are trying to get in there as quickly as possible. We will have to make changes to the building and safety issues before the children go in there and plumbing issues. Does that conclude your presentation and remarks? Yes. Thank you Mrs. Randall. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested conditional use? If so, would you come forward please, say your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Joanne Hornback, I got a letter that this adjoins my property. My house is on South Washington and as far as I know there was a Locust Street behind my property. Is that still there or has it been closed and will this come right up to the back of my property? Mr. Conklin, can you answer Joanne's question? I will have to do some research on that. Based on the map that we have on page 5.18 I am not showing a street back behind this. On the maps I had when I bought my place it showed S. Locust Street went down behind and that is what all my neighbors think. Joanne, where is your home? It is on South Washington and it goes back about a block and it is supposed to be South Locust behind me. They are showing this property to extend back to the west 310'. If you look on page 5.18 you can see that this property does not go as far back as what looks like might be a proposed street behind your property, which I guess would be S. Locust. Although, it is not noted what that would be on this particular map that is on page 5.18. This would not be blocking any street. It looks like from the way it is described. I think Morgan Manner has a fence that would be at the end of it and so that is why I was wondering if that was closed or just exactly what it was. The low Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 21 income housing development is right at the corner of my property and there is unimproved 11`h Street that goes along one side of my property. Morgan Manner would be here and then the back of my property is here and it was supposed to be S. Locust. Conklin: I probably can show you on the map over here what is shown on the conditional use plan. Here is the site. Hornback: This is my property here. Conklin- Ok, what they are showing is that it goes to right here. Hornback: Oh, this is Willow Street, this would be mine and this would be this property. Conklin: It doesn't look like it extends there. It is going 310' back. Hornback: Ok, this is mine right in here. Conklin: There is about 300' separation between the west edge and Willow Street right of way. Hornback: Ok, I have no objection then. Estes: Joanne, does that answer your question? Hornback: Yes it does. I have about 300' between my property and them. Estes: On the maps that we have that appears to be the case. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested conditional use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, and motions. Ward: I would like to see the LOA get in there. I am not sure exactly how we can do a sidewalk. Number seven says when the funding for the parking lot has been acquired and they are going to get a permit to do the paving for that. I would like to see the sidewalk built before the parking lot was paved but do we have a way? It is kind of hard to put these things on the book and then there is no way to really follow it up or police it is there? Conklin: You are exactly right. It is difficult. The ordinance that was passed talked about a conditional use, any development which required a conditional use would have to require a sidewalk. That is how I read it. I am not sure how to get around it. I think the other question is that you are approving a child care facility in this neighborhood and is a sidewalk something that you would not want to require? We have required sidewalks on other types of conditional uses. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 22 Ward: Definitely sidewalks are very needed but it sounds like they are also in a pinch to get moved in. What kind of money are we talking about as far as a sidewalk Tim since Ron left. Do you have any idea what that would cost? Bunch: It is $12 a running foot. $3.00 a square foot and it is 4' wide. I don't think we need sidewalks the whole way. Conklin: It would be around $3,000. Bunch: There are some sidewalks existing in the area. The City Park to the south has a sidewalk that appears to stop at the property line but to the north I wasn't real sure where the property line is but to the north it appears as though the sidewalk extends across a good bit of the property. I don't know, maybe Mrs. Randall can help us. It is built on top of a ditch with a culvert under it and then it more or less stops. I don't know if that extends across part of the property or if it stops at the property line but if that is the case then it would be considerably less than 3,000. Conklin: I did not recall seeing that when I was out there but if it does show existing sidewalk there it would be maybe a third to half the cost. Motion: Ward: I will make a motion that we approve CUP 02-22.00 for EOA but I really feel like the sidewalk is needed and I don't know that we have a way to do anything else except require that. I think the sidewalk is very important, especially since we have got 25 children down there. There are kids running all over the place. I am not sure of any other way to get around that. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve CUP 02-22.00, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Bunch. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Bunch to approve CUP 02-22.00, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-22.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of six to zero. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 23 RZN 02-21.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 251) was submitted by Dixie Development on behalf of Fern Younkin Revocable Trust for property located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35 Appleby Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 17.39 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Estes: Jones: Estes: Jones: The next item on the agenda is RZN 02-21.00, this is a rezoning request by Dixie Development and it is submitted by Dixie Development on behalf of Fern Younkin Revocable Trust for property located at 10 Bishop Drive and 35 Appleby Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 17.39 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of your report. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present and if so, would you like to make a presentation? Please say your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. My name is Pam Jones and I am here on behalf of Dixie Development. I have got some visual aids if you will permit me. Sure, make your presentation in whatever manner you feel is appropriate. We come tonight in the spirit of cooperation in community and compromise. We have met with the home owners. We asked, we invited ourselves to do that with them to help explain our project. Hopefully tonight I can explain and paint a picture to you of what we intend to do pretty quickly. This is 17.39 acres and it has been the home site of Fern and Robert Younkin. It served as a private airstrip for them and also on the site were numerous buildings that were hangars where he actually worked on engines. You could hear them roaring and he worked on them for hours, and hours, and hours. It is zoned A-1. To tell you where the property is, this is Appleby Road right here and it does go out to College and to Gregg. That is on the north side. On the south side is Drake, which goes out to College and it is a four lane which dead ends right here. It is our understanding that capital improvements, that in the future, hopefully not too distant, that that is going to be looked at. Sunbridge is right here. Most people go by this mobile home park and come up. Residents have told us that most people come up Susan Carol and then cut through North Heights, which are condominiums right there. To the east of this property is R -O, which is property that Dixie Development owns. This, I understand from Dawn Warrick that this is A-1 but actually it is a nursing home and I am not sure why that is still A-1 but it is an existing nursing home. On this property there is a very large two story barn that has been there. In fact, my daughter took horseback riding lessons in this whole area years ago so that barn still stands and it is right up against the property of North Heights. On the west side is Quail Creek subdivision and from our meeting with the property owners there, they said that traffic also cuts through their neighborhood. I know from what I heard from the property owners that traffic is cutting through their neighborhoods on both sides to get to this medical area. This right here, to Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 24 familiarize you, is the driveway for the actual hospital and it is paved now. This is called Green Road, I talked with the site manager on that today and that is designed specifically for emergency vehicles to enter the hospital. The main entrance comes off of North Heights right here and comes in on the north side of the hospital. There is a secondary entrance right here but this is the main entrance. On this property that we are talking about here there are very few trees. There are some beautiful maple trees that are about 153' from the east boundary and we want to keep those trees. Because there are so few trees on the property we feel like it is an asset and we feel like we can design our site plan around those trees and preserve them and want to, as I said, we feel like it is an asset. I do know that Mr. Younkin used to go out there with barrels of water in the Summer and water those trees. Right along the border of the property there is foliage and we would like to keep that as a screen. We would also like to build an additional buffer for the home owners. We have talked with them about that and we have offered for a couple of people from Quail Creek and from North Heights to sit in with us as we are planning, hopefully if this passes, to give us feedback on what they like for that. We are willing to cooperate and listen to them and have full intentions of doing that. Also, right here this area would be the proposed street. The newspaper said something about a four lane. We have no intentions to do that because the property is only 383' wide. That was a misquote. We have never entertained that thought. Our intentions is a two lane and stubbing onto Bishop. If city staff feels that we should do a turning lane, to do a third lane we would be happy to do that. We would go by their recommendation. I feel like they have better knowledge as to what would be the proper way, not to overbuild in that area but we would do whatever they recommend. The lots, the reason we feel it is not practical for residential because