Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 28, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED VAC 02-12.00 & 13.00 (1021 & 1022): Vacation (Houses Development, pp 484) Page 4 LSP 02-48.00 (1003): Lot Split (Washington Regional Medical Center, pp 251) Page 5 LSD 02-26.00 (1004): Large Scale Development (WRMC Medical Arts Pavilion, pp 251) Page 6 LSD 02-28.00 (1007): Large Scale Development (Cornerstone Phase 2, pp 402) Page 9 PPL 02-16.00 (1008): Preliminary Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) Page 13 RZN 02-34.00 (1016): Rezoning (Lovell, pp 396) Page 16 RZN 02-35.00 (1017): Rezoning (Habitat, Jerry Street, pp 566) Page 18 RZN 02-37.00 (1019): Rezoning (Ozark Adventure, LLC, pp 559) Page 20 RZN 02-38.00(1020): Rezoning (Ruble, pp 436) Page 26 ADM 02-35.00: Administrative Item (Town Creek Properties, pp 523) Page 27 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Approved Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover Lorel Aviles Donald Bunch Alice Church STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Matt Casey Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Shelli Rushing MEMBERSABSENT Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 3 Aviles: Good evening. I would like to welcome everybody to the October 28, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Estes being absent. Aviles: Thanks Renee. Mr. Williams? Williams: I just wanted to let the Planning Commission know that Commissioner Estes had sent us an email. He is involved in a jury trial and won't be able to make the meeting tonight and he wanted to tell you why he was not going to be able to be here. Aviles: Thank you very much. We have two items on our consent agenda tonight. I have been informed by a couple of our members that they have different recusals on different items. First of all though, we will go ahead and consider the approval of the minutes from the October 14th meeting. Do I have a motion for that? Shackelford: So moved. Ward: Second. Aviles: I have a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the minutes were approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 4 VAC 02-12.00 & 13.00 (1021 & 1022): Vacation (Houses Development, pp 484) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development Co. for property located at the southwest corner of Watson Street and St. Charles Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is to vacate two utility easements. Aviles: Thanks Renee. We are going to go ahead and hear the consent items separately. The first item on the consent agenda is VAC 02-12.00 and 13.00, which is a Vacation for Houses Development. Is there any member of the public that would wish to remove this from our consent agenda or the Planning Commission? Shackelford: Aviles: Roll Call: Aviles: Madam Chair, l will recuse from this vote but l have no problem with it. Ok, thanks Commissioner. Renee, would you call the roll please on item one? Upon completion of roll call the first consent item was approved by a vote of 7- 0-1 with Commissioner Shackelford recusing. Thanks Renee. That item is approved. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 5 LSP 02-48.00 (1003): Lot Split (Washington Regional Medical Center, pp 251) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of USlnfrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -O, Residential Office containing 52.03 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 50.44 acres and 1.59 acres. Aviles: The second item is LSP 02-48.00, which is a Lot Split for Washington Regional Medical Center. Does any member of the public wish to remove or discuss this item or the Planning Commission? Hoover: Madam Chair, I will need to recuse from this item. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the second item on the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Hoover recusing. Aviles: Thanks Renee. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 6 LSD 02-26.00 (1004): Large Scale Development (WRMC Medical Arts Pavilion, pp 251) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -O, Residential Office containing 52.03 acres with a 30,800 sq.ft. building proposed. Aviles: Under new business, our third item is LSD 02-26.00, which is a Large Scale Development. It was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -O, Residential Office containing 52.03 acres with a 30,800 sq.ft. building proposed. Hoover: Madam Chair, I will need to recuse from LSD 02-26.00. Aviles: Thank you very much. There are nine conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: No. Aviles: Ok. Sara, would you like to give the staff report before I read those conditions? Edwards: Yes. The proposal is for a medical office building on the existing Washington Regional Hospital site, which is located between Futrall and Appleby on North Hills Blvd. There are 55 parking spaces that are being removed with this addition and 200 parking spaces that are being added. That meets the ordinance requirements. The proposal is to comply with the Washington Regional Hospital tree preservation plan as previously approved. There will be an assessment for a new traffic signal at Appleby and Gregg. Staff is recommending an assessment of $1,259.00, that is on page 3.4 of your packet. Elevations have been provided. Materials will match the existing hospital. They are requesting two waivers. First, a tree lawn is being removed which serves as the interior landscaping for the existing parking lot, rather than remove parking for large islands, they are requesting to replace these trees in other areas on the site. Second, Planning Commission determination of a waiver requesting that the required shrubs in the 25' landscaped area along Futrall be waived. In place of the required shrubs the applicant is proposing to install trees 20' apart in place of the 30' apart required by ordinance. Staff is in support of both of those waivers. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. I will go ahead and read over the conditions of approval and then we will take public comment. 1) Planning Commission determination of a contribution for a traffic signal. Washington Regional Hospital was required to contribute to the traffic signal Futrall and Gregg based upon the square footage. In accordance with that requirement, Staff is Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 7 recommending an assessment of $1,259.00. See attached memo. