Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 13, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-1.00: Vacation (AMC Land, pp 562) Forwarded to City Council Page 3 CCP 02-2.00: Concurrent Plat (Sparks, pp 572) Approved Page 5 CUP 03-1.00: Conditional Use (Habitat For Humanity, 13th Street, pp 563) Page 7 LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) Page 15 PPL 02-15.10: Preliminary Plat (Crystal Springs Phase III, pp 246) Page 30 Approved Tabled Approved RZN 03-1.00: Rezoning (McClinton, pp 484) Forwarded to City Council Page 32 RZN 03-2.00: Rezoning (Foster, pp 60) Forwarded to City Council Page 36 RZN 03-3.00: Rezoning (Foster, pp 60) Forwarded to City Council Page 39 ANX 03-1.00: Annexation (Brandon/Anderson, pp 61/100)Forwarded to City Council Page 41 RZN 03-4.00: Rezoning (Brandon/Anderson, pp 61/100) Forwarded to City Council Page 46 Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Lorel Aviles Bob Estes Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Alan Ostner Alice Church Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin, City Planner Dawn Warrick, Senior Planner Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner Sara Edwards, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer Renee Thomas, Senior Secretary Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 3 Aviles: Welcome to the January 13, 2003 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call all nine commissioners were present. Aviles: Thank you Renee. The first item of business would be the approval of the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting which was held on December 9`h. Do I have a motion for approval of the minutes? Ward: Aviles: So moved. There is a motion by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Shackelford: Second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. VAC 03-1.00: Vacation (AMC Land, pp 562) was submitted by Kim Scott of Mountain Mechanical Contractors on behalf of Gary Harvey of AMC Land Associates and Mountain Mechanical Contractors for property located west of South School Avenue on 9th Street. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to vacate 9th Street west of S. School and north of Block 17 and south of Block 16 in the Ferguson's Addition. Aviles: Thanks Renee. We have ten items on our agenda this evening. The first item is the only item which is on the consent agenda. It is VAC 03-1.00 which was submitted of Kim Scott of Mountain Mechanical Contractors on behalf of Gary Harvey of AMC Land Associates and Mountain Mechanical Contractors for property located west of S. School Avenue on 9`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately .32 acres. The request is to vacate 9th Street west of S. School and north of Block 17 and south of Block 16 in the Ferguson's Addition. Is there any member of the Commission that would like to remove this from the consent agenda? Is there any member of the audience that would like to speak to us on this item this evening? Seeing none, I will go ahead and entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Shackelford: Ward: I will make a motion that we approve the consent agenda. Second. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 4 Aviles: Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 5 CCP 02-2.00: Concurrent Plat (Sparks, pp 572) was submitted by Daniel Sparks for property located at 6290 Danita Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.94 acres with two lots proposed (0.47 acres and 0.47 acres). Aviles: Under new business our second item is CCP 02-2.00 which is a Concurrent Plat submitted by Daniel Sparks for property located at 6290 Danita Street. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately .94 acres. This request is to split into two tracts of .47 and .47 acres. There are six conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: No we do not. Aviles: Thanks. Would you like to give us the staff report on this item? Edwards: Yes. The proposal is for two tracts of .47 acres. Surrounding zoning is A-1 to the north and R-1 to the south and west. The east is in the county. They do have water running south of the site and sewer has been extended to this site for this lot. There are a couple of assessments. We are recommending an assessment for a fire hydrant in the amount of $257.14 and then Parks fees in the amount of $470. Aviles: Thank you Sara. Is the applicant here? Would you come forward and give us your name and do you have a presentation for us? Sparks: No, I am Perry Anne Sparks and I am Daniel Sparks' mother. I do know speaking with Sara and Tim Conklin that the sewer all has been done. I believe there is just one part of the final testing but outside of the Park fees and the fire hydrant, those are the only things that need to be paid. We are ready to go. We are ready to pay tonight, tomorrow, whenever. Aviles: You agree with these six conditions? Sparks: Yes. Aviles: You have seen these and concur with those? Sparks: Yes, those were faxed over. Aviles: I am going to read for the record the conditions of approval. (1) Planning Commission determination of an off-site assessment for a new fire hydrant. Staff is recommending an assessment in the amount of $ 257.14. When this lot was created an assessment was made in the amount of $257.14 based upon the addition of one single family home. This lot split will have the same impact, therefore the same assessment is recommended. (2) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 6 (3) 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. (4) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $470.00 (1 unit @ $470). Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this matter? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission. Commissioners? MOTION: Ward: I would like to go ahead and move for approval of the Concurrent Plat that is out at 6290 Danita Street with all five conditions of approval attached to it. I feel like it meets all of our requirements for the city. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Ward. Do I hear a second? Hoover: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Is there additional discussion or questions? Bunch: I think there are only four conditions. Ward: I will amend my motion. Shackelford: There are five. Aviles: I'm sorry, we had a numbering problem. We have got four conditions that were read into the record. The assessment for the fire hydrant, the standard comment of Plat Review comments, the approval of staff of final detailed plans, and the Parks fees, that is four. Is there any additional discussion? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CCP 02-2.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously Thank you Ma'am. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 7 CUP 03-1.00: Conditional Use (Habitat (136 Street), pp 563) was submitted by Tom Webb of McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc. on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of Fayetteville for property located at 221, 223, & 225 E. 13th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.55 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Aviles: Third on our agenda this evening is a Conditional Use Permit for Habitat For Humanity. It was submitted by Tom Webb of McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates on behalf of Habitat For Humanity of Fayetteville for property located at 221, 223, and 225 E. 13`h Street. This property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately .55 acres. This request is for a tandem lot. There are seven conditions of approval. Shelli, will you be giving us the staff report on this one? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. Aviles: Do we have signed conditions? Rushing: Yes we do. This property is located south of 136 Street east of Washington Avenue. Right now the property is platted into three individual lots. All three lots are vacant at this time. There is a platted but not constructed alley to the west of the tandem lot and also there is a platted street, Willow Street to the east of the property, which also has not been constructed. The applicant is proposing to build three single-family homes on the three lots. However, the way that the lots are currently platted it does not provide access to two of the lots to a public street without the construction of Willow Street. Therefore, the applicant will be submitting a Property Line Adjustment and that Property Line Adjustment includes a tandem lot and our requirements are to receive approval for a Conditional Use for a tandem lot. I have placed in front of you a letter from the staff engineer. We did receive public comment from an adjacent property owner that is concerned about drainage on this site. One of the staff engineers did go out and take a look at the site and prepared a memo stating that he had been out there this past Friday and it appears that there are small drainage swales on the east and west side of the property. The property is relatively flat and he doesn't find that there will be any significant or adverse impacts to the property based on its development of three single-family homes. Also, we did notify the applicant about this concern. Based on the fact that there are already three platted lots at this location and it seems to be fairly compatible with the surrounding land uses as well as the originally platted lands we are recommending approval of the tandem lot. Aviles: Thank you very much Shelli. Is the applicant present? Yes Sir, would you come forward and tell us your name? Webb: My name is Tom Webb. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Webb. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make or would you prefer to wait until after we have heard public comment and answer questions? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 8 Webb: Just briefly, I went to the site this weekend. Of course I was out there several times when we were surveying it after I heard about the concerns of the adjacent property owner and Ms. Gardner actually called me and we discussed it. I went out and looked very carefully at the lot just as the city engineer's representative did, the lot is flat, there are not trees on it except for the very edges of it. There are drainage swales on either side leading from the paved street to the rear of the lots. The drainage swale on the west is in the 10' wide alley. At the rear of the southern most lot that alley is blocked by debris. Probably if that debris were removed from the alley the drainage would continue down the alley. Other than that, I just could not see any drainage problems. Aviles: In the memorandum from Matt Casey, our Staff Engineer, he does suggest that if the property owner would clean up, remove the trash debris and undergrowth and possibly regrade the two swales adjacent to these lots during construction it would greatly improve the drainage condition of the site. Would that be something that you would consider? Webb: I think really all that needs to be done is for the debris that is in the alley to be removed. I think once that was done things would drain normally. The area is quite flat. There is really no need to grade it. Aviles: Ok, so you would agree to clear the debris from the alley? Webb: Yes I would. Aviles: I am going to go ahead and read the seven staff recommendations in for the record and then we will take public comment. The Planning Commission shall: (1) Hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically authorized to pass on by the terms of this chapter. (2)Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a conditional use should be