what we want to do through most of the corridor, where this line is, excluding this, we want to do one story office buildings. That is professional buildings. I think in our submission we put unit 12 and unit 25 which is primarily like medical supply or dentist or optometrists, accountants, engineers, attorneys, professional offices, one story professional offices. Also, when we looked at the property, if you put a street down it the lot depth is 165' and most residential and all around in this area, the lot depths are like 120' or 125'. It is too deep. It is not cost effective for anyone to come in and put residential. I don't think that anyone could afford to do that. The cost of the lot to the potential buyer would be so absorbent because of the cost to the developer to put in the streets. It would be so high with the additional cost of the land because the land is very expensive. This one area here, we told the property owners in the meeting that we have explored the idea of more than one story simply for a couple of reasons. There is an incredible view there and we build to suit. We wouldn't just come in and build a whole bunch of offices. We build to suit and if we had someone who was interested in doing more than one level there, which this is already R -O, we would want to listen to see if that is something that we could do. We wanted to leave that option open for right there. Along the rest of it, we are really not interested in doing anything but one story. We are committed to high quality offices that are aesthetically pleasing. We have Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 25 Estes: voluntarily asked for representatives of the neighborhood to sit in and give us feedback on the design and of course we have to go through all the steps if this does get passed with the city to make sure that we are doing what is required. Dr. Israel, who is the President of Dixie Development, has also traditionally done some things that helped the home owners because there is going to be dust. Whoever develops there, there is going to be dust and things like that but we put down the SB2 gravel and try to blacktop as soon as we can to cut back on all of the dirt and mud that could possibly get on the road. We really try to be sensitive to that and have done a really good job I think if you are familiar with what we have done on Joyce Blvd. It has been very clean and many people have mentioned that to me that they have appreciated that, just as a side note. Dr. Israel has voluntarily suggested that we would like to put in a jogging trail in the setbacks and noone asked us about that but we feel that that would really be helpful. Not only to the neighbors who live on the sides over here, these are triplexes through here and duplexes and these are a lot, some people own these homes and a lot of people rent. Anyway, we thought that it might be really nice to do a jogging trail. Even for people who have loved ones in the hospital, just a way for them to get away and maybe walk a little in a safe area away from traffic. I don't know if any of you have had family members in the hospital, but I have recently and sometimes you just need to get away but you want to be close by if you are needed. The area around, this is all R -O and the hospital actually sits here. It says it is A-1 on the map, the hospital is sitting on A-1 right now and this is C-2. All above it is Milsap Road and that is all C-2. This is R-2, this is all R-2 on the east side with the exclusion of the R -O that is already there and this is R- 1.5 and R-1 and R-2. These are apartments right here. I do have aerial photos if any of you need them to look at the property. I think it really paints a picture of what is there. I would be happy to pass those out to you. There is also industrial property not too far from it. You can see on this map that there is a real conglomeration of different zonings. I am trying to think if there is anything else. As I said, the type of offices that we want to build are service related and with Washington Regional being a Regional hospital and being such a large facility, we have already had doctors like radiologists and anesthesiologists calling us who don't traditionally see patients outside of the hospital but they need an office nearby the hospital in case of emergency. We feel that this would be ideal and they have already been contacting us and asking us about that. I believe that there was also to be a building near the hospital that was for offices and now they are no longer going to do that. It has something to do with the parking deck. There are doctors looking for space. Thank you Pam. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? If so, would you please come forward, state your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Arledge: My name is Chip Arledge and I am kind of new at this too so please bear with me. Let me first say how thankful that I am that we live in a city like Fayetteville and Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 26 a country where these issues are debated in an open forum before governing bodies like yourselves who I trust are responsible individuals, who listen with open minds, and to all sides of the arguments presented and make enlightened and intelligent decisions. As I said, my name is Chip, I have lived in Fayetteville ten years. The last five in my home on John Wayne Drive adjacent to the property that is being considered for rezoning. I am here to adamantly oppose the proposed rezoning and to offer a workable alternative that in theory could meet the city's growing needs. My concerns should be fairly obvious. A. Increased traffic including sirens and emergency vehicles traveling to the new medical center literally in my backyard where no traffic has passed before. B. Increased noise and safety issues inherent with additional traffic, buildings, and the businesses contained therein. C. The dangerous precedent of routing traffic through the middle of two pre-existing, established neighborhoods. D. The danger of an inappropriate precedent being set by the city regarding the status of undeveloped properties bordered by those established neighborhoods. E. Decreased property values for adjacent property owners and those in our neighborhoods. F. The City's unwise use of existing infrastructure and the precedent that would be set by allowing this rezoning to go forward. I have asked Dawn Warrick from the City's Planning Division to provide me with examples of where this type of rezoning has taken place in the past and her report for you regarding this issue sites four examples of similar rezoning decisions. To the best of my knowledge, which I admit is somewhat limited as I am new at this, I can find no examples of where businesses have been allowed to be wedged between two pre-existing, established neighborhoods like the one in question. The difference being that this land is undeveloped with no road adjacent to our residential properties. In all other cases it appears a street or thoroughfare of some sort previously existed between the homes and the neighborhood. Here it clearly does not. I also ask you to take into consideration that the city's adopted General Plan 2020 identifies this area on the future land use map as residential, not residential office. A logical assumption, given that the property is adjacent to two pre-existing, established neighborhoods. If one were to argue that the General Plan 2020 states the area north of the property is designated for office use then one must also admit that the same plan does not specifically identify the area for office use. Indeed, office use is not even mentioned for this particular piece of property in that plan. Residential clearly is. I believe the word construed has been mentioned when interpreting the technicalities involved. Construed to my ears has always meant finding a way to interpret the facts at hand to represent your beliefs when common sense would indicate otherwise. Additionally, and I am not prize winning economist, but I have noticed a lot of office space in the area surrounding the new hospital. Some entire buildings continue to be vacant. Granted, some of those will fill when the hospital opens but can anyone really predict who will fill the proposed development? A lot of office space will drag down the value of the subject property and drag my property down with it. A compelling argument certainly does exist with construction of a road through the subject property. There is no question we need better access to the new hospital. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 27 Indeed, Councilman Bob Davis may remember my attending an outdoor meeting where I begged him to do what he can to put construction in this part of town on the fast track with the opening of a new hospital. The new Target store, the new development around the mall and such, the area will become a quagmire of traffic without additional access but most of that access already exists. Drake Street, and I will refer to that as the four lane that goes nowhere, is exactly that. It stops where Quail Creek Drive intersects with it, inexplicably going literally nowhere. Drake is on the master plan to eventually be extended to Gregg Avenue. Part of Gregg Avenue is Arkansas State 180, also on the Master Plan to be widened to four lanes. My proposal is to extend the four lane road to nowhere, make it go somewhere to a pre-existing state route that is planned to be widened to four lanes. With improvements to the western part of Drake Street, the traveling public would have a major east/west corridor from College Avenue to State Route 112 and Leverett Avenue. 