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance of Commercial Design Standards. The proposal is to match the materials on the existing hospital. 3) A floodplain development permit is required prior to any work being done within the 100 year floodplain. 4) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of interior parking lot landscaping requirements. As part of the construction of the Medical Office Building a tree lawn is being removed which serves as the interior landscaping for the existing parking lot. The request is to replace these trees in other areas on the site. 5) Planning Commission determination of a waiver requesting that the required shrubs in the 25 foot landscaped area along Futrall be waived. In place of the required shrubs the applicant is proposing to install trees 20 feet apart in place of the 30 feet apart required by ordinance. See attached request from applicant and memo from Landscape Administrator. 6) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 7) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with Citys current requirements. 8) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 9) 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 r3uarantees 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; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Is the applicant present? Nierengarten: My name is Peter Nierengarten. I am an Engineer with US Infrastructure. Just to tell you a little bit about the building, as you can see, these are the different views of it. What the architect has tried to do is keep a facade and everything that is consistent with the way the hospital looks right now. I am not the architect so I can't answer specific questions about the design that is going on here but they are trying to stick with the same general concept so it will match the existing hospital and not overshadow or overtake the hospital as well. Just looking at the site itself, these are two different blow up views of the area. This is of course the existing hospital right here where the building will sit. As you can see, we are losing this interior parking right in this area to the building and because of that we are proposing to add a large parking lot on the site, which is on the north property of the site, near Futrall Avenue. As Sara mentioned, we are losing approximately 55 parking spaces here and adding nearly 200 down Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 8 here to alleviate any parking problems that we added because of this building and anything in the future that we might have. I would be glad to answer any specific questions that you might have about the project itself. Aviles: Thank you. I think we will take public comment first and then we will go ahead and bring it back to you and the Commission for discussion. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this medical office building? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the Commissioners and to the applicants. MOTION: Ward: Some of the things that we are supposed to look at would be of course commercial design standards. Since we have already approved the Washington Regional Hospital and it looks like they are using the same materials, same design, very similar construction with a lot of glass and a lot of brick. Also, I think we have two waivers here that we have to grant. Grant a waiver for the landscaping for the interior parking lot and also grant a waiver, item number five, which is trees in lieu of the shrubs. I would like to go ahead. I feel like this is a very good project. It is on hospital land, they have a 31,000 sq.ft. building it looks like. I can't see any reason we shouldn't approve this so I will go ahead and make a motion to approve LSD 02-26.00 for the Medical Arts Pavilion granting those two waivers. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Bunch: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Shackelford: One quick question of the applicant, it was mentioned earlier that we don't have signed conditions of approval. Are there any conditions of approval that you take issue with? Nierengarten: No there are not. Shackelford: Thank you. Aviles: Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-26.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Hoover abstaining. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 9 LSD 02-28.00 (1007): Large Scale Development (Cornerstone Phase 2, pp 402) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned RMF - 12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 11.94 acres with 108 units proposed. Aviles: The next item on our agenda is LSD 02-28.00, which is a Large Scale Development for Cornerstone Phase II. It was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 11.94 acres with 108 units proposed. There are nine conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: Thank you. Would you like to give us the staff report before we hear from the applicant and the public? Edwards: Yes. This is an expansion of the existing Cornerstone Apartments behind Hanks on Futrall. The proposal is for nine apartment buildings with 180 bedrooms and 180 parking spaces. The proposal is also for a private drive that will connect the existing Cornerstone Apartments with these new apaituients. The zoning is RMF -12 and is subject to a Bill of Assurance. They are dedicating right of way along for Porter, 35' from centerline. They are proposing improvements 14' from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drainage. Currently there is 40.99% of the site in existing canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 23.4%. The requirement in a RMF -12 zone is 20%. We are recommending approval. There were a couple of issues at agenda session that I have information on. They are requesting that the landscaping requirement between the driveway and public street be decreased to allow the parking lot to touch the sidewalk. Staff is working with the applicant with a possible redesign to accommodate more green space with some new planting. You should have a new plan that I handed out earlier. The other issue is the sidewalk. They have agreed to build a 6' sidewalk along Lawson and decrease the green space to 5'. Aviles: Thank you very much. I am going to go ahead and read the conditions of approval. 