granted; and, (3)Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate under this chapter; or (4) Deny a conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. C. A conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless and until: (1) A written application for a conditional use is submitted indicating the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this? Yes, if you will come forward and tell us your name Gardner: I am Carol Gardner, I am the one who spoke about the drainage. I am happy to see that they are willing to look at that. However, I would like to comment that right now we haven't had a lot of moisture and so it is not obvious what the drainage problem is and the fact that it is flat is what causes the problem. When we have any rain at all, the Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 9 street is much higher than the lots so it all comes down there. I am just concerned that if they build at all on their side that it will just force more water onto my side. As long as they are going to address it, that is fine. I just want to be sure that it is on the record that it does get addressed. One other short comment is that I know their proposal is to put one house on each lot. That is not the way the area is at the present time. Most of the areas have one house per two or three lots so that will be a much higher concentration. Aviles: Thank you. I will tell you that at agenda session we asked Matt Casey, our Staff Engineer, what ordinances were applicable to the drainage from one lot to another. Matt, could you tell us does the drainage ordinance apply to single-family residential construction? Casey: Our review of the developments begin at a triplex and greater so the review of single- family homes, which is proposed for these lots, are out of our scope unless it is in a slope greater than 15% or greater or located within the floodway. I did go out there and look at it last Friday after our agenda session on Thursday and there are several small depressions through the site. Those will probably be filled in with the construction of the homes so it would probably eliminate ponding out there and direct the flow into the swales where it needs to be anyway. My opinion would be that if they would clean up those ditches that it would help quite a bit. Aviles: The ditches and not just the debris in the alley? Which are we talking about? Casey: The debris that is clogging up the ditches. There might be some minor amount of grading involved as well. There is quite a bit of undergrowth and trash located in that that would be blocking the flow. Aviles: Thanks Matt. Casey: Yes Ma'am. Gardner: The alley that is designated on here is where the drainage is. There is no alley there. It is just drainage. I certainly wouldn't want, that's the area also, part of that area is where he mentioned that there are trees along the edge, I certainly wouldn't want those torn out to put a ditch in. Aviles: I just want to make sure that we are talking about the same place and have the same objective in mind. Gardner: We are. Aviles: Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Gardner: No, thank you. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 10 Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Sugg: My name is Mark Sugg and I am the property owner to the southwest of the comer there. I have a couple of issues. As far as the density I am not really opposed to that. What does concern me is the amount of concrete that will inevitably be produced by not sharing one bit of driveway or parking or anything else involved in these. That seems like since it is one owner that is basically going to build the three of these houses, this is Habitat For Humanity so they are in control, it seems like we could at least do something to try to be a little more friendly as far as reducing the amount of concrete is my point. I think the drainage concerns are that all the water goes there. When I built my units, I have two duplexes on two lots on that corner, and I use the alley as access to my property, which I wish all alleys would go through, they are there for a reason. A lot of my neighbors claim that the water was increased coming down that ditch on Ella Street which is the street to the south. To me this property now acts as kind of a detention pond so if we speed it up then I think the people downstream that already have a bad problem are going to have a worse problem. Even though it doesn't fall under the rules that they have to deal with it, I think it is going to change things in that area. We are going to have three curb cuts, three driveways, it seems to me if you put three narrow lots facing the street and came in with a common drive and had rear entry driveways and parking that would be a lot more traditional neighborhood. I realize a lot of people have trouble envisioning that. Those are my concerns. Like I said in this alley, I don't know where the water goes but at the southwest corner of the rear is the high spot of the alley as near as I can tell so I assume it goes to the east once it gets there in that ditch. That ditch does need some maintenance. That is my input. Aviles: Thanks Mark. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant if you would like to come back up and address some of these questions to the Planning Commission. Hoover: I have got a question for staff. Who is responsible for the upkeep of alleys because I noticed that this one needs some upkeep. Conklin: The alley in this location is unopened so when it is unopened the city doesn't go out there and maintain it. Rushing: This alley is platted but has not been constructed. Conklin: It is just paper. Hoover: Is that how most of them are? Conklin: There are a lot of alleys in Fayetteville that are platted that are just shown on paper. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 11 Aviles: Would you address the question of the shared driveways? Webb: The shared driveways? Aviles: Did you all look at that to reduce the amount of impervious cover? Webb: There is only 140' east to west, we can't get three lots in that width. They would be narrow deep lots, shot gun lots essentially and I believe Patsy Brewer with Habitat For Humanity discussed all of the possibilities for lot configuration with the Planning Division and really the only way to get lots that would meet the city's requirement for minimum area and width was basically what we came up with. As far as the drainage problem goes and the alley situation, the alley is open up to the south line of the southern most lot. There is a gravel driveway that provides access to Mr. Sugg's apartments and it abuts the south line of the three lots that you are considering tonight. This is really the situation where the Tess that is done the better. There is not a drainage problem out there now. The construction of the houses actually will take care of the minor ponding that takes place, just the normal grading that goes along with landscaping a house will take care of that. On the west joining Mrs. Gardner's property where there is this 10' wide alley right now there are small trees there, there is water flow that goes down through there. Actually nature is taking care of the situation, you wouldn't want to clean it out or grade it out or anything. The only real problem there is, is that there is some debris at the southwest corner of the lot that causes the water not to continue to the south as the natural drainage goes. If this were removed the water would continue right on down the alley and off the lot. As it is now it turns and goes to the southeast corner of the property in a sort of sheet flow. Even so, this isn't really a serious problem. Finally, I would just like to say that we have worked on three other Habitat For Humanity building projects and we sort of have an interest in those after they are completed and we go back and look at them. I go back and have a pride of participation in those and in each of those cases the neighborhood has been improved and continues to be improved by these developments and I am quite sure that this is going to be the same type of situation. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Webb. Hoover: Mr. Webb, did you explain how these drives are going to be done? I thought I read somewhere in here that there is a parking pad that is going to go on one of the houses or all three of the houses and how wide are these driveways? Webb: We have a 25' wide easement for the driveway that will go down to the tandem lot. I believe the driveway is going to be 12' wide. It will be concrete to reduce the amount of maintenance that might be necessary in the future. Normally instead of attempting to put a garage or a carport, I believe what Habitat does, and I am not involved in the housing design but I believe that they put a parking pad adjacent to the house. I believe that parking pad normally is about 20'x20'. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 12 Hoover: You don't know where that is going to be sited on the property? Webb: I would assume that it will be immediately adjacent to the house. Now you see on the application that we submitted we actually showed and we were required to show on the tandem lot the footprint of the house. Aviles: You have got the footprint shaded in and then a hatched area next to it, do you suppose that the hatched area might be for the parking pad? Conklin: The hatched area next to it is the 25' access easement to the lot. Aviles: No, I am talking about back where the house is. Webb: The house is shaded in and indicated to be 32x48 which is the biggest house that they would build. As was just pointed out, there is a dashed line that forms a rectangle in which that house sits. Basically we put the footprint in there to demonstrate to the Planning staff that the house could be cited. It would not necessarily be there. Actually, if I had it to do over again, I would put it on the other side but the parking pad that Ms. Hoover referred to would be immediately adjacent to the house and be inside of the dashed area. Hoover: Then what about on tracts B and C? Ward: I really am not sure. Aviles: We were just talking about tract B. Hoover: No, that is B there. Aviles: Ok, I'm sorry, lot 8 looked like a B. Hoover: I was talking about the two front lots. Webb: It would just be a normal residential type setup. There would be a house and an adjacent driveway. Hoover: I was just going to have the same comment that Mark has about that there is an awful lot of concrete. When I first saw this layout I thought that this access easement was going to be a shared drive for everybody which would give everybody more site to work with and less concrete so each individual would essentially have more land that is not devoted to so much concrete that is only used for cars. Webb: That would probably be a really good question for Planning staff to answer and I am probably not the proper party to answer that. I will just give you my opinion, if it were possible under the city regulations to do it that way, to me that would be a preferable Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 13 way to do it. In the materials that we received from the Planning Department it makes it quite clear that they were anticipating three separate curb cuts. I assume that that is required. If it were completely up to me I would do it just the way you are talking about but it is not. Hoover: Tim, do we require three separate driveways? Conklin- We do allow shared driveways. I would be more than happy to work with Habitat For Humanity to create one shared driveway and provide parking. Let me just say that we did initially talk about the possibility of doing smaller lots and having three single- family homes that front a street that have a front yard, that have a sidewalk, that have a more traditional approach to a neighborhood. What has been proposed is a tandem lot with a house behind and two houses up front. Aviles: Commissioner Hoover do you have any more questions? Hoover: No. Ward: In a lot of ways Tim I feel like the traditional way of doing it with separate curb cuts, these are going to be separate individual homes sold to individuals, they will have their own loans, mortgages, and so on, who takes care of the driveway when it starts falling apart. One might not have the money, etc. You can get into a lot of headaches on this shared driveway, shared concrete later on down the road. Doing it this way solves a lot of problems later. Conklin: Commissioner Ward, what we are looking at this evening is to make sure you can approve a tandem lot that has access that has been shown either by simple ownership or easement. In this case it is an easement and that the setbacks are established for that tandem lot and that the house can be built on that tandem lot and the remaining two lots would meet our current zoning requirements. I just wanted to clarify that there are provisions for shared driveways, it is not a requirement in Fayetteville. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Is there anything else? Estes: Mr. Webb, you have heard our City Engineer tell us that it is his recommendation that if the property owner would clean up the debris and regrade the two swales adjacent to the lots that it would greatly improve the drainage condition on the site, is that something that the applicant is willing to do? Webb: Yes. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Estes. In terms of procedural issues, I would imagine that since we are only dealing with a tandem lot and not the actual construction, because that would not normally come to the Planning Commission, that should we approve this tandem lot the driveways could be worked out in a manner that would meet city Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 14 MOTION: Estes: ordinances and meet the need for the individual dwellings. Typically duplexes share a lot and could have individual ownership and then joint responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep. Are there any other questions or comments Commissioners? I would move for approval of CUP 03-1.00 with an additional condition. That condition being clean up and remove all trash debris and undergrowth and regrade the two swales adjacent to the lots during construction. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes with an eighth condition of approval. Is the applicant in agreement and would the applicant sign that condition? Webb: We were just discussing the requirement for grading and I would just like to repeat that the less that is done in terms of grading I think is going to be better for all concerned but the applicant will certainly work with the city to do whatever is required on the draining and I just discussed that with Ms. Brewer and that is the case so that condition is acceptable to the applicant. Aviles: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Bunch: On condition number two, that states that there shall be 25' between all three driveway curb cuts, do we need to modify that to allow for a common driveway in case it works out that way? Aviles: Do you want to say to substitute a common driveway? Estes: The movement will accept that amendment. Aviles: Will the second? Hoover: Yes. Aviles: The language will be "or substitute a common driveway." Are there any other comments or questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-1.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 15 LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 312 units proposed. Aviles: Fourth on our agenda tonight is LSD 02-30.00 for Southern View Apartments, which was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 312 units proposed. We have 14 conditions of approval, 9 through 14 are standard conditions. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: I am going to go ahead and read those and then we will hear from the applicant. (1) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the requirement that all buildings be setback 100 feet from the 100 year flood elevation of the detention pond. The proposal is for a 35 foot setback (65 foot waiver). The buildings will be built two feet above the 100 year elevation and an iron fence will be placed around the pond. Staff is in favor of this recommendation. With the installation of the fence, we feel that there should not be additional safety concerns by waiving this requirement. (2) Lighting will be required to be a full cut off lights utilizing sodium lighting fixtures. The lighting must be approved by staff prior to installation. (3) The proposed sign must meet the sign ordinance. The applicant is proposing an 8'6" tall, 7'8" wide monument sign. This proposal does not meet the required sign setbacks. The sign must either be reduced to 6 feet in height in order to be placed where is has been proposed or must be setback 40 feet from the front property line. All signs must obtain a sign permit prior to installation. (4) Gates will not be permitted to limit access to the property from Futrall to Stone Street. (5) The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Administrator and must include a mixture of hardwood and evergreen trees around the detention pond. The note on sheet 5 should be removed which states, "proposed 6" caliper red maples every 50 feet". A flexible design approach as to final location is being utilized in order to avoid the outfall structure of the detention pond and an existing waterline. (6) Dumpsters will be required to be screened with brick that matches the proposed buildings. (7) A sidewalk shall be extended along the cross access connection to the south in order to provide pedestrian access to future commercial development.(8) Five landscape islands shall be added to the parking lot in locations designated by the Landscape Administrator. Standard Conditions of Approval: (1) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) (2) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 16 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. (3) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $117,000 (312 units @ $375) (4) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk and ten foot green space along Futrall Drive and a minimum six foot sidewalk with a five foot green space along the south side of Stone Street. (5) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. (6) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: (a) Grading and drainage permits (b) Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. (c) Project Disk with all final revisions (d) Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 SGuarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements. to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 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 (e) Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received.Sara, do you want to give us the staff report? Edwards: Yes. We recently rezoned this property from C-2 to RMF -18. The description is the northeast corner of Futrall and Old Farmington and this is immediately north of that corner. The street improvements that are proposed is to extend Stone Street from the east into this development. That extension is approximately 500' and that is an offsite improvement that will provide access down south considering that Futrall is a one way street. Tree preservation, there is about 12% existing, they are preserving 5%. Most of the removal is due to the Stone Street extension and they will be mitigating onsite adding a total of 91 trees in addition to that required by our parking lot ordinance. The appearance of the buildings, they have offered to mix the architectural appearance of the buildings. Six styles will be incorporated into the complex and I do have the elevations here which I will bring up. That is all I have. Aviles: Thank you very much. Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, we did receive information this afternoon from the property owner to the north, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Barnes have offered to donate / of the required right of way for extending Stone Street along this project's north boundary line and their southern boundary line to Futrall Drive. It is something that they are interested in. This information did not come out until just this afternoon. We didn't receive it until just this afternoon. It is something that at agenda session we did have some discussion regarding the future connection of Stone Street, the Barnes' are willing to dedicate the right of way and would be in favor of this street being extended. I know that this is fairly late in this review process but it is something that I think in looking at future street connections that you do need to consider this evening and address with regard to future street connections for Stone Street. Thanks. Aviles: This would involve a fairly comprehensive redesign of the plat as it is shown now? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 17 Conklin- This would involve a fairly comprehensive redesign of the plat as shown. However, I think it is important enough that we do need to consider the needs of the property owner to the north and this information is new this evening and I think it should be discussed. Aviles: Mrs. Barnes did contact me and I suggested that if she was not here, Mrs. Barnes are you here tonight? She didn't know if she was going to be able to come but she said she would go ahead and send this letter because when there is additional development on that property to the north it would seem to me that it would be an item that we should discuss in some detail although it is committee work. It is unfortunate that it has come to us at this eleventh hour. I think we should go ahead and discuss it. Is there anything else that you wanted to add to that before we do on? Conklin: That is all I have. Aviles: Is the applicant present? Mr. Kelso, have you seen this letter or have you been apprised of this new development? Kelso: Yes. Aviles: Ok, do you want to make a presentation? Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. As you know, this property came before you some time ago with a rezoning. We did have this property rezoned and I believe at Planning Commission it was a unanimous vote for it to be rezoned. Once we got City Council approval on it we started off with meetings with Kim Hesse to work out the tree preservation. We had several meetings with her. We then had several meetings with the city staff to come up with the layout that we have, we have met with adjacent property owners. We have gone through several iterations to come up with the plan that you have right now. Through tech review, through Subdivision Committee, and we have addressed every issue that has come up on this property and this project. We have signed the conditions of approval and we concur with all of those. One of the things that was unique about this piece of property is its location. Mr. Lindsey is committed to using several different types of buildings rather than having the same building out there. I think you have all of those elevations. We have shown extensive landscaping, especially around Futrall Drive, the location of the pond which will have a fountain in it. There are several combinations of hardwoods and evergreens. The street extension that we have talked about. Yes we did have several meetings again with the city talking about the extension of Stone Street and Mr. Lindsey has agreed to build Stone Street, extend it to his problem and also has agreed to take that street to the north and tie onto Mrs. Barnes' property so that she can tie onto that someday and possibly extend it on to Futrall Drive. We are planning on building that, that extension can be made, it can be taken to Futrall whenever that property is developed to the north. Everything is in place to do that. Again, here we are at the Planning Commission Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 18 meeting, we have been through Subdivision Committee, we have been through Technical Plat Review. We have had several meetings, we have got a good plan here and we would ask that you approve this thing. Thank you. Aviles: Is there any member of the audience that would wish to discuss this Large Scale Development? Sugg: I am Mark Sugg. I thought as long as I was here I would make a comment. I did read your concerns about the connectivity. Obviously I don't know the details of that but it would seem to me that past developments of this density, Gregg Street and the one out by the fairgrounds have had a significant impact on traffic. If this was a subdivision of single-family houses there would be several links to make sure that connectivity was available so I think that whatever the plans are made that they do need to have that so that eventually that can be done without major changes with tearing down buildings or fences or whatever it is. Just because they are all in one fence doesn't mean that they don't have the same impact on traffic that a residential single-family product would have. Aviles: Spoken like a former Planning Commissioner. Thanks Mr. Sugg. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development? Tim, I have a question. How many acres is the Barnes' tract? I don't think it is showing up on any of my stuff in the packet. I see the property but I don't see a property line. Kelso: It is ten acres. Aviles: Thanks. Allen: I wondered what information we had about the occupancy rate for apartments that we have currently in Fayetteville and how that compares regionally and nationally. Conklin: I should be able to tell you that immediately after the impact fee study for two and a half years. Shelli, do you remember the 2000 rate for multi -family? It is lower than single-family I can tell you that much. I think it is under 2 per unit overall 2000 US Census data for Fayetteville, I am not sure how that compares nationally. Ward: Fugitt: Since we have the architect here for this project, I would like him to maybe discuss the type of buildings and materials that they are using and he might have some ideas about what occupancy rates are for Lindsey properties. My name is Kim Fugitt, I am with the Lindsey Company and project manager on this property. It was requested by staff that we try to do some things to vary the community a bit. One of those things was to rework our original plan to pose the buildings on the site so that we didn't have such a linear arrangement of those buildings so you will note on your site plan that very few of those buildings align with one another, especially along Futrall where we tried to turn those buildings against one another to create some Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 19 variety there. Also, we developed six different building facades which is twice as many as we have done on any other community that Lindsey has done in any of his properties in six different states so this particular property will have six different building facades that are sprinkles relatively evenly among those buildings that you see there on the site. The footprint that you see on the site plan, it is difficult to tell because the footprints are similar but the facades will change. The club house will be a seventh building facade there so in actuality we will have many different building forms there. Basically the materials are a combination of brick and hardy board. The hardy board is a cement material that has a stucco appearance to it. As you can see in the small elevations here, typically the lower floors are in brick with the second floors in the hardy board with the exception of some of the elevations where we have extended the brick further on up to the second floor. Also, as a request from staff we increased our screening as far as landscaping was concerned there and a lot of these other issues, as far as our connection to Stone Street, the connection to the Barnes' property to the north, we were requested by staff to try to fulfill those. Really those connections were not of our making but actually the response to staff's requests. As far as the vacancy rates in Northwest Arkansas, with the exception of The Cliffs and Shiloh Apartments that are there on 1540 right now on all Lindsey properties, I can't speak for the whole of Northwest Arkansas, but for Lindsey properties in Northwest Arkansas with the exception of those two properties, we have less than a 2% vacancy in those properties. The reason that I would not mention The Cliffs and Shiloh is that those properties are relatively new and have not had the time to reach their capacity but in all other properties in especially Washington County, and I believe if we took Benton County we would probably even have a lower vacancy rate than that. Aviles: Thank you very much. Church: I had a question for the applicant also. You are requesting to go outside of the sign ordinance and I would just like to hear your thoughts about why you feel like you need a bigger sign for the project than what is called for by the ordinance. Fugitt: Really it was news to me tonight that we were outside the sign ordinance. I don't think that we have any specific need that I know of that we need to be outside that. I believe that we could go back to the drawing board and either make the sign smaller or find a different location for that to get within that sign ordinance. Kelso: Yes, I submitted that. I just used one that we did for a similar project, it wasn't in Fayetteville, we can go smaller, it is my fault. Allen: Back to this occupancy thing a little bit. I wondered according to the 2000 census what percentage of people in Fayetteville live in apartments as opposed to single-family homes do you know? Conklin: I don't have those numbers in front of me this evening. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 20 MOTION: Estes: I have a concern regarding the recent information that we have presented to us this evening regarding the offer of the right of way dedication and in addition the traffic flows and patterns that will result from the ingress and egress of this property. Mr. and Mrs. Barnes offered to dedicate right of way could alter the configuration of this Large Scale Development, could require some redesign regarding the ingress and egress, traffic flows and resulting traffic patterns. As we look at what we have before us we see that ingress and egress to the property could be by Stone Street, people leaving the Southern View Apartments could travel east on Stone Street toward the University. An alternative route would be south on Root Avenue and then connect with Old Farmington Road. Another alternative of course would be to go out onto Futrall, but that would require traveling north on Futrall to Wedington and then east on Wedington. The shortest route would be right on Sang and then up Cleveland. Here is what I am going to propose. I am going to move that we table LSD 02-30.00 pending a traffic study and that you come back to us and let us know what you want to do with Mr. and Mrs. Barnes' offer of dedication of right of way because otherwise, we are being asked to approve an LSD this evening with an offer of dedication of right of way to the north of the property which would mean two egresses onto Futrall with traffic north then to Wedington or in the alternative the route that I have described to Stone and then out to Razorback which would require either a left or right and then a left and right depending on which way you went on Stone or to the south on Root. Because of that this is not something that I am not prepared to approve this evening. I, of course, did vote for the rezoning. I would be in favor of the project but with this recent development of the offer by Mr. and Mrs. Barnes of the right of way dedication and not having any clue whether or not you wish to avail yourself of that offer or decline that offer, I am just not prepared to vote for this evening. Aviles: Commissioner Estes, could you clarify what type of traffic study you would be looking for to be performed in the interim? Estes: I am going to ask Mr. Conklin what would be acceptable to staff. Conklin: I think the traffic study is going to have to go beyond telling us how many trips per day in a 24 hour period. I think if I understand Commissioner Estes, what you are asking for, you are looking at are the roads to this site capable of carrying the additional traffic that will be generated by 312 apartments and to look at will this additional traffic appreciably create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. That is one of the findings in the Unified Development Ordinance, it talks about if you deny a Large Scale Development it can be based on that so I think the reverse is if you ask for a traffic study you can have a traffic study that states that we have looked at how we are going to access this site and will the additional traffic, are the roads leading to this site from the arterial streets capable of handling this additional traffic. That is what staff would like to see. I just want to make sure. I would like to thank the Chair for bringing that up because lately we have been receiving traffic studies that just give us numbers. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 21 We have trip generation software here at the city that we can calculate those numbers instantly. We are looking beyond that to look at our surface road network to the site and I think that the traffic study would have to address that, how are these people going to get to this site through the existing street network. Estes: Madam Chair, my motion would incorporate the comments made by Mr. Conklin and I would request a traffic study of the nature and description that he has given. Aviles: That would fall outside of the city's view and that would be one that would be performed by the applicant? Conklin: Yes, that would have to be performed by the applicant. Aviles: Ok, thanks. I have a motion to table by Commissioner Estes, do I hear a second? Hoover: I will second it and I would like to add to that just as a comment when they are doing that traffic study, I realize that the commercial area to the south of this is owned by the same person and I would think that if they did this traffic study on that area also because I am assuming it is going to be coming into Planning at some point that if these two pieces were looked at together we might be better off in the long run than looking at them as separate entities that they are not going to be essentially. I am just suggesting that the traffic study might consider looking at the commercial part of this property to the south of it. I think what is going to happen is we are going to figure out what to do on these apartments and then the commercial part is going to come in and then how is that going to interrelate to how this is being utilized. Aviles: That has frontage on two major intersections would be my call on that. Hoover: What about the connectivity to the apartments and the commercial, I'm thinking the whole thing. Aviles: I have a motion and