95% of the pavement is already in place. Such a common sense decision would alleviate the noise and traffic that already exists on Quail Creek Drive as folks cut through now and all parts of the city would have better access to the hospital on roads that already exist. You would be hailed as common sense heroes, the stuff of legend. But I fear my efforts may be futile. I have a map copyrighted in 2001 that shows a road already exists between Drake and Appleby. You can understand certainly my skepticism when I saw I was fighting a battle to prevent a road from being built that is already indicated on some map. I visited with Mayor Coody. I would like to thank him publicly for seeing me when he was on vacation and several members of the staff this past Friday and they assured me there was no vast conspiracy to build a road behind my house where no road has ever existed, that this was not a forgone conclusion, that I was not merely going through the motions in a battle I have no chance to win. It is just a bad map I was told. I don't think it is a bad map. I think it might be some sort of magical map, a clairvoyant map with a window to the future. Nonsense maybe, we'll see. Extend the road to nowhere so that it goes somewhere, take the greenspace of Gordon Long Park on Appleby that would be lost as a result, build a park in a new single-family residential neighborhood that would be bordered by two pre-existing, established, single-family neighborhoods, name it Younkin Park. Rezone the property in question to R-1.5 if you must rezone it to anything with covenants similar to the pre-existing, established neighborhoods and everyone is a winner. My son is five years old. Four months after his birth I conducted a search of Fayetteville looking for a safe place to raise him and others if we are so blessed. I discovered a home on John Wayne Drive on a cul-de-sac next to property zoned agricultural. Those were the pre-existing conditions with which I bought my home. If I didn't want to bear the noise from a pre-existing, established raceway I wouldn't buy property on a hill that overlooks that raceway and then complain about the noise. That would be silly! If I didn't want to hear the noise from the bands on Dickson Street, the inherent noise that is generated by a pre-existing, established area, I wouldn't buy, build, or move into my grandparents' home in the entertainment district and then complain about the noise. That would be goofy! No, I did my homework and I Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 28 made what I thought was a good choice. My point is this, the City of Fayetteville is currently rumbling, fumbling, tumbling, and stumbling all over itself to pass unneeded legislation to protect property owners who have made dubious decisions about where they live. I am asking the city to stand up for those who have made good decisions about where we live and about that map if you approve this rezoning and build a road in my back yard then I do indeed have a magic map. If not, the mayor and his staff are right, I just have a bad map. I thank you for your attention and your time. Estes: Chip, some of the correspondence that we have been provided you are copied on, do you speak for the neighborhood association? Arledge: I do not speak on behalf of the neighborhood association, I speak on my behalf. There are others in the house tonight who may or may not speak. Estes: Thank you Chip. Is there any other member of the audience who wishes to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Yes Sir, if you would please come forward, state your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Hunt: My name is Dr. Jim Hunt. I apologize in that I don't have this organized. This is a spur of the moment type thing based on what I just heard. I live on the corner of Appleby and Cydnee Street, which is in North Heights. I am looking for some relief from what already is on Appleby. I have some problems with the statements that were just made and the negative aspect of this. I want to say that I am for this development. I haven't had any answers so far to explain away what really is, not necessarily what is going to be. Already on Appleby you can't get out on College Avenue. Do any of you utilize that road or do you live over there? Estes: I use it quite regularly Dr. Hunt. Hunt: Ok, so you know. I have a car that does 0 to 60 in 8.3 seconds they tell me and I can't get out. I can't get out on College Avenue. I am retired twice but I work at the St. Francis Community Clinic in Springdale so I use Millsap and Futrall to get to work and come and go. I have Friday afternoon off and I am amazed after I get out of workout with my trainer on Friday afternoon I can hardly get home because of that mess that is around where Appleby dumps into Fiesta Square. There is so much traffic there that if you are trying to get out to go south or east you can't get out on College Avenue. That is already there. The light is about to be turned on on Gregg Street, I understand that. But look how short that is. Already traffic backs up to the top of the hill. I talked with Dr. Israel when he met with our neighborhood group last night, and by the way, I speak for myself, not my neighborhood association. My views are strictly my own. I told him that the traffic backs up already to where his street is going to come into and that will continue when that stoplight is there. All it is going to do is group the traffic into longer lines and then let longer lines through so you are going to be able to get Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 29 through. What we do in that area, you either cut through Quail Creek already, the noise is already going to be there. Or you go up to Appleby and they are lined up at Bishop and Appleby. What you are going to do is you are going to cut through Cydnee Street and go over to Susan Carol and hit Drake. The idea is to get to Drake because you can get out on College Avenue once you get to Drake. You are nodding your head, that is the way most of us have learned to go if it is not on Sunday morning. Already there is traffic, already there is the noise, it is already going through Quail. We were coming down here tonight and I made a comment. I looked back through my rearview mirror and noticed on Quail that there were four cars that ran all the way to Drake and turned and went down to Quail to get out, that is through there. The hospital people, I operate with those folks. I operate down at North Hills and I operate with a lot of those folks that are going to be using this. The hospital has, if I am not mistaken, a 7:30 to 3:30 shift, you are going to dump about 300 plus people into that area at 3:30. Then you are going to dump another 300 or so at 11:30. Where are they going to go? They can't really get out too well, they are not going to be able to get out at College if they go up Appleby and try to go that way. They are going to go to Drake. This is going to happen in August. This isn't going to happen a year and a half or two years from now when this road will be through. You are going to dump all of those people in there and these folks are on their way home and they have been working hard all day in stress so what they are going to do is they are going to take Susan Carol, they are going to take Cydnee cutoff because they can't get through and they are already going to go through Quail. It is already there. You can talk about that you don't want the noise going through this new subdivision, this new development that Dr. Israel is putting in. Last night he did talk about what they mentioned tonight about going ahead and putting three lanes through there and that will give us a link with Drake that will let us be able to funnel traffic out. The problem to run Drake on down to Gregg, I am all for that sort of thing but I don't think that is going to be anywhere in the near future because of the topography of that and the expense that is involved with it. There is a park already there and I could see the lady getting back in the tree and I don't think that is going to happen. That is not going to solve anything for the hospital and Appleby traffic that runs in front of the hospital because you are still trying to get a southern access. Right now you only have southern access through Appleby, well actually College and Gregg is it. You have got to get to College and you have got to get to Gregg. That is where the problem is. What is going to happen in August is Quail and Appleby and that area through Susan Carol is going to look like a bunch of rats running through a maze. I hate to be unprofessional about that but that is what it is already going to be. I am for this. The problem is that it is going to take Dr. Israel a year to a year and a half to have that street through there. I wish it could be opened up in August to funnel that traffic over on Drake and funnel some of it off of Quail, which is already a residential neighborhood. I can't quite see, the idea is to put a neighborhood in there has been the request since there is a neighborhood and neighborhood, lets go ahead and put residential in that same area. If you open up a street through there you are Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 30 Estes: going to have children playing on that street, why in the world would you want to run a street right straight up from the hospital to Drake and have kids out there running around? To me, this type of development, as much as I would rather the entire area be strictly residential, it isn't. It isn't ever going to be again since the hospital was put in there, it is gone. It is a matter of what is rather than what could have been. Once again, I want to say that I am for this. I think it makes sense to put it through. I think it is a traffic wise thing to do and I think we all realize, those of us who were raised here, we've seen some mistakes made in the past and we have seen those blind areas where we dump a lot of traffic into something that doesn't have any way to get out and I am thinking that if you put this road through there, let him develop this in this manner, this is a way for the traffic to go through. Particularly the 11:30 shift at night. Number one, he is going to have businesses in there that are probably going to be low traffic. There aren't going to be any children out playing in the street in front of a cardiologist office or the anesthesiologist office. Those people are also not going to be there at 11:30 at night when that last shift lets out so that is going to be a safe place for people to be able to get access over to Drake to get out of that place. Thank you all. Thank you Dr. Hunt. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment? If so, would you come forward please, say your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Hunter: My name is Mark Hunter and I live on the corner of Quail Creek and Appleby directly behind the Steel barn where Mr. Younkin kept his planes. Some things that I proposed was actually two or three things. One was in the subdivision of Quail Creek, I have spoken with my neighbors about speed bumps and all of that and I have been informed that it would impede with the emergency vehicles. I moved here from Alexandria, Virginia, outside of D.C. and I battled with the City Council to put speed bumps on my street. What happened was they told me the same thing but once I had the chief of police come out and just look at how fast people drive through the neighborhood and observe the children playing it was much safer to have it out there because I would rather see an emergency vehicle slowing down than to see a five year old being hit by a car. Secondly, on the street that is going straight, at least put a small bend in the street so that cars can't go that fast through the street because we all know that when young people are driving they are going to test their car. If it is on a straight away where they know that there is nothing going on late at night they are going to test their vehicles. I also propose on that street to put speed bumps. Therefore, the hospital is just that close so I am presuming that when you put an emergency vehicle coming from the end of Drake Street through Quail Creek, I don't think any speed bumps would impede the emergency vehicles. The next thing is when I moved here I moved here and I purchased that home because of the hospital. Because it is a safe environment. I moved here also because when my mother retires she wants to move into that home because it is across from the hospital. I am adamantly Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 31 concerned about the four lane street that goes nowhere. My first month here I observed that and I said there is something totally wrong with it, it just ends. I have never seen a four lane road end anywhere and I have lived in L.A., Manhattan, and D.C. and I have never seen a four lane road just end. Once I found out who owns it I was totally disgusted. If that development was made residential, picture this, if you put two cul-de-sacs, one on each end, one coming from Appleby and the other coming from Drake Street, there is no outlook so therefore, traffic will not go into those neighborhoods. It will boost the homeowners who own those homes, it will boost their properties. I am 28 and this is my fourth home that I have purchased. In all of the homes something that I have proposed were speed bumps, cul-de-sacs, they have boosted the price of the homes. Therefore, if it is developed the only thing that I am proposing is at least put a break in it. I understand that there are stop signs there but still, at 11:00 at night when young people know that no one is coming down those streets, they are going to test their cars and they are going to ignore those stop signs for a straight of way. Also, if that street is built then I am sure that the neighborhood will push for that four lane road to go somewhere. That is all that I have to say. Estes: Thank you Mark. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested rezoning? Yes Sir. Oxford: Mr. Chairman, I am Charles Oxford, I live east of the property that is under consideration on Cydnee Street. We have been there for eight years and if I could add one word to what has already been said, Drake needs to be completed. I am also in favor of the proposal as stated by the rezoning group and I urge you to approve that rezoning. Estes: Thank you Charles. Brown: My name is Donald Brown. I live at 188 Cydnee. You have had the traffic problems described to you very well so I won't repeat that. All I want to say is that I am in favor of this project because I think it will alleviate some of the real traffic problems that we have in that area. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Brown. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to come forward and provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Harmon: My name is Tim Harmon. I have been a resident of Quail Creek for 13 years. My wife teases me, she says it is our starter home and retirement home. I think there is some benefit there by not putting that street through. I do not feel that it is going to alleviate any traffic problems. I feel that the traffic problems are only going to intensify only because Drake going east to College, there is a stop sign and a yield sign. It is almost impossible during these times of heavy traffic to make any kind of left turn off of Drake to go north on College. You can possibly go south on College off of Drake but again, it is a yield sign and you have red Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 32 lights and those red lights will back all the way back to the yield sign. I do not feel like it would alleviate any traffic flow there. Again, the four lane road to nowhere, Drake Street going west, I do see some benefit if you are looking at some type of corridor to alleviate some traffic. Again, living at Quail Creek for the past 13 years, I believe the name of the road is Sunbridge, it did alleviate some traffic flow from College to Gregg but again, I still feel that Drake to Quail Creek to Appleby to Gregg is still a short cut for many people trying to bypass a lot of traffic. The argument stated earlier, where is this hospital traffic going to go. Again, I have seen a lot of development going in there during the years. I see easy access onto Millsap, I see easy access onto the bypass going north and east towards the mall. I do not feel like really anything that is done is going to alleviate a lot of the traffic problems we have. Yes, I have seen some red lights go up but again, the red light on Gregg and Appleby is only going to back up that traffic all the way back up to the hospital if not further. As far as the noise level, I can tell you this from being a resident on Quail Creek for numerous years, it is a speedway today and you see how the street is somewhat shaped. There have been numerous accidents, there have been numerous people's vehicles being driven through people's yards. There are concrete mail boxes, brick and mortar concrete mailboxes that have completely been destroyed because of people driving through that neighborhood so fast. My wife has talked to the City Planner about coming in and putting in a stop sign where John Wayne and Quail Creek intersect. Apparently that didn't happen. They talked about putting speed breaks through Quail Creek, that hasn't happened. I don't know if that is going to alleviate any traffic through there. I guess I have to say that if you do vote for this road to go from Drake to Appleby it is going to open up a speedway. It is a runway by my house right now, it is going to be another runway but this runway is going to be for four car vehicles. If there is not some planning with speed breaks on it or stop signs on it again, it is just going to be someone's opportunity to see how fast their car can go. Personally I would like to see it zoned for families, whether it be single-family homes, that would be wonderful. Again, I just think that it is not really going to solve any of our problems by building a road through there if we are talking about building the road to alleviate traffic. As far as the noise level goes, I would rather see kids and dogs barking in my backyard verses traffic coming in and out on that property behind my backyard. As you are well aware, there are a lot of zones that surround this piece of property right here. Again, I am like Chip. When I first moved here Appleby was a gravel road and I know you can't help for things to develop around your neighborhood but at least hopefully you will take into consideration as home owners in that property what I see could happen. This is this, my sister, and this is taking it to maybe a different level. I was raised in North Little Rock, Arkansas. I saw the quality of life go down over probably about the past twenty years in central Arkansas. I have been a resident of Fayetteville since 1981. Over the past ten years I have seen what used to be a fantastic place to live where you heard it on the radio whenever they rated Fayetteville as a wonderful place to live like in the top ten, I don't even think it is in the top 100 any longer. I guess my point is this. She worked at the Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 33 Estes: Hunt: Children's Hospital. The neighborhood that was maybe once around the Children's Hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas was probably once upon a time a decent place to live. With the gangs and the infiltration of drugs and everything else into that area, as drug dealers were shot in the neighborhood and brought to the hospital, that was the closest hospital. There were actually gangs that would follow the ambulance to the emergency room to finish the job. What we are talking about here is something that may be fine and jim-dandy for the first five years or so but what we have to look at as a community and as a city we have to have the responsibility not only to look five years down the road but look twenty years down the road and what kind of city we are leaving for our kids. Again, I see that straight road as a place for people to speed, a place for people to maybe take that last pop shot at that ambulance going to the hospital. I know it sounds crazy but it happens everyday in Little Rock. I think as a community we need to be forward thinking along those lines. That is all. Thank you Tim. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Let me say this if I may. This is a request for a rezoning. Please keep your comments germane to the issue and provide us with information that will edify us and help us in making our decision and please limit your remarks to the requested rezoning. Mr. Chairman, I am Margaret Hunt. My husband has spoken at length about the traffic. I choose to say that the land will be rezoned at some point. Our neighborhood met last night and it was a consensus of the majority of those who were there that we support this rezoning. We choose to believe Dr. Israel will honor his word, that it will be an aesthetically approving rezoning, that it will benefit us as a neighborhood, and that he will seek our input on this. We don't always agree with him but we trust him. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Hunt. Is there anyone else? Street: My name is Dan Street and I live in the Quail Creek neighborhood. I just have some of the concerns I think that some of the neighbors have with this. We understand that it is going to be developed and of course we would probably prefer it to be residential. This may not be a bad step but what we are concerned with is the road going all through. We are not sure why it was considered that a road has to be put through this entire property. I don't think it is a good thing to relieve traffic from College Avenue and Gregg through the middle of a residential area. Even if it is not residential, if it becomes office. It is still a place to relieve this traffic off to the two main arteries and I don't know that that is going to help anybody in the neighborhoods. The red flag went off when the doctor said that the hospital is going to get out at 11:30. That means people are going to be coming down this new thoroughfare just after I have gotten my five year old to bed at 9:30 or 10:00 so that concerns me too. I think there are a lot of people in the neighborhood that have that same concern. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 34 Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this rezoning request? Yes Sir. Again, let me say this. This is a request for rezoning. The matter of the street, the matter of some of the issues we have been discussing will be dealt with at what is called the Large Scale Development stage. This is simply a rezoning request. Harden: My name is Gregg Harden. Like a few other people have mentioned, I am here speaking only on behalf of myself. I am a resident of North Quail Creek Drive. I wanted to come before you to commend Dr. Israel for having met with the neighbors. I was out of town last week and didn't have the opportunity to be there but I do commend him for coming in and taking that cooperative approach for the rezoning. Speaking of the rezoning, I would like to ask if it is permissible some questions of your Planning staff about the zoning itself, about the types of uses specifically that are allowed within the R -O zoning. Estes: Harden: Estes: Greg, if you will direct your questions to me, if I can not answer them then I will direct them to the appropriate staff member. That is my question. About the philosophy, as I understand zoning it is there pretty much for the protection of surrounding areas, making sure that they are compatible uses. Could you explain to me a little bit about what the uses that are allowed in an R -O zoning are. I think your question is really two parts. Regarding the permitted uses, I will let Mr. Conklin answer that and regarding the public purpose doctrine of zoning ordinances, I will let Mr. Williams answer that. Mr. Conklin? Conklin: With regard to what is allowed in the R -O, Residential Office district, uses allowed, Use Unit 5, Government facilities; Use Unit 8, Single -Family and Two - Family dwellings; Use Unit 12 Office Studios, related services; and Use Unit 25 Professional Offices. Within those use units it elaborates more on the type of uses. That is a very good question because this evening you have heard from the applicant about an idea to develop this with single -story office buildings. I want to make sure that the public, the Commission, and the applicant is aware that R -O doesn't limit the number of stories within the actual R -O development. I bring that up because there is no way for staff to enforce that and the applicant has been made aware of what other applicant's have used in the past with regard to Bills of Assurance to limit what they are talking about. This evening, yes it is talking about the Residential Office zoning. Estes: Mr. Williams, why do we have zoning laws? Williams: Mr. Chairman, this Planning Commission was created by state statute and the state statute listed several reasons or purposes that a city could establish a Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 35 Estes: Harden: Estes: Harden: Estes: Planning Commission and creates land use regulations. These goals and these plans were supposed to promote 1) the efficiency and the economy and the process of development 2) The appropriate and best use of land 3) Convenience of traffic and circulation of people and goods 4) Safety from fire and other dangers 5) Adequate life, air, and the use and occupancy of buildings 6) Healthful and convenient distribution of the population 7) Good civic design and arrangement 8) Adequate public utilities and facilities 9) Wise and efficient expenditure of funds. As you said, primarily zoning regulations are to protect the property rights and the livability rights of the neighbors that surround each piece of property. Do you have any other questions? Yes I do. I appreciate with your patience going through each of the speakers. Is it appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider as part of its decision a Bill of Assurance offered by the developer? Your Planning Commission may not require, may not request, and may not solicit a Bill of Assurance. That is strictly a voluntary act on the part of the applicant. Ok. I am interested in the professional planner's perspective about the theory about this through street and whether it would actually take traffic away from the residential streets that exist now and their experience with traffic planning and actual traffic operations throughout the city. Do they believe that this would relieve some of the traffic on Quail Creek and the other residential streets? Let me respond to that in two ways. Number one, I am not a professional Planner, I am a citizen volunteer. I do have an opinion regarding the connectivity of Appleby to Drake and once this matter is brought back to the Commission I will probably express that opinion. The second part of the answer would be that Mr. Conklin is a professional planner and perhaps he has an opinion regarding connectivity of Drake to Appleby. Conklin: Thank you Mr. Chairman. With regard to the policy of connecting streets, the City of Fayetteville does have a policy of connectivity. You will notice in almost every development we review we connect streets together and require developers to make stub outs. If this development did come through we would be looking at that policy of connectivity and in my opinion, yes there would be a street connection between there because we don't like to create dead end streets. We like to create a street network that allows people to move around town without everybody going on the same street. Would it alleviate traffic? Typically, what we have seen is that when you have more connectivity you have more options for people to travel through town. Yes, it is not funneling traffic all on one street. With regard to this individual piece of property and this one street, there are also traffic engineers that know a lot more than I know with regard to where people Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 36 are working, where they are living, where they are traveling. Without having a complete understanding of what traffic will be using this area I can't make a prediction of how much will be using it. The policy has been since 1995 is to have a policy of connectivity connecting neighborhoods together, neighborhoods to office areas, commercial areas, schools, parks in order for people to move around without everybody getting in their car or using the same street so that has been the policy of Fayetteville. Estes: Do you have any other questions Greg? Harden: Just a few. As I understand it, the rezoning is tonight. In what form will the proposal come forward for the actual development of the offices and the street? There will be public participation in that process as well, correct? Estes: What is before your Commission this evening is a rezoning request. Our decision will be advisory only to the Fayetteville City Council. Presuming that this Planning Commission recommends rezoning to the City Council and presuming that the City Council approves the rezoning, the next request from the applicant will be the Large Scale Development process. That is a multi -tiered, multi -facet process. Harden: That does involve public participation and this meeting? Estes: It involves public participation at this level. Harden: Just to sum up, I believe that that property has been the way that it has been for a long time and I think we probably have been blessed by having it in that state for a long time. But development happens and development is going to happen there with the hospital. I think that no development there is not an option so we have to look at what the best options are. It seems to me that probably Dr. Israel may have said this in the newspaper, that this is probably if it was developed as residential, it would probably be some kind of multi -family type of approach. I think that is probably correct and I think that would be more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods than having these professional office buildings. At this state, I think that his proposal is preferable to other potential uses and that the through street would actually help to alleviate some of the traffic on those residential streets and I would stand in favor of it. Estes: Israel: Thank you Greg. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant or the applicant's representative for comments. My name is Ben Israel and I am president of Dixie Development. We did consider what all the possible uses of the property could be and felt like that we had arrived at the most economically sound thing that it could be, as well as Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 37 environmental and traffic. Our street actually would be 165' plus whatever their backyard is from the residents on either side compared to their front street, which is going to be 40' or 50' away and the lights at night. I am thinking that I am sitting in bed at night and the hospital shift lets off at 11:30 and they start out and if that street is not there and they want to go south, do they go down Quail Creek or one of these other streets, and if so, at 11:30 at night you have 300 people leaving the hospital choosing one of those already residential streets. I think the distance that we are from those and buffered also by the vegetation that is there, it will be 165' from the street to our property line and then from our property line to their backyard, or their bedroom door is another 25' or 30' or so. The noise is going to be there. There is nothing we can do about that. We have met with both property groups. Even though they are not official groups, we have met with individuals at a grouping and we have asked them to appoint two or three representatives from each group and to sit with us as we sit with our architects and engineers to determine how best to develop the property to least affect them. We have offered to do things like the walking path or jogging path. We have offered to do beyond what the city requires for landscaping and so forth. We would give a Bill of Assurance beyond where the hangar is right now, south of that space. We do feel like that, because this area next to Appleby Road's beauty and view, it could best be served by a two story building or possibly three story. It would be up on the front end away from most of the residential and probably on the R -O section next to the nursing home. We have no problem with a Bill of Assurance with single level I think it would be better though to let us get to our engineers and our architects and come back to you and say "Ok, is this acceptable to you?" After we had already gotten acceptance from the neighbors on one side and the neighbors on the other side. We are willing to do that. It is not something that is going to happen immediately. The only other thing I will say is Millsap right now is a hard road to travel. You don't have Staffmark, this old Staffmark building is not now occupied but soon will be. I understand that it has been sold and will totally be occupied. Mr. Lindsey has two buildings there that are about full and when they are full and when the Stevens building is completely full. Those will fill up when the hospital goes out there. Millsap is going to be almost impassible at certain times of the day and you throw 300 more cars there from the hospital and I don't know where they are going to go. If people want to go south to me they are going to go down the Quail Creek subdivision and hit Drake and go on south. I think that is what they will do. That is what I would do if I worked at the hospital. That is at 11:30 at night and at 3:00 in the afternoon when the kids are coming home from school. I would encourage you to pass it. We will do the right job with it. We have got to come back before you as you know and get it approved. We have got to go through this process many, many times to get to the point where you want us to be. We will put a three lane road in if that is what you want us to do. We would rather you pay for 1/3 of it because we only have to put in a two lane road but if it came down to it we would pay for the three lane road and I will be happy to answer any questions. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 38 Estes: Israel: Estes: Dr. Israel, I have a question I just have to ask you. Ok. The last time we heard from you you were boycotting the City of Fayetteville and were encouraging suppliers, builders, and other developers to boycott the City of Fayetteville. Israel: Yes Sir. Estes: What has changed? Israel: What has changed is that they have already cut down all the trees on the library lot. I never boycotted the right, the tree issue. What I boycotted was the illegitimate way in which it was administered. They would allow the cutting down of all the trees on one lot, zero trees on another lot. That is unfair, it will always be unfair, and that is what I boycotted. In fact, if you will remember, I will say this one thing and shut up. I proposed that they required everyone to plant 20% trees on even vacant lots. Estes: Church: I remember that and this is a vacant lot. I will now bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion, motions, or comments. I know we are not supposed to look at the traffic issue with the rezoning but I think they really go hand in hand. I don't think you can ignore it. I guess I would just like to say that I believe in this rezoning, I think it is appropriate for this area. I think hearing all these people talk and I drive through that area too, I know there is a traffic problem. I don't know the process, all of us have admitted that we are not experts on traffic. I just want reassurance that somebody is going to take a look at that with the city. I don't know if that has already been done. I guess I would like Tim to comment on what is going on with that right now. Conklin: Sure. The City of Fayetteville has hired a traffic consultant to do a traffic study for the City of Fayetteville. That is currently underway. With tonight's discussion I will go back and talk to the Public Works Director and see what is actually in the scope of work that is currently being worked on by staff and to make sure that this issue of traffic in these areas around Washington Regional Medical Center and Drake Street is something that is considered in that scope of work. That is currently being developed, it is in our office along with the City Engineer's office and other divisions. We definitely can have the traffic consultant take a look at these areas and these issues that the neighborhood has concerns with. Estes: Commissioner Church, that is a very saline question. One of the findings of fact that we must make is a determination as to whether the proposed zoning would Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 39 create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. That is a very appropriate question. Are there any other comments? Conklin: Just one question that I would like to ask Dr. Israel to get it correct in the record. I am not sure if a Bill of Assurance has been offered. If a Bill of Assurance has been offered, what type of Bill of Assurance are we looking at? Just to clarify that for the minutes. Israel: Again, I would like to have time with our engineers but the back part of the facility, we would definitely sign a Bill of Assurance to one level buildings. I am assuming that I am talking about if you extended the R -O across that front end up there as it exists on the map. If you go across, I think that is what we would be talking about. If you just excluded that front area there. We already have a right to do it in the R -O next door so we wouldn't have to go into the new area if we didn't want to. It is just so pretty up there that it would be a shame almost not to use that. Fayetteville is a horizontal town and it needs to be more vertical in some areas because otherwise urban sprawl becomes a real problem. I am learning these words. We do need to become more vertical. We would give a Bill of Assurance, we have one here with us tonight if you want us to sign it then we will do it right now. Conklin: The reason why I asked Dr. Israel that question is because I am always worried that the citizens are unaware or not aware of what is being offered and if that has been offered that as staff we know that has been offered and we can forward that to the City Council and the City Council will have that in their hand when they review the agenda item if this does pass this evening. I just wanted to clarify that because after the meeting, tomorrow we will get phone calls and they will want to know exactly what happened with regard to this item. It is critical that for the record if you are offering a Bill of Assurance that we understand that and that we would expect to see that as we prepare the City Council package if this passes. Israel: What is the depth that is already R -O? Clark: I think it is 330', it may not be that big. I think what you want to do is at least have one building lot off of Appleby that would be allowed to be a two or three story building. Williams: I would encourage the petitioner to take his time and work on this Bill of Assurance. As our City Planner said, it would need to be offered. If you wish to offer it to the City Council before their agenda session, but don't try to rush it and don't do something tonight when you are not prepared. You may want to talk to your neighbors again incase there are things there that you may want to cover within that Bill of Assurance. Estes: Are there any other comments? Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 40 Bunch: A question for staff. Since we only have six Commissioners here and it takes five positive votes, should this be not recommended at this level, what process does it take at that point? Conklin: They have the right to appeal. They have to appeal within ten working days after the decision of the Planning Commission. That appeal must be filed with the City Clerk's office. Bunch: It would be appealed to the City Council? Conklin: Yes, that is correct. Bunch: Another question. Does anyone on the staff or possibly Dr. Israel know the projected opening date for the new Washington Regional facility? Conklin- August 27`h Estes: Are there any other comments? Well, let me say a few things. I am very familiar with this property. Pam, I think our children together took horseback riding lessons on the property that you now live on Mr. Brown. I have often thought about what the highest and best use for Mr. Younkin's airstrip would be. Landing and take off of small, private craft is probably not it but that is what we have all seen over the years. The issue of connectivity between Appleby and Drake, I think that is important. Without it, Quail Creek is going to be one of the three ingresses and egresses to the new hospital. The other alternative is going to be Appleby to Gregg or Appleby to College. I don't know what the route of choice will be but without connectivity between Appleby and Drake through Quail Creek is going to be one of the options. Whether this should be R -O or whether this should be R-2, to me I would think the preference would be R -O. I would think the preference would certainly be R -O with this particular developer. Dr. Israel does do nice projects. I struggle with it but I tell you if a motion is made to approve this rezoning request I will vote for it for the reasons that I have tried to articulate. The options are just not that great. The options are R-2 and I just don't see that that is a viable option. Let me also speak for just a moment. Mark, you in particular spoke about traffic control devices, there are certain warrants and certain criteria for traffic control devices. Simply having what appears to be a present need for a speed bump or a stop sign is not sufficient. Perhaps Mr. Conklin can comment on that in a little more detail but there are some pretty strict warrants for traffic control devices, stop signs, speed bumps. Just because there seems to be a present or immediate need for them the City can't just simply go out there and install speed bumps or a stop sign. What is required for a traffic control device Mr. Conklin? Conklin: That is my understanding. On state highways they have their own warrants that Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 41 have to be made with regard to traffic and speed, the number of signals on a roadway and access. With regard to the City of Fayetteville's policy, that is something that our traffic consultant also will be looking at and will have in that new study some recommendations for the City of Fayetteville. With regard to the current policy, our Traffic Division does look at that those and utilizes warrants. Typically, they do not allow a stop sign to be mid block. Typically you are going to have to have two major streets intersect each other to get a stop sign in a neighborhood. It is not common to see too many stop signs put up in Fayetteville. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: I would like to make a comment. I concur with your comments Mr. Estes about the quality of the developments that Dr. Israel does. I do have some concerns since this is listed on the General Plan 2020 as residential and it is differentiated between residential and office. Also, knowing that this will go to the City Council regardless of what our recommendation is and would have a minimum of three readings at the City Council. Also, in about a month if the dates given are correct, we may see a very vivid explanation of what the traffic is like. For that reason, I will not support it. Even though I know that probably eventually we will have something there and eventually there will need to be some traffic relief in the area but at this point in time with the General Plan 2020 showing this as residential as opposed to office I will not be supporting this project at this time. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Are there any other comments or any motions? The Chair is going to call three times for a motion. Is there a motion? Motion: Allen: I will surprisingly move for approval of RZN 02-21.00 from A-1 to R -O. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to approve RZN 02-21.00, do we have a second? Ward: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Ward. Is there any further discussion? Ward: Looking at this property, I think R -O is the only way to go with this particular piece of property the way it is configured. No matter what else was put in there we would demand that connectivity between Appleby and Gregg, whether it was residential homes, which I think would be a great place to get kids killed with the traffic that is going to go through there. There is going to be a lot of traffic going through there. The office complex makes so much more sense. Usually in the evenings there is nobody around, weekends there is nobody there at office buildings. Sure, we could probably put four plexes or duplexes there but you Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 42 Estes: have got the same problem with residential and kids. This road really is going to be a place that needs to be some type of commercial that will take traffic. I like a lot of the things that Dr. Israel has proposed about putting in the extra turn lane. The walking trails, extra green space, and I think the residences on each side will have quite a bit of noise proofing because of the buildings and the landscaping from off this road so I will definitely support it. Also, I believe that once this development is put in I think it becomes almost a definite cause to get Drake extended to Gregg Street. I don't think it is going to happen until this particular development is put in. It is kind of like which comes first, the chicken or the egg? That is kind of what is going to happen here. With that, that is the reason I will second this. I really don't see this particular air strip being used for anything else but the highest and best use for this piece to be a residential office complex. Thank you Commissioner Ward. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 02-21.00 is there any further discussion? Bunch: I would make one other comment at this time. The Planning Commission and the Planning staff are working on a Planned Zoning District ordinance that would allow a rezoning request to come through simultaneously at the developer's option with a Large Scale Development plan and this seems to be one of those projects that if we had this already in place would be tailor made for it. Hopefully, in the very near future this proposed Planned Zoning District ordinance will come through but this is just for the benefit of the people who are not aware of it, there is this type of plan in affect and it would give the developers the option of proceeding as we currently do or bringing through a rezoning request and a Large Scale Development simultaneously so all the cards will be on the table and we can better understand and better define what the project and rezoning would be. Estes: Thank you 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 RZN 02-21.00 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Bunch voting no. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to one. Dr. Israel, welcome back to Fayetteville. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 43 RZN 02-22.00: Rezoning (Shackelford, pp 558) was submitted by Tom Shackelford for property located at 2975 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.5 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Estes: The next item of business is RZN 02-22.00. I will take just a moment and give the room time to clear before we take up that item of business. This rezoning request was submitted by Tom Shackelford for property located at 2975 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.5 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant present? Shackelford: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Shackelford: My name is Tom Shackelford, I am the owner of the property and I just am here to answer any questions you might have of me. Estes: Motion: Thank you Mr. Shackelford. We will take public comment and then if we have any questions we will come back to you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request 02-22.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion and questions of Mr. Shackelford or motions. Is there any discussion, or questions for Mr. Shackelford, or any motions? Bunch: I have a question. Obviously this is a rezoning request and then the subsequent lot split will come through later. Maybe I am putting the cart in front of the horse. I was looking at some elevation problems but that will be dealt with when the lot split comes through so I really don't have that much of a question. If nobody else has one I will move that we recommend to the City Council for approval RZN 02- 22.00. Estes: Ostner: Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to recommend approval of RZN 02- 22.00, is there a second? I will second. We have a motion and a second to approve RZN 02-22.00 is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-22.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 44 Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of six to zero. Thank you Mr. Shackelford. Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 45 RZN 02-18.00, 19.00, & 20.00: Rezoning (Mill District, pp 522/523) Mill District Rezoning Proposal was submitted by Shelli Rushing with the City of Fayetteville on behalf of the Mill District Neighborhood Organization for three areas located between Center Street and Prairie Street and between West Avenue and University Avenue. Area 1 is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and a small portion is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 4.40 acres. Area 2 and Area 3 are zoned I-1 Light Industrial. Area 2 contains approximately 7.50 acres and Area 3 contains approximately .49 acres. The request is to rezone Area 1 and Area 2 to R -O, Residential Office and Area 3 to C-3, Central Commercial. Estes: The next item on the agenda is a rezoning request. This is RZN 02-18.00, 19.00, and 20.00. This is the rezoning request of the Mill District Neighborhood submitted by Shelli Rushing with the City of Fayetteville. I understand that we have a presentation by Mrs. Rushing and then this item will be tabled for further consideration. Rushing: Good evening. I would like to give you just a really brief update of the Mill District project that we have been working on. This project came about from a policy that we have in General Plan 2020 which states "Identify and rezone inappropriately zoned industrial areas to more appropriate uses." In order to implement this we started a program called the neighborhood zoning study. We identified the Mill District neighborhood as the first area to take a look at primarily based on the significant portion of the area that is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial and consists predominantly of residential type uses. What we did is we conducted a meeting in March with the neighborhood residents. We contacted all of the property owners and the residents and invited them to the meeting. We talked to them about what we wanted to do and asked if they were interested. They did say that they were willing to participate in this program and help us out. Then what we did is we held another meeting in April and at that time we provided a training session on how to conduct a land use survey. After that meeting the neighborhood went out and conducted the land use survey. They brought the information back to us and we mapped it for them and this is the map over to your left, the existing land use survey. That is a survey that the residents went out and did. They took a look at the properties as they saw them, whether or not they were single-family, two-family, multi -family, office, industrial, etc. Then we came back to another meeting on May 15th and at that time we compared the existing land use survey with the existing zoning map and identified areas that they felt needed to be rezoned from something other than the I-1 zoning district. At that point we identified that area, we sent out the map with those proposed zoning areas and also sent out a survey to all of the residents and property owners asking them how they felt about this proposed area. At this point only the area was identified, we did not have a particular zone identified at that time. Unfortunately, we received very limited response on that survey. We did receive twelve surveys back. It was sort of a mixed bag of what people wanted to see in that neighborhood. It was some type of residential use but it ranged anywhere between single-family, multi -family to the residential office district. At Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 46 that time we did have another meeting in June and we revised the boundaries of the proposed rezoning area slightly based on comments that we received back from the survey. There were a few people that did not want to be part of the area and then we had a few people that decided they did want to be part of the rezoned area. What we are bringing forward to you this evening is the current proposal as was determined at the last meeting in June. We have three different areas. One is to the east of University Avenue just south of Center Street to rezone that from the I-1 district to the R -O district. There is a portion of that that is currently zoned C-1 that is also proposed to be rezoned to R -O. The second area is to the east of Gregg Avenue. Portions of this go from Center Street down to Prairie Street and this is proposed to be rezoned from I-1 to R -O. Then there is a property on Center Street. They have requested to be rezoned from I-1 to C-3. Since that meeting we worked on the current proposals we are presenting tonight, we did send out notification. We notified all the residents and property owners in the neighborhood and we sent certified mail to property owners in the proposed zoning district. We did receive all of those signed back with the exception of one. I do have one of those property owners that is against the rezoning. She would like to see single-family in this area. Also, since those notices went out we did receive comments from other people with the neighborhood organization that were concerned about the R -O district. I do want to bring that forward to you tonight because at this time there is still some concern about this particular proposal. Estes: Thank you Mrs. Rushing. Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Because there has been some concern expressed regarding what we came up with with the neighborhood, staff would like to go back to the neighborhood and have another meeting and sit down and bring something to you that has more support from the neighborhood. Once again, this is for the neighborhood. In 1995 we adopted our General Plan 2020. It talked about looking at industrial areas that really are not being used for industrial type uses. We had a neighborhood here that came out strong against a rezoning on University Avenue. We heard from that neighborhood about how this neighborhood needed to be protected and that it is residential and that the I-1, Commercial, Light Industrial zoning really doesn't reflect what is there. Over the last 32 years we have had I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial zoning in some of these areas that are still residential today. That is why we initiated the study with this neighborhood and we do want to try to bring something back to you that has neighborhood support so we would ask for it to be tabled this evening. Since we did send certified mail out we do have several people in the audience who probably do want to express their thoughts and concerns regarding this project and I hope that you would let them talk this evening. Thank you. Estes: Because the City of Fayetteville is the applicant, at the applicant's request this will be pulled from the agenda. However, because notice was given, if there is Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 47 anyone who would like to provide public comment on this issue please come forward, say your name, and provide us with the benefit of your comment The item has been pulled from the agenda. We will not be voting on the items this evening. The items will come back before your Fayetteville Planning Commission and I don't know about you but my memory is not really that good. I would like to hear your comments before I vote and I am not so sure I can remember your comments from between tonight and the time I vote. But because you were noticed and because you are here if there is anyone that wants to provide comment please come forward and do so. Pancake: My name is Colleen Pancake. I am the chair person for the Mill District neighborhood association. I am speaking tonight and I am hoping you will remember this in that my particular street, South Gregg, is unusual in that it is very narrow. It is part of the original Fayetteville neighborhood. To widen the street would destroy a lot of homes that are existing there. Perhaps 40 years from now they will not be there, and I understand the need for the city to increase density in this area because of infill I believe is the term Impact fees on developers are not as appealing or something like that. At any rate, the R -O zoning I am opposed to at this point after much consideration and discussion with neighbors because of several things. If it is all zoned R -O, there are no height restrictions unless it is abutted up against an R-1 or some kind of residential area besides R -O that property will increase in value drastically because developers are going to want to come in and take a couple of properties and build up as much as possible. That is what I do not want to see. I hope you will remember this, all of you. Estes: Ms. Pancake, I will remember you and I will remember those comments. Pancake: Ok, thank you. Estes: Is there anyone else? Cunningham: Elizabeth Cunningham, Mill District, I would like to say thank you for allowing us to table it. We will try to get together and have more of a consensus as a neighborhood and that is all. Thank you. Estes: Yes Sir? Robinson: My name is Joe Robinson. I live on University Avenue. I guess because I have a bad memory maybe we can go through a little bit of this and then maybe we can go through it again. By 1908 the city of Fayetteville had in ward 1 alone 13 additions and Putmans addition was one of them. Many of my neighbors live in it. There were others as well. One of my concerns is that there are people in my neighborhood who aren't included in any potential rezoning of this area. I understand that we are dealing right now with a rezoning from the industrial to Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 48 some more appropriate zoning. In a larger sense, the entire neighborhood has an interest in what goes on there. Some of them have not been included so some of those people may want to address that issue in terms of being included in any rezoning before we do it, that it be comprehensive to the whole neighborhood. Another issue is whether or not this neighborhood district be included in some discussion about what is happening in the urban core of this city. One of the things that concerns me is that since by 1908 there had been 13 additions in the city of Fayetteville. I did my research on it, you folks are all probably familiar with this map of 1908 Fayetteville. Estes: I have seen it Joe. Robinson: For those of you that haven't, I will just kind of unroll it this way. The city is not very big. At that point Prairie Grove Road was a dirt road. It comes into and stops at Government Avenue so it was quite different, it was a long time ago. Disregarding the county plat part of the city of Fayetteville which had already existed from its time of incorporation, the 13 additions just in ward 1 alone, the homework that I have done on it is that it includes 770 building lots. I could be off by a few. I rather painstakingly counted them so I think that I am close. 114 of them are 60' or wider, that is only 14%. 85% or 86% of the lots in this area in this part of town are around 50'. Some of them are 55' and some of them are 25'. None of the zoning in our present code accommodates 50' lots, not in residential areas anyway. Everything starts with a minimum lot size of 60'. As we enter a comprehensive discussion I would like those issues addressed too. Some of those lots are deep. Even R -S zoning, a lot of my neighbors would like to stay residential and would like it to be single-family. Some of those lots might be deep enough for R -S type zoning so that other single -families can move into that area. We also understand the need to infill. We know the infrastructure is there. We know what your needs are and we don't ignore that. We hope for there to be other solutions. The city of Fayetteville as it exists right now has over 27,000 acres, 43 square miles and the planning area includes another 28,000 acres so while the city doubles as per the U.S. Census figures in the 2020 plan between now and the year 2020 the size of the city will double too. We want you to be very careful in terms of how you treat the urban corp. We have neighborhoods there. Some of those buildings, my house is on this map. Mrs. Shoemaker's house is on this map. Anyway, we have other issues and we will bring them up but one of them is that the city doesn't have for all of us appropriate zoning for residential kind of buildings so it favors situations where people who can afford several lots build them and bulldoze houses and then they put up six-plexes, many of which are ugly. The only other statistic that I would like to tell you about tonight, and I guess I will bring it up again and again, is that in the United States of America by the 2000 census data 69% of the residential lots and buildings in the United States are owner occupied. That surprised me, I thought that was high, it is 69.6% in the state of Arkansas and 44% in Fayetteville. What we are doing in older neighborhoods that are affordable when we bulldoze them and put six Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 49 plexes up on lots that are designed for single-family homes is we are cutting out a certain portion of the population. There are of course some students, there are people that come here to go to school and go to graduate school and have families. Some of those lots are backed up by alleys and we think some more discussion needs to take place. I appreciate the opportunity to have said just what I have said this evening and that this can be discussed some more and I want to thank the City Planning staff because they have really helped us a lot. We understand some of the issues and we know that there seems to be a hurry about it. I am not in as much of a hurry as some people might be. I would like to discuss it. I think there is a bigger problem that really deserves a comprehensive discussion. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Joe. Is there anyone else that wishes to comment on the proposed rezoning? Walker: My name is Bruce Walker. I have a house at 127 S. University. All the streets that run off Center Street run off to the south here. All these little dog leg streets. Three years ago at 5:30 in the afternoon I had gone up to my house, got back in my truck and got hit head on by a car driving down University Avenue. To take that neighborhood and create a higher impact living facility in that neighborhood is as it were an accident looking for a place to happen. It happened to me at 5:30 in the afternoon. The apartment complex that is at the end of University Avenue right before you go through the railroad tracks, the zip that I see go past my house, that is where the zip is going is to that apartment complex. If we see some high rise that is a bunch of apartments it is going to be like a bunch of flies and I really do hate to see that happen. Thank you very much. Estes: Thank you Mr. Walker. Does anyone else wish to provide comment? Mr. Conklin, when do you anticipate this item will be back on the agenda or is Mrs. Rushing the appropriate person to ask? Rushing: Depending on when we can get a meeting scheduled, I would guess that it probably will not be the August 12th meeting. It will be the second meeting in August. Estes: Thank you. Conklin: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure everybody understands, this is to downzone from heavy commercial, light industrial to some type of appropriate residential use. What that is something the neighborhood will develop and we will work with them to bring something forward to the Commission and then ultimately the City Council but we have taken this opportunity to target this neighborhood. This is the first neighborhood we have looked at and it is to look at something that is heavy commercial/light industrial that allows by right multi- family as an accessory use. If someone wanted to put a mini -storage or Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 50 something like that they could put multi -family associated with that. Whatever proposal comes before you should be less intense than what the current zoning allows today. Estes: That concludes our agenda. Mr. Conklin are there any announcements? Conklin: Yes. Next Monday we have our Planning Commission working session and there is information that you should've received already on that. On Tuesday there will be a special City Council meeting. Duncan Associates will be here to make a presentation on the final impact fee study. They are looking at wastewater, water, and roads. That also includes an update of the existing park land dedication and fee in lieu requirements. James Duncan and Eric Damian Kelly will be here from Duncan Associates to do that presentation, that is on July 30th after agenda session at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council room here. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Are there any other announcements? We will stand adjourned until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Meeting adjourned:7:58 p.m.