1) All utility equipment will need to be elevated 2' above the BFE. A Floodplain Development Permit is required prior to any development in the floodplain. All dumpsters need to be at or above the BFE. 2) Building permits may be issued for this development prior to final plat approval of Cornerstone Subdivision. However, no certificates of occupancy, temporary or otherwise for the apartments may be issued until the final plat is filed. This is required because access is being provided via Lawson Street, which will not be accepted Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 10 until the final plat for Cornerstone Subdivision is filed. Permits will not be issued for property within the associated subdivision until the final plat is filed. 3) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of the 15 foot landscaping requirement along public streets. The applicant is requesting to that this be decreased to allow the parking lot to touch the sidewalk. Staff is working with the applicant with a possible redesign to accommodate more green space. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $40,500 (108@ $375). 7) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk along with a minimum 10' green space along Porter Rd. and a six foot sidewalk with a minimum 6' green space along Lawson St. 7) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 8) 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; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Thanks. Is the applicant present? Gilbert: Yes. Aviles: What is your name? Gilbert: I am David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. Aviles: Do you have a presentation or would you like to answer questions later? Gilbert: I don't really have a formal presentation. I believe you are familiar with Mr. Lindsey's type of projects and the type of thing that is involved there. This really is an expansion to the existing Cornerstone Apartments, and that is the reason for the connecting drive so these can work together. The site is constrained by a fairly large amount of floodway, which is an extremely difficult thing to fill into and better off left alone. That is the reason for some of the constraints on the site. Mr. Lindsey has met with the Neighborhood Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 11 Association and the President of the Association is here tonight and prepared to speak to you if you like. We have taken into account everything in the Bill of Assurance. We believe this will be a pretty good project for this area and we hope for your approval. Aviles: Ok, thank you. We appreciate that. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us? Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard, 1717 Sang Avenue. I am here on behalf of the Asbell Neighborhood Association. As Mr. Gilbert said, Mr. Lindsey met with us I guess it was last February to share with us their proposal of what they wanted to do with this property and certainly overwhelmingly for various reasons the neighborhood approved it just by about 80%. We had quite a turn out at that I think more to the point for us, for a neighborhood issue, is that they have kept us abreast of this development every step of the way unlike our experience in the past where we would approve the zoning and never hear from them again. We really appreciate both Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Jorgensen keeping us informed. This has not quite been a partnership but it has certainly been a great cooperation and I hope more developments proceed this way. Our two main concerns were traffic and drainage. If those two issues can be met then we are absolutely fine with this development. Certainly the Vice President of our association, Jim DeVore, and I looked at what you have before you and it certainly looked good to us and I would encourage you to go ahead and approve this. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address us? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission. MOTION: Ward: Since this is Phase II of Cornerstone and especially since the developer has done a very good job of getting with the neighborhood, I feel like it is a very feasible project. With that, I will move for approval of LSD 02-28.00 for this Large Scale Development and also that we do grant the waiver for the 6' sidewalk with the 5' green space along Lawson Street since all parties have agreed to that. Is that the only waiver we are asking for? I believe that is it, that is my motion. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any additional discussion? I would just like to weigh in on the sidewalk issue. Normally I am not in favor of Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 12 reducing the green space adjacent to a street but I feel like you do have some constraints due to the large amount of floodplain on the property so I will be voting in favor of that too. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-28.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 13 PPL 02-16.00 (1008): Preliminary Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 15.34 acres with 10 lots proposed. Aviles: The next item on our agenda of course is the companion item, which is the Preliminary Plat for Cornerstone Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 15.34 acres with 10 lots proposed. Sara, would you like to give us a staff report? Edwards: This will be the site of the proposed Cornerstone Apartments. They are proposing ten lots, one lot is the apartment site and the other lots are for the single-family part of the subdivision. There will be nine buildable single family home lots and one for detention and apartments. As we talked about earlier, they are proposing to construct Lawson Street and do improvements to Porter. We do have signed conditions of approval. That is all I have. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. I will go ahead and read those conditions. 1) All FEMA requirements and the City of Fayetteville Flood Damage Protection Ordinance must be met prior to final plat approval. This includes all lots having 6000 square feet outside of the floodplain which will require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR-F) approved by FEMA. The LOMR-F will need to be approved by FEMA prior to the final plat being filed. 2) No permits will be issued on lots 1-9 prior to final plat approval. 3) Planning Commission determination of required improvements to Porter Road. The applicant proposes to widen the west side of Porter Road to 14 feet from center line including curb and gutter and storm drainage along the east side of the property. Staff is in support of this proposal. 4) Installation of a six foot tall fence or privet hedge along the north property line prior to Final Plat approval. This is not required by the City of Fayetteville, but was offered by the applicant in a Bill of Assurance after working with adjacent neighbors. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 7) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $4,230 (9 lots @ $470). 8) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk along with a minimum 10' green space along Porter Rd. and a six foot sidewalk with a Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 14 minimum 6' green space along Lawson St. The applicant proposed a 4' sidewalk along Lawson but we met and concluded that that will be 5'. 9) 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. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Would you like to make a presentation or answer questions later? Gilbert: Thank you Madam Chair. This is the companion item to the LSD which you just approved. The purpose of providing the nine single-family lots along the northern boundary of the property is to offer some buffer to the existing single- family homes along Megan Drive. Those people basically when they bought their houses were living up against an old farm place and so Mr. Lindsey's intent is to have them abutting residential single-family homes rather than the multi -family. Again, lot 10 will be used for construction of the apartments should you approve the plat and all the other items are pretty much the same as what we have just discussed. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. Is there any public comment? Conklin: Just to clarify, the parks fees, the amount in the staff report are for the nine single-family lots. The parks fees, the $40,000 on lot 10 was for the Large Scale Development. Staff did ask that they bring both the Preliminary Plat and Large Scale Development concurrently together. I wanted to make sure that if we did have a buffer that you did have a street built that would subdivide lots for single-family homes to the north so that is why you are seeing the Large Scale and Preliminary Plat together. Thank you. Aviles: Thanks Tim. I think it makes good sense to do that so we can see the whole picture at once. We appreciate it. Commissioners, any discussion? MOTION: Ward: Madam Chair, since this is a companion to the Large Scale I will move that we approve PPL 02-16.00 for Cornerstone Subdivision with all nine conditions. Is there a waiver in this one? Shackelford: Item four. Ward: That's not a waiver, that is a condition since we put all nine conditions in that becomes part of it. I think this is a very good idea putting the nine single-family homes as a buffer. That is a nice concept of doing it against all the apartment Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 15 complexes. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: Commissioner Shackelford gets the second. Is there any further discussion? Allen: Madam Chair, I would just like to just give kudos to the applicant for working so carefully and closely with the neighborhood association. I think as this happens more and more in our city it results in us all becoming good neighbors with one another. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner, I will second that thought. I really do appreciate it too. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-16.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 16 RZN 02-34.00 (1016): Rezoning (Lovell, pp 396) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Roy & Stephanie Lovell for property located at 6310 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.80 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Aviles: Item six on our agenda is RZN 02-34.00, which is a rezoning request submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Roy & Stephanie Lovell for property located at 6310 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.80 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Hi Shelli, would you like to give us the staff report on this? Rushing: I sure will. This subject property is located north of Wedington Drive. It is between 59th Avenue and Double Springs Road. There is a single-family house that sits on approximately 2.80 acres. The adjacent properties are primarily large lot single-family residential. There is vacant agricultural land across the street. The applicant is proposing to split the lot and build an additional single- family house. The current zoning classification of A-1, Agricultural has a minimum lot requirement of two acres. Under the zoning classification, the applicant would not be able to split the lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential. The R-2, Medium Density Residential district does have a minimum lot requirement of 6,000 sq.ft. which would allow them to split that lot. The General Plan does designate this area as residential. However, the R-2, Medium Density zoning district is not compatible with the existing density in that area. It would allow density of up to 24 families per acre. On this particular property it would be 13 lots or 67 families on this 2.8 acre lot. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of this request primarily because the resulting density is inconsistent with the existing land uses, which are predominantly large lot single-family residential. Also, we find that the R-2 district is not necessary for what the applicant is proposing. They would be able to split the lot, build the additional lot with an R-1 zoning. Therefore, we are recommending denial of the R-2 but are recommending approval of an R-1. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much Shelli. Is the applicant present? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland and Company. I did speak with Mr. Lovell today and his intention is to build one additional single-family so he is agreeable to the rezoning to R-1 and would be acceptable to that. Aviles: Thank you very much. Shackelford: Just for public record, Stephanie Lovell, who is an applicant, is an employee of Arvest Bank as am I, we don't work directly together, we are in different locations. I was not intending to recuse. I visited with Kit Williams and it was Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 17 not recommended that I recuse but I did want to make that part of the public record and will recuse if any Planning Commissioner feels I should. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner, I don't feel that is necessary from my perspective. Is there anybody else? I will go ahead and take public comment. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it to the Commission and the applicant for discussion and motions. Bunch: Do we need to deny the R-2 zoning and then make a motion for R-1 or can we go straight forward with an R-1? Aviles: I think we can just go with the R-1. I believe we have done that in the past. Mr. Williams, is that acceptable? Williams: I see Tim nodding his head over there. I think you can go directly to make a recommendation to the City Council that they rezone this to R-1. MOTION: Bunch: Seeing that the applicant is with the understanding that R-1 is what is necessary to accomplish the job at hand and also that it would give the type densities that staff is recommending. I will move that we forward RZN 02-34.00 to the City Council with our approval. Aviles: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, do I hear a second? Hoover: I will second. Williams: That was to R-1? Bunch: Yes, we are recommending R-1 to the City Council. Aviles: Is there further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-34.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thank you Renee, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you gentlemen. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 18 RZN 02-35.00 (1017): Rezoning (Habitat, Jerry Street, pp 566) was submitted by Patsy Brewer on behalf of Habitat for Humanity for property located at 1075 & 1093 S. Jerry Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.35 acres. The request is to rezone to R -S, Residential Small Lot. Aviles: Item seven on our agenda is another rezoning, which is RZN 02-35.00. It was submitted by Patsy Brewer on behalf of Habitat for Humanity for property located at 1075 & 1093 S. Jerry Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.35 acres. The request is to rezone to R -S, Residential Small Lot. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located on the northwest corner of Jerry Avenue and Helen Street. It is south of Huntsville Road. Currently it is vacant. The neighborhood is characterized by one and two family structures. The average lot size in the neighborhood is approximately .30 acres. The applicant is proposing to split the lot and build two single-family structures. Under the current zoning district of R-1 the minimum lot area is 8,000 sq.ft. and the current lot area is 15,246 sq.ft. Therefore, they would not be able to split the lot under the current zoning district. They are requesting to rezone the property from R-1, Low Density Residential to RS, Residential Small Lot. The RS district allows a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq.ft., which would permit them to split the lot and build the two single-family structures. The land use plan, General Plan 2020 does designate this site as residential. It is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. We don't find that this rezoning would increase traffic or significantly increase the population. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the requested rezoning. We find that the land use does remain single-family. Although the to size will be smaller than what is in the area, the density is still the same as what is in the area. The property to the north and south and southwest are duplexes on .30 acre lots so the density would remain the same. Aviles: Thank you Shelli. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this? Orton: I am Marion Orton, 1641 Halsell. Patsy Brewer is out of town so she has asked me to come and represent Habitat. I am on the Site Search Committee. It is difficult to find not only property that is level and that we can afford so that the price of the houses are not run up because of the expensive lots. Habitat builds small houses. This is like 1,100 square feet. Because of the small houses, we feel that this would not detract at all from the neighborhood and we would appreciate your approving it so that two more families may have houses that they can afford. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would wish to address us on this rezoning? I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for further discussion. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 19 MOTION: Shackelford: Obviously Habitat For Humanity is a very noble cause. Based on the fact that staff is recommending this and that the land will remain single-family and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses. I will make a motion that we approve RZN 02-35.00. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, do I hear a second? Ostner: I will second. Aviles: Commissioner Ostner has the second. This is a recommendation to City Council. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-35.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 20 RZN 02-37.00 (1019): Rezoning (Ozark Adventure, LLC, pp 559) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Ozark Adventure for property located east of Futrall Drive, west of Baldwin Piano, and south of Hollywood Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 17.70 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Aviles: Eighth on our agenda this evening is RZN 02-37.00, a rezoning for Ozark Adventure. It was submitted by the Milholland Company on behalf of Ozark Adventure for property located east of Futrall Drive, west of Baldwin Piano, and south of Hollywood Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 17.70 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Shelli, would you like to go over the staff report? Rushing: Yes. The property is currently vacant. It is on the east side of I-540. It is surrounded by a mixture of land uses. There is some single-family residential to the north, Industrial to the east and Commercial to the west. Portions of the property do lie within the 100 year and 500 year floodplain there along the western and southern portions of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a water park at this location. The water park falls under Use Unit 20, which is Commercial Recreation Large Site. Under the current zoning classification, which is R -O, Residential Office, that Use Unit is not permitted. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R -O to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The C-2 District does permit Use Unit 20, which would allow for the proposed water park. Just a couple of related issues, on September 17th of this year the City Council did amend the Master Street Plan to relocate the future extension of Hollywood Avenue. Hollywood Avenue was supposed to extend south to 18th Street and is now relocated and will extend to the west to connect with Best Way Street. The applicant plans to construct Best Way Street to Hollywood Avenue at the time of Large Scale Development. Staff is recommending approval of this request to rezone from R -O to C-2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use plan and meets the goals and objectives of the land use plan and seems to be an appropriate location for C-2. I do want to point out just a couple of items in relation to our General Plan 2020. We have a couple of sections of the plan in regard to regional commercial areas. We have a policy that states "It is equally vital to maintain quality of life in Fayetteville that regional attractions are sited to minimize negative impacts on neighborhoods and the city's transportation network and we find that the proposed location of the water park is with its adjacency to I- 540 would limit the amount of internal traffic circulation for this use. Also, guiding policy 9.9(b) from the land use plan states "To encourage continuing improvements and expansion of regional shopping and entertainment attractions." This rezoning would permit the expansion of those entertainment attractions. Finally, the description of Use Unit 20 in the zoning ordinance states that "These types of uses should be developed on large sites in Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 21 undeveloped outlying parts of the city." We find that this location is a large vacant site and it is located on the western perimeter of the city. Aviles: Ok, thank you Shelli. Is the applicant present? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company representing Ozark Ventures. We concur with the rezoning to C-2. Use Unit 20 development, I think is appropriate and I recognize all of the comments that Shelli has made for future planning of this site. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Jefcoat. Does any member of the public wish to address us regarding this proposed rezoning? PUBLIC COMMENT: Vick: Good afternoon, I am Al Vick, a Fayetteville resident. I am a bit concerned about this and I would like to put a different spin. For me, and for some of the people that I have been talking to, this thing is happening very, very quickly. It was just last week that there was a front page article in the paper about this. At this point not everybody that I've talked to has even really figured out where this thing is. I am not even sure that I have yet. According to what the paper said, they are looking to be attracting up to 170,000 visitors for the first year. Now, I want to know what this is going to do to traffic in this area because if we consider, let's break this down, let's say that everybody comes and travels to visit this in a vehicle, four people to a family in a vehicle just on an average, these parks are not going to be open December, January, and February. It is probably only going to be open during the four warmest months of the year, mid-May through mid-September or something like that. If we have a conservative figure and say only 160,000 would be coming and the vehicles that I just described, we are talking about 40,000 vehicles coming to this town. Ok, we already have major traffic problems. People are already moaning and groaning because of the traffic that we have. We have neighborhood associations and people in areas like the historic district who are concerned about the widening of Hwy. 45 and Mission Blvd. going into their neighborhood. Well, when we have so many people coming to the east it is almost a certainty that these roads would have to be widened and traffic is going to flow into this. I am not saying whether this is a good idea or not. What I am proposing is that we slow down on this a little bit because so far the only thing that people have seen or heard about is strictly the propaganda. Nobody has talked about the traffic, nobody has talked about the impact on people's communities and people's neighborhoods that this could potentially have. It is being run through. We only just started hearing about it and it is being run through very, very quickly. What I want to propose is that we slow down on this before they go and buy the land and do all of these things and turn around and say "Wow, we already spent millions of dollars. Now you better approve Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 22 this or else we are going to turn around and sue you, the City of Fayetteville." We need to slow it down. Let everyone in the community understand what type of an impact it could potentially have on the City of Fayetteville and then take it from there. If everybody wants to go ahead and have this as an amusement, fine. Please, let's not just run on a lot of propaganda without thinking it through. Thank you. Aviles: Thanks Mr. Vick. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission on this rezoning? Ok, seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commissioners and the applicant for further discussion. Conklin: You may recall that a couple of meetings ago we did amend our Master Street Plan in order to avoid crossing the creek and causing possible channelization to bridge that creek. The amendment did bring that street for Hollywood back over to Best Way Street, which was constructed as part of the Best Western motel. The applicant is aware that during the development process they will be required to make those street improvements and that connection over to Futrall. With regard to the intersection of Hollywood and Sixth Street, the City of Fayetteville has been working on for a few years now, a capital improvements project to realign that intersection and put a traffic signal there. That is something that the city is working on at this time. I just wanted to bring that up because it is something that city staff has informed the applicant of with regard to traffic and intersection improvements that will be coordinated and made at the intersection of Hollywood and Sixth. Thank you. Aviles: Tim, just to answer some specific questions about the traffic volume we do have on Page 8.9 of our packet the average weekday and weekend trip general calculations. Could you go over that for us for our benefit and for those that are here and watching on TV? Conklin: Sure. We used what is called the I.T.E. trip generation software. It is based on studies that they have done in other parts of the country on these type of uses for an amusement park. They are looking at a driveway volume for a 24 hour period of about 1,341 vehicles. I would like to add talking with the developers of this park, their idea is to also attract people that are coming to Fayetteville and staying in the existing motels in Fayetteville. If there is some type of activity going on in town and they are staying in one of the motels in this area, this is some activity that they may go to. I think when you look at the traffic generation rates I don't think it is going to be 100% new traffic being generated to this site. This type of use will also pick up the traffic that is already in the area for different activities and events that are taking place in Fayetteville. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Did you want to respond to any of these questions? Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 23 Jefcoat: Conklin: Aviles: Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: MOTION: Ward: Nothing other than to add to what Tim has said. This is a dual destination use attraction as the developer sees it and as the studies that have been prepared show. The additional internal traffic being located right next to I-540 is access in and on and off of I-540. The additional traffic load on other streets would have a second destination in mind so it would not be just use of the water park. The average weekday two way volume, the Saturday two way volume is 33,190 vehicles so it does increase on the weekends from your average weekday volume. Once again, those streets are shown as collector streets on our Master Street Plan recently amended, including Futrall Avenue as a major intersection of I-540 and Sixth Street. Thank you. Thank you very much. Tim, I know in past traffic studies that we have seen Sixth Street and I-540 has been one of the higher traffic count areas. Do you have any idea what the current traffic count at that corner is? I don't have those numbers. It would be somewhat of a guess. Those intersections up and down the corridor are experiencing more and more traffic. Sixth Street is a five lane street in this location on both sides and the intersections were recently redone with regard to the off ramps to the north. I think we just recently dealt with that issue on another rezoning. The Highway Department made improvements to help move traffic through this area. My recollection is that there were several thousand cars that passed this comer on a given day. The point that I am trying to make, I would like to know, we are talking about increasing 1,340 cars a day, I would like to know as a percentage increase of what current traffic is. I don't think that is going to be a tremendous percentage increase over the traffic number that is already there. I think you are probably looking at around 20,000 vehicles a day possibly. Ok, thank you. You are talking about less than a 5% increase in current traffic a day. On that same part of traffic that has been pointed out, most of the traffic would be there and the park would be used during the summer time when we have 10,000 or 12,000 students less in town because of Summer and that would of course be the biggest time it is going to be used. I think this is a fantastic project that is going to be the development or redevelopment of the southwest part of Fayetteville, which is very dearly needed. We have gone out of our way most of the time to try to get anything down in our south part of town so I think Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 24 Aviles: Shackelford: Aviles: Church: Aviles: Bunch: Conklin: this is a fantastic project and a great idea for our city. With that, I am going to make a motion that we approve RZN 02-37.00 for the rezoning for Ozark Adventure for this 17.7 acres to C-2. I have a motion by Commissioner Ward. I will second. I would like to concur that I have given a lot of thought to the traffic count in this area as well. I view this as an area where we have made strides to handle the traffic. We have gone to one way provisions on the access roads off of I-540. Obviously, we have had to put infrastructure in place to handle 75,000 people in this corridor for football games on Saturday afternoons as well. I think that as Commissioner Ward has said, this is going to be a great benefit to the city and I think that this is the perfect location for it based specifically on the infrastructure that we have already put in place. Thanks Commissioner. Just one more comment too, I think that 170,000 number is a very manageable number. I deal with traffic numbers at Northwest Arkansas Mall and our numbers are in the millions every year so 170,000 doesn't sound like something that is not manageable. I think it is very manageable. I think this is a great project for our area and I would be in support of that. I think to address the concerns of the public about the speediness by which this is going or not going, it is going through the same process that any other development would go through. A rezoning first here and then the City Council and then a Large Scale Development. Particularly at the Large Scale Development time, I think Tim has already made the applicant aware that requirements of the Master Street Plan are going to require significant contributions to our streets to improving our infrastructure and so on and so I am not too concerned about the speediness by which this is going. I think there will be plenty of avenue for public comment as it go through the city process. Thank you. A question for staff in a little different vein. Since this is in close proximity to the I-540, there is a good percentage of it that is within the Overlay District. What limitations will that place? I know we don't have a drawing in front of us and a site plan but I would assume that on water parks it may be difficult to satisfy our green space requirements. I just wondered if maybe staff or Mr. Jefcoat could give us a little information on that before this proceeds through the process. They are aware of the Overlay District requirements and we have talked to them about restrictions with regard to the type of sign they can have and they are also aware of the open space requirements and they plan on complying with our Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 25 Overlay District standards. I have no indication that they will not be complying with those standards. Bunch: Thank you. Aviles: Thanks Tim, is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-37.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0 Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously Thank you Gentlemen. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 26 RZN 02-38.00(1020): Rezoning (Ruble, pp 436) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Aviles: Ninth on our agenda this evening is RZN 02-38.00 which was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Avenue. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located south of Wedington Drive. It is on the west side of 54`h Avenue. There is a single family structure that sits on approximately 2.12 acres. It is surrounded by primarily single-family residential, large lot and agricultural uses. This property was annexed in November of 1982. It was annexed in as A-1. I do want to point out that many of the rezonings in the immediate area have been from A-1, Agricultural to R-1 Single -Family Residential. There are five listed in the staff report. The applicant again is proposing to split the lot and build a single-family structure. The A-1 district of course the minimum lot area of two acres. With the property being less than four acres they would not be able to split the property so they are requesting to rezone the property from A-1 to R-1, which would allow them to split their property. We are recommending approval of this rezoning. We find that it is compliant with the Future Land Use Plan, which designates this area as residential. It is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with many of the rezoning requests in the immediate area. Aviles: Thank you Shelli. Is the applicant present? I will go ahead and take public comment. Is there anybody here that would wish to address the Commission on this rezoning request? Ok, I will close public discussion and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on the fact that this is in line with adjoining property and staff recommendations, I will make a motion that we recommend RZN 02-38.00 to R-1 to the City Council. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner. I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and just to break things up, I will second it. I notice that the applicant is not present but we did discuss this at length at agenda session and I personally feel quite comfortable with the recommendation. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-38.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 27 ADM 02-35.00: Administrative Item (Town Creek Properties, pp 523) was submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of Town Creek Properties for property located at 545 W. Center. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The requirement is for a 24' driveway. The request is for a 20' driveway. Aviles: The final item on our agenda tonight is ADM 02-35.00, which is an administrative item submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of Town Creek Properties for property located at 545 W. Center. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The requirement is for a 24' driveway. The request is for a 20' driveway. Tim, could you enlighten us? Conklin: Sure. This is an administrative item. We brought this to you on behalf of the applicant's request for a 20' driveway. Since agenda session staff has met out at the site with our Fire Department. They are in agreement that a 20' drive is acceptable for access back around the building into the parking lot. We are recommending approval of this administrative request. Condition one that will be placed on this is that the drive aisle shall be identified as a fire lane with curbs painted red at the time of development. 2) Fire Department review of the building permit prior to development of this site. The City of Fayetteville has been working with the applicant on acquiring additional railroad right of way. That is on this site and adjacent to the building on the east side. This is part of our Center Prairie Trail. In order to obtain additional right of way to make that trail connection it will reduce the ability for them to put a 24' drive in. Therefore, that is why they are asking for the 20' drive. This railroad right of way, which is part of this actual site with the 2,400 sq.ft. building does connect with the trail that does go down to Prairie Street. Also, if you do recall the Mill District, as a condition of their approval they actually built the remainder of the trail down to Sixth Street. This would be the extension of that trail. Staff has been working on this project. They did ask that we bring this to the Planning Commission at this time. They wanted something in writing and this was the best place I could give them that type of approval for the 20' drive aisle is at the Planning Commission so that is why they are before you. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you Tim. Laura, would you like to make a presentation? Kelly: I think all I really want to say is that the owner of this property bought it for the sole reason of donating the land for the trail connection to Center Street because the previous owner was afraid that donating a portion for the trail would make it unbuildable, they couldn't put a parking lot in the back. There is not a parking lot in the back now, there is no driveway now and there may never be, but, this is a guarantee to the owner that when he gives this piece to the city the trail can connect through next to his property and he can still reach the back of his property. I walk this trail, ride this trail almost every day now and it is so beautiful and I want this to happen really soon. Thank you. Planning Commission October 28, 2002 Page 28 Aviles: Thanks Laura. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this administrative item? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for discussion or motions. Hoover: I would like to make the motion to approve ADM 02-35.00. Aviles: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Hoover. Bunch: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-35.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Laura, enjoy your rides. Seeing no further business before the Commission, we will be adjourned. Thank you. Meeting Adjourned: 6:31 p.m.