a second on the table and you wanted to say something before we vote. Fugitt: Yes Ma'am. Regarding the Barnes' property issue, we just learned of that this evening. The challenge that we would have with that is that as I understand it there has been a 30' right of way dedication proposal made which would require us to make another 20' to 30' dedication on the south side of that property line which then infringes into the building setback line that we have right now and those six buildings there that align the north property line would be in the setback and we would lose those six buildings. That is the biggest challenge that we would have with that particular request. We have again, at staff's request, made the connection from Stone Street into the Barnes' property, basically their request so that they could have access at some point in time when that was developed and then made that connection from Stone to Futrall through the property. That would be our biggest issue with that. Also, as far as involvement Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 22 with the improvements on the proposed Futrall Drive there on the property line, would that be at our expense or the city's expense or at what time would those improvements to Futrall be made? Aviles: Thank you very much. I would like to make a couple of observations and then I have some questions for Tim before we vote on this. At agenda session, of course the connectivity issue did come up and I think it has been raised several times prior to this, I believe in Subdivision Committee. I will not vote in favor of tabling this for the simple fact that we do have four means of ingress and egress to the property and when you look at a ten acre tract that has access to a major highway frontage, although it is a one way road, but would also have access back to Stone Street, I think that is adequate for the property to the north in my opinion. That is my opinion only and I am kind of winging it here without the traffic study. I always think traffic studies are great, they tell us a lot but I am not sure that this one would be necessary in this case. The other thing that I would like to ask and the reason I am basing this and saying that I don't want to vote to table it, is there a Master Street Plan street shown running in all of this? Conklin: No there isn't. Where Stone Street came up, when staff looked at it there was undeveloped right of way so this was a challenge that we faced determining where to build the street and which direction. We have 500' of offsite improvement being paid 100% by the developer and then we were very concerned about the Barnes' property having access back to the south. We have worked hard. What they are telling you is yes, they have been working with staff and we did invite the Barnes to our office. However, this afternoon we did receive information about the possibility of additional right of way and making that street connection on the north property line and I think that is important because there is an opportunity here to actually have that street connect through. I know it is late in the game. However, I think it is important to take a look at and see if it is possible. Aviles: To make sure that I don't understand, and I admittedly sometimes at the end of the day can be a bit slow, if the Barnes property comes in for any kind of development, would the city at that time require Stone Street, even though it is not shown on the Master Street Plan to be extended through to Futrall? Conklin: That is a challenge that as staff we face because it is not on the Master Street Plan. We are looking at how much access is required as part of the development and on this development they have a fairly large frontage on Futrall Drive. They have undeveloped right of way about 500' long for Stone Street. We had to make a recommendation with regard to offsite improvements to the north. I am all in favor if it is possible to get Stone Street out to Futrall. I would like to see that. Personally I think having this opportunity with right of way being dedicated there is an opportunity here to look at that also and I think if the traffic study looks at that then we can possibly give you a better answer on that. Aviles: Thank you very much Tim. Commissioners? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 23 Estes: One reason for my motion is the question can Stone Street carry the traffic patterns to the east. We don't have that information, that is one reason for my motion. Another reason for my motion is as I tried to state in the motion is that with the offer of dedication by Mr. and Mrs. Barnes and the statements by Mr. Conklin will there be an acceptance of the right of way dedication and if so how will the extension of Stone to Futrall affect the traffic patterns. We just don't know. Aviles: That is a good observation and I would agree with that. I am going to vote against it though. The primary reasoning for my disagreement again is the access to multiple means of ingress and egress for both sites. I would say too that should the motion carry and the item is tabled it is not an absolute that you are going to lose six buildings because you will merely take out a driveway and build '/2 a street. It can be revised in that manner so I wouldn't say that it would be an absolute that you would have to take out the six buildings at all, just reconfigure them. Shackelford: I understand what we are saying about that connectivity and the access to this location. If I am reading this correctly there are currently two ingress and egresses to Futrall Drive. If the road was built are you saying that it would take place in one of those ingress and egresses proposed? Aviles: I would imagine. Tim, what do you think? Conklin: Are you talking about if the street is extended? Aviles: If they have to dedicate right of way would they just build half the street and use that as a driveway? Conklin: Yes, that is what staff would prefer. In a recent project they did they extended Persimmon Street and provided access off of Persimmon Street. I appreciate the Commission talking about connectivity because that is part of our comprehensive plan, General Plan 2020 and it is something that we do look at as a goal and policy to try to achieve in this community. Once again, I wish I had this information two weeks ago. I wish I had this information for you at agenda session also and for the developer. Shackelford: My concern was that if we have already got two ingresses and egresses onto Futrall I am not sure a third is going to make any difference in the traffic pattern of this development, if we are talking about replacing one of these with the extension of the road then maybe so. I still think I am going to chair that based on this project as it stands there is ingress and egress and there is access from different angles so I am going to vote against the motion to table as well. Conklin: Madam Chair, the difference in the access is public access verses private access through the parking lot and that is the biggest difference with what the Barnes are offering, the potential to set that in the future. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 24 Aviles: Do you all see a problem with people cutting through? I notice item number four is gates will not be permitted to limit access to the property from Futrall to Stone. Is the applicant foreseeing a problem with people cutting through and using that as a shortcut, people not living in the complex? Fugitt: I don't believe that that was an issue that we have discussed in any of our meetings was it Tim? Conklin: That was an issue of staff making sure that unobstructed access was provided because they are private drives. Once again, as I just mentioned that is why I am really interested in the possibilities of looking at this idea. Shackelford: I was just going to make the comment that with Futrall Drive being a one way going north I don't see that there would be a big demand for a cut through there because you are going to come back to the road and have to go back south. It is going to be backtracking, it is not really a short cut through. Aviles: You never know, 1 really miss that two way there. Hoover: Won't that be a cut through if you are trying to go to the University. If you are out here you are going to have to go up to Wedington. If somebody knows about the shortcut to get back to 6th Street they are going to take that. I guess the other thing with the traffic pattern issue is I feel like if they are going to go up to Wedington aren't we going to be putting more cars going through Wilson Park trying to filter back to the University. It would be great if there was really a public road that you could get back to the University this way. If you drive up here from 6th Street all the way to Wedington, there is no place to cut through to go east until you get to Wedington. Aviles: Let me remind you if you cut back through there you are going back into that Ramey nightmare with all of those weird intersections. Ward: There is no reason to be going through there, I can't see anybody wanting to go that route. Fugitt: I recall in the Planning process, if you will notice the way the connection is from Futrall to the property and then the connection to Stone Street you have to kind of work your way through those lots. That was done intentionally to provide a cut through, so to speak, but not to invite traffic through there. It would be a way to slow down traffic for safety reasons and also to detour traffic just because of the complexity of weaving through the site. Kelso: The way our project is laid out right now we do have two accesses on Futrall, we have access to Stone going east. If this street was to come north and come up on Mrs. Barnes' property and connect to Futrall it would benefit people coming from the east Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 25 Fugitt: going west towards Futrall but I don't see how it is going to benefit this property or how this property would benefit or even affect the street. That is why I am questioning the need to have this developer pay for or dedicate additional right of way on the north side of the property. Traffic from this property is not going to be using that street up on the north side. If I could make another point too. The property to the south, the commercial property to the south, there will be a connection provided through that property to Old Farmington Road when that commercial property is developed or that connection could be made when the R-2 development is constructed. Aviles: Thank you Sir. I do have a motion to table and a second, do I have additional discussion before we hear the roll call on this motion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 02-30.00 pending a traffic study failed by a vote of 4-5-0 with Commissioners Aviles, Bunch, Shackelford, Ward, and Church voting no. Aviles: The motion fails on a vote of five to four. With the failure of that motion it would appear then that negotiation for the right of way would be a moot point if we just go ahead and approve this Large Scale Development. However, it would not be a moot point if the Large Scale Development is either appealed or fails to pass, am I correct on that Tim? That is a question for staff to make sure that we all understand as we go forward. Conklin: I think you have an opportunity here to look at it. We have new information and I think you should at least discuss it and maybe discuss it at Subdivision Committee, let me throw that out. If not, vote on it up or down and we will see what happens. I think when there is an opportunity to look at a future street connection with the property owner to the north, I think we should study it a little further. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Ward: Tim, I am puzzled why we would want Stone Street to make such a weird curve down to that intersection there. It definitely won't help this particular apartment complex at all. If I was going to bring Stone Street or wanted a connection I would make it come straight through and down to that road. Anything other than that doesn't make sense to me. Conklin: We were trying to achieve multiple goals here. One of those was providing access to this development and then providing access to the Barnes' property. I had the same issue when we looked at the Marinoni property up on Wedington and Futrall and when that subdivision came through with regard to how are we going to build the street network in the city to provide access to properties along I-540 with this one way street. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 26 Ward: It really limits access. The way it benefits the city as a whole is we are trying to create another street that has two directional traffic up and down the bypass. In the Marinoni property we did stub that out beyond that commercial property to provide access. Once again, the situation was that we are extending offsite, the developer is, a street 500' and then building possibly another 400' of street onsite. That gets you up to the Barnes' property. Even if you just make Stone Street extend straight all the way to the west you still aren't dealing with the issue of how are we going to provide street connections and access to the bypass. What benefit does it have? Why don't we just take Stone Street straight through? I can't see it making all of these weird curves and corners and everything else to take it through the Barnes' property. Why don't the Barnes just go ahead and give us the full right of way if that is a big deal? They have got 10 acres and lots of frontage. Conklin: Again, this just came up this afternoon. Taking it straight through this project is an option. It doesn't provide access to the Barnes unless we require a street to be built to the north to provide additional access. We also could build the street to the south to Old Farmington Road and have four streets built. The applicant and engineer are probably having a heart attack right now as I talk about building streets through their project. As staff, that is what we are trying to weigh. You have voted on the motion with regard to the traffic study. At this point we have the ability with the adjoining property owner to the north to try to plan a future street to provide access. I hate to see that go away. Aviles: Ok, Tim let me restate something then. It is my understanding under the rules and bylaws of the Commission that an opponent of the previous motion to table could make a motion to reconsider the tabling, is that correct? Williams: Someone that voted in the majority to deny the motion could ask for reconsideration. Aviles: I would say that that would be something that we should seriously consider. We rely on our staff, I think we get very good information and very good advice from our staff and Tim has made a compelling case, granted, at the ninth hour. This should be at least looked at though. Shackelford: As it stands now the applicant is proposing to develop Stone Street along the eastern property line north and stub out to the Barnes' property is that correct? Aviles: That is correct. Shackelford: Ok, so we would still have the opportunity at the point in which the Barnes' property develops to get connectivity at that point. Aviles: In my mind that would put an undue burden on the Barnes if we wanted to take the entire right of way. That right of way would be how wide Tim? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 27 Conklin- 50'. Aviles: That would be 50' from the smaller tract as it develops. Is it anticipated that it might adjoin a larger tract or is it just a stand alone or we don't know? Conklin: I don't have that information. Shackelford: My concern is that we have an applicant that has worked very hard on the project, they have worked closely with staff to meet the requirements of the city, they have brought a project forward that was carrying staff's approval and now in the 11`h hour we are asking them to go back and basically reengineer the whole project. I have always had a concern when we get to this level with a project that is carrying staff's report coming in when something comes up and we try to redesign the entire project. Aviles: That is very true. I will give the credence that this is a very important piece of information that has not come up. It is certainly no fault of the applicant. The applicant has, and I don't want to imply that they haven't worked extremely hard with the staff'. Staff didn't have the information either. Allen: Since the motion to table failed without having a motion now to reconsider then the only way that we could have further study would be to deny the applicant. Aviles: I always am really reluctant to deny a development in any case so in light of that I am wondering if there might be a motion. Williams: You could also make a motion to refer this to a committee, for example, the Subdivision Committee, for further study. You are not bound parliamentary from only deciding the final question here if the Planning Commission so chooses to take another route. Your hands are not tied at this point in time. Aviles: If we tabled, I wanted to get a clarification about what we would be tabling it for and what would happen and I would assume then that a traffic study would go back through the Subdivision Committee before reaching the Planning Commission. With something like that we should be very specific in our request should this not go forward as a Large Scale. Fugitt: With all due respect, in dealing with this late hour information I would say that probably if the applicant were to provide information at this hour it would be disregarded. I would say that we would probably not be allowed to supply any information at this late time. We have certain deadlines that we have to provide our information and I feel like it is an injustice for this type of information to hold us up at this point. I guess our next question would be if it were to be tabled at this point then what late hour information may come up at the next Planning Commission meeting to put us off another two weeks and then what late information may come up to put us off Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 28 again and again. I understand your position and what you must do but I guess that would be our frustration with the situation is not knowing where to go from here. Aviles: I will take that as a rhetorical question but I would say that the Planning Commission is certainly interested in doing what is best for all, good for the city and good for the developer and with important information we need to take it seriously. Ward: I don't mind further studying the idea of connectivity to the north. I don't believe we need a traffic study to do that. I would vote for a motion to table it without a traffic study. I can't see that it is going to be a benefit on this particular little apartment complex. I would change my vote to table it since this is brand new information that has come in from the Barnes that have offered this property. I would change my vote, for the time being, and I would think that this would help the concerns of our city and our City Planner to look a little further into this. I am definitely not big into totally redeveloping this whole apartment complex and redesign at all. If it can be moved over a little bit, the six buildings without causing a lot of problems and we can later on get a road easement and so on that is great. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion to table this project, let our City Planner do a little more research with the road feasibility into it. I don't think we need a traffic study to do that. That is my motion. Williams: Are you making a motion to table it until the next meeting of the Planning Commission? Ward: That is right. Aviles: Will that include a trip to Subdivision? Ward: I don't think it needs to go to Subdivision. I think everything has been done, unless something is going to change dramatically, then it would have to come back to Subdivision. Aviles: I have a motion for reconsideration to table by Commissioner Ward without the traffic study but giving the City Planner more time to review the offer, do I have a second? Williams: I don't think it is a motion to reconsider, I think he is just making a new motion to table and I think that is in order, it is just a procedural motion so he can make that motion to table. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, do I have a second? I will second it. Is there further discussion? Hoover: Would you clarify what is with that motion? Aviles: It is my understanding that this gives the City Planner time to talk with the parties involved and if there is deemed to be a need for this right of way, which may or may Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 29 not happen, we are not trying to second guess that tonight, and there is a redesign to the plan that it will, in fact, go back to Subdivision but if there is not a redesign to the plan it will come to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting as is. Fugitt: Is the question connectivity from Stone to Futrall or is the question access to the Barnes' property so we know what kind of problem we are trying to solve. Ward: Stone to Futrall. Aviles: I think you have to throw Barnes' property in the mix too. Conklin: I am trying to solve both issues. Aviles: Again, it is difficult to deal with information or events or things that arise at the 11`h hour. I understand your frustration with that. I think that Commissioner Ward's motion is a compromise to try to speed things along a little bit more but still take a look at it and I think it deserves a look. Hoover: With this new motion without the traffic study, are you comfortable with that or are you going to be in need of a traffic study? Conklin: I plan on using city resources to answer this question, other staff. Aviles: Is there anyone else? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 02-30.00 without a traffic study being performed was approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Church and Shackelford voting no. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries on a vote of seven to two. We will see you next time Gentlemen. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 30 PPL 02-15.10: Preliminary Plat (Crystal Springs, Phase III, pp 246) was submitted by Mel Milholland Company on behalf of Crystal Springs LTD for property located east of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 35.13 acres with 99 lots proposed. The request is to change the conditions of approval of PPL 02-15.00. Aviles: Our fifth item tonight is PPL 02-15.00 for Crystal Springs Phase III which was submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Crystal Springs limited for property located east of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 35.13 acres with 99 lots proposed. The request is to amend the previously approved Preliminary Plat. There are four conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: No we do not. Aviles: Thank you very much. Would you give us the staff report? Edwards: Yes. You had originally approved a plat October 14, 2002 contingent upon Council approval of Crystal Drive continuing to the east. City Council did consider that and did request a redesign so that Crystal Drive would not be a straight shot and cause unnecessarily high speeds of traffic through the neighborhood. They did redesign the end of Crystal Drive and then picking up here to head to the east. Because of that change it does require Planning Commission approval. Aviles: Thanks Sara. I am going to go ahead and read these conditions in. 1) No construction or disturbance shall occur outside the 50' right of way on city owned land. 2) The City Council will be considering a cost share for the connection to Deane Solomon. If a cost share is not approved the developer will be responsible for all costs associated with that connection. 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) If the applicant chooses to fill to remove lots from the 100 -year floodplain or to create additional lots allowable under zoning a FEMA map amendment must be approved prior to Final Plat approval. Mr. Milholland, do you have a presentation? Milholland: Madam Chair and Planning Commission, I am Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering representing JED, Inc., the developers of this project. We did fax in approval of the conditions of the approval and on behalf of the developers, JED, Inc. I concur with the four conditions of approval and respectfully request that you approve the subdivision as submitted. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you Mel. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission for further discussion or motions. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 31 MOTION: Estes: This request to amend the previously approved Preliminary Plat results from our request and from subsequent action by the City Council and it is for those reasons that I would move for approval of PPL 02-15.10. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 02-15.10 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thank you, the motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 32 RZN 03-1.00: Rezoning (McClinton, pp 484) was submitted by Laura Kelly of Robert Sharp Architect on behalf of David McClinton for property located at 240 Block Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.92 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Aviles: Sixth on our agenda is RZN 03-1.00 for McClinton which was submitted by Laura Kelly of Robert Sharp Architects on behalf of David McClinton for property located at 240 Block Avenue. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.92 acres. The request is to rezone to C-3, Central Commercial. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. Shelli, do you have the staff report? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. This property is located south of Dickson Street between Block Avenue and East Avenue. Right now there is a two story office building located on this site. The applicant is proposing to add to the site a three story apartment building complex. This complex would have 12 units and 11,000 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing to place the building close to the street right of way of Dickson Street. In order to do that they would need the C-3 zoning, which does permit a smaller front setback for this property. They are requesting the C-3 zoning to allow for the building to be set closer to the street right of way for Dickson Street and second of all, for it to be more consistent with some of the other properties located on Dickson Street. This property is designated as historic commercial in the future land use plan. It also follows the General Plan 2020 policies for historic commercial areas. One of which is promoting higher density residential in the central commercial areas. We also find that the zoning classification is compatible with surrounding zoning as well as surrounding land uses. We have spoken with the fire department as well as the police depaitinent. The fire depai tment indicates that the response time is three to four minutes at this location and that fire hydrants may be needed at the time of development and the police department does not believe that there is any adverse affects on this rezoning on the ability to provide public services to the site. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. Aviles: Thank you very much Shelli. Is the applicant present? Kelly: Good evening, I am Laura Kelly. My main points are very simple and short. This property is existing right now on Dickson Street right across the street from the post office, which has kind of a low scale along there, and one of the principals of making a really livable, friendly, walkable city is to develop streetscapes and Dickson Street is wonderful for that. You have streets right along, shop windows to look in and what the current property owner would like to do is put an apartment building on his vacant lot parking area. He can do that right now as it is zoned but he would have to put it 50' off the street, which would mean the parking would go out in front so as you are walking down Dickson Street you would see a lot of cars. That is good for Thoroughfare Commercial, good visibility for fast traffic but on Dickson Street it seems inappropriate and I would like to recommend that the Planning Commission approve this rezoning Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 33 request and allow a more pedestrian friendly Dickson Street environment and put the parking in the back. Thanks. Aviles: Thank you Laura. Rushing: I do want to point out that we have color elevations that are sitting in front of you that were provided to us today. Aviles: Laura, could you tell us which is the existing building on this? Kelly: The one on the right is the existing building. If that plan could proceed that will be the owner's house there on the top right. Aviles: Do you plan any structured parking for later on? Kelly: That is a dream, yes. Aviles: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant for discussion or motions. MOTION: Allen: I think this is a real appropriate and attractive project for this area and for that reason I would like to move for approval of RZN 03-1.00. Aviles: Thank you, I have a motion by Commissioner Allen, do I hear a second? Hoover: I would like to second it and I would just like to comment also that this is a great project and I appreciate someone taking the time to change the zoning so that we could have the appropriate setbacks for the project. Conklin: I do have to add that I think it is a wonderful project too. I just want to make sure that you are aware, and I know you are aware of this, but for the public, we currently don't have design guidelines or standards for residential multi -family. What they are showing you this evening is something that we cannot require. We are looking at the zoning with regard to the building setback footprint and not the three dimensional building and how it looks and materials. I do think it follows good principals of urban design and I think it is going to be a great asset down there on Dickson Street. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Bunch: I would like to echo the comments of the other Commissioners about the appropriateness of this project. At the same time, since this is less than an acre in size Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 34 Kelly: it will not come back before this body which means that there will not be additional public comment other than the rezoning request from the City Council. There is another issue that is attentive to this, maybe not directly involving it, but it is something that we need to look at in our long term planning. There will be a loss of parking places in this area that are currently being utilized by the religious community on Sundays. As we do one thing good sometimes we create other problems. Although I am going to vote for this project, I just want to keep this information in front because we have a problem in the Dickson Street and downtown area with parking and since there will not be any other public meetings on this I would like to generate some numbers and information for the City Council and for staff to be able to utilize when they do their administrative decisions on this. Laura, can you tell us how many parking places are currently in this area and what the reduction will be and what affect having it as personal parking rather than business parking will have on the Sunday situation. On the site right now according to the survey and counting of spaces and wheel stops, there are 49 spaces. However, it is very important for me to stress that some of these spaces are 11' deep and the cars are hanging 10' out. There is a space that is 45' wide and has a double loaded corridor, that is usually 65' by code. Even though there are 49 spaces. I did a quick calculation on AutoCAD and came up with 38 by code, I know that is cheating, there are 49 squeezing in there right now. Although some of them are never used because they are over crowns of roots and just dangerously close to streets and overhanging sidewalks and such. Our proposal includes 35 spaces, 2 of them are housed in a garage, which will be the McClinton's house so those don't really count so 33. Even though you are losing 16 actual spots, in my eyes if this parking lot were ever upgraded to meet code, you are only using 5 spaces. Bunch: Ok, thank you. You are showing adding an additional storage to the existing building still be office space or will it be converted to residential also? Kelly: The first floor and most of the second floor will remain office space. A little bit of the second floor will become the downstairs of the McClinton residence and that bit of third floor you see is only on Dickson Street. It will be the upstairs of the McClinton residence and the roof will be a rooftop garden. That is all the idea situation. Obviously, it may or may not happen that way. Bunch: Laura, do you know if there are any existing shared parking agreements in affect for this area? Kelly: I don't know that there are on this site. Rushing: Staff is not aware of any shared parking agreements at this location. We also are not aware of any type of shared parking agreement at this location as well as any kind of shuttle services or transportation services between the area churches and other parking areas. We were not able to identify any of those. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 35 Conklin: I would just like to add one thing. That is as we continue to increase the amount of residential in our downtown, the one objective here is that maybe people who live in this apartment or live down there, if they choose to go to church, will walk to church and not drive and will choose to walk to work. I think when you create that mixture of use with actually reducing parking, we may not need as much parking. Bunch: To me that is one the assets of having this type of infill development and it goes a long ways towards stemming the core decay. I think we have done a very good job in Fayetteville of avoiding that where other cities have had considerable problems. Combined with the change of the Heritage Place building from commercial or office space to residential, which eliminates some more parking places and the same thing with Southwestern Bell putting in the expanded generating station, we are losing somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 75 parking places that are available normally on Sundays for the four large churches within this immediate area, within two blocks of this area, to utilize. It is just one of the concerns that I have. Again, I am in favor of this type of infill project but at the same time we need to recognize that our downtown churches have members of their congregations that are coming in from all over town and from out in the growth area and beyond and would not be able to walk to church and we need to make sure we have parking for all of our various uses in the downtown area, whether it is government, business, residential or religious communities. Kelly: I just would like to add one quick comment I guess it would be acceptable at this time with the C-2 zoning to develop that spot so in a way this is trying to make a more aesthetic approach to this. Bunch: I am not trying to minimize this project in any manner I am just saying that as these types of projects come up when they have smaller than an acre and there is not a public hearing we need to remain mindful that we are losing parking in our downtown area and this is a problem that needs to be addressed by the City Council and the administration. I just wanted to initiate dialogue so that it wouldn't be lost when it goes to them. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Bunch. That is an excellent point and parking downtown is certainly a major concern. Commissioners, is there further discussion before we vote on this item? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-1.00 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 36 RZN 03-2.00: Rezoning (Foster, pp 60) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at the southeast comer of Crossover and Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.36 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Aviles: Our seventh item this evening is a rezoning and it carries with it a companion item, seven and eight go together but they are two different rezoning requests. RZN 03-2.00 is a rezoning for Foster submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.36 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning. Shelli, do you have the staff report? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. This property is located south of Albright Road and fronts on Crossover Road. The property is just south of the city limits, the City of Springdale is to the north of this property. This property is also north of the Stonewood Subdivision, which is located immediately south. The two rezonings that you have before you tonight, seven and eight, seven is in regard to tract one, number eight is in regards to tracts 2, 3, and 4 as provided on the site plan. The applicant is proposing to build offices on tract one. In order to do so the applicant is requesting the Residential Office zoning district. This property is designated as Residential on the General Plan 2020. I do want to point out that the area to the south of the subject property is identified as office on the future land use plan. We have also spoken with the fire department, police department, and engineering. The fire department indicates a response time of seven to eight minutes and that fire hydrants would likely be needed at the time of development. The police department did not have any concerns about this requested rezoning and we feel that this property does have adequate access for office use with its frontage on Crossover Road. Also, it serves as a buffer between the proposed single-family in the next rezoning request, the property to the east and also the property to the south is zoned R- 0, Residential Office. We are recommending approval. I do want to point out to you that prior to the meeting I handed out a map of other R-0 zoning along Crossover Road. This was a question that was brought up at agenda session. The map shows you where some of the other residential property is along Crossover Road north of Joyce. Some of those properties you will see have been undeveloped. The ones that are developed are either under construction, we have a funeral home under construction in an R-0 district at Zion Road and Crossover and then at Joyce and Crossover is the Millenium Development and right now they have a fairly low vacancy rate and some of the buildings are still under construction. We just provided this map to give you an idea of some of the other development as well as zoning along Crossover Road. Aviles: Thank you Shelli. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: I am Dave Jorgensen on behalf of the owner and developer on this I am here to answer questions and see if we can move this along. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 37 Aviles: Thank you Dave. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning request for R -O? Yes Sir, if you will come forward and say your name. Nooncaster: My name is John Nooncaster. I have a question as far as clarification. I had a conversation with city staff today and it refers to tracts one, two, three, and four. Is this going to create lots that are actually going to go forward with this or is this just a rezoning of two different acreages? Rushing: This is simply for the rezoning. This is not a subdivision at this time. This is simply split up to show how they would be bringing forward their rezoning request. Aviles: There are two different areas. The one by Crossover is requested to be R -O, Residential Office. Behind and to the side of that is R-1, Residential. Should this go forward through the Planning Commission to City Council and be approved all that way then they would come back with a subdivision plat. Is there anyone else that would like to address us on this rezoning? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions, and to the applicant. MOTION: Ward: I will go ahead, I think this is appropriate to rezone this to R -O. I don't think having too much R -O along Hwy. 265 is a real concern at this time. I don't think there is much out there personally. I believe that I will move for approval of RZN 03-2.00 for this 3.36 acres. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Ward. I have a motion for approval. Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there additional discussion? Shackelford: I just want to make one quick comment. We saw the same type of development just south of this property and the R -O is proving to be a good buffer between the highway and the neighborhood behind so I think it is good that we see this structured, it will help us look at the project going forward so that is why I am supporting it at this point. Aviles: I did have some concerns. I was the one that asked about the undeveloped R -O and I appreciate your bringing up the point about the buffer between the residential and the highway. I am somewhat concerned about the lack of development in the R -O spots but I think they are all fairly recent rezonings. Ward: I feel like most of these are in front of new subdivisions like Stonewood and Copper Creek and as those subdivisions fill up then there will be a need for some office space out there. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 38 Aviles: Thank you. Is there additional discussion or questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-2.00 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 39 RZN 03-3.00: Rezoning (Foster, pp 60) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at the southeast comer of Crossover and Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Aviles: Item eight is RZN 03-3.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff is recommending approval. Shelli, could you give us the report please? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. This property is located immediately east of item seven, which we just heard. The property is split into tracts 2, 3, and 4 for purposes of the rezoning. On tract 4 is an existing single-family home, tracts 2 and 3 are vacant at this time. The applicant is proposing to construct single-family homes on the subject property and is requesting the R-1 zoning. The General Plan does designate this area as residential. We have spoken again, with Engineering, Fire and Police. Fire indicates a response time of seven to eight minutes indicating that there may be a need for fire hydrants at the time of development. The Police Department does not have concerns about this particular rezoning and the Engineering Division has not expressed any concerns about the rezoning. Aviles: Thank you Shelli, is the applicant present? Jorgensen: Yes. It seems like a pretty straight forward rezoning request and l am here to answer questions on it. Aviles: Thanks Dave. Is there any member of the audience that would like to discuss this rezoning? Seeing no one I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the Planning Commissioners. Ward: Since this looks to be a companion item to the last rezoning I will go ahead and move for approval of RZN 03-3.00 for 6.65 acres to be rezoned to R-1. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there additional discussion? Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. The water and sewer that are available, I know we have had some questions in this vicinity of whether they were Fayetteville water or Springdale water, is this one available from Fayetteville sources? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 40 Jorgensen: I am not sure. I think that it is Springdale water along Albright Road and Fayetteville water along the R -O property to the south. In fact, I know it is Fayetteville water to the south. As far as sewer service on the property to the south naturally it will go to the Fayetteville system. Sewer service to the north I don't think it is there to Springdale so it will have to be two septic systems on those two lots. Bunch: Is this all one lot currently? Jorgensen: Yes it is. Bunch: So if there is sewer service available to it then it would have to be all served from that sewer since it is available? Jorgensen: Currently the home that is there is on a septic system. Bunch: I don't see Matt here but I think with the subdivisions and the R -O property to the south of it, do we know how far the Fayetteville city water and the city sewer extends? Jorgensen: Sewer is right there on the south side of the lot and the water line, we are going to have to make a water line extension over to this property, that would be the City of Fayetteville system. Bunch: Even though the rezoning request is for two different zones, it is still right now one piece of property isn't it. Tim, would that have any affect on extending water and sewer lines? Conklin: Not at the time of rezoning but as it comes through our process we require that those extensions be made for Fayetteville water and sewer if available. That is something that will be looked at since it is being subdivided or split, it is something that will come through the process. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner Bunch. Are there any other questions? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-3.00 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 41 ANX 03-1.00: Annexation (Brandon/Anderson, pp 61/100) was submitted by Michele Harrington of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug on behalf of Gary Brandon of Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by George & Saralee Anderson and located at 3632 East Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 57.01 acres. The request is to annex into the City. Aviles: Our final items nine and ten are also companion items, they are an annexation and a rezoning of the same property. ANX 03-1.00 was submitted by Michele Herington of Herington, Miller, Neihouse and Krug on behalf of Gary Brandon of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property owned by George and Saralee Anderson and located at 3632 E. Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 57.01 acres. The request is to annex the property into the city and staff is recommending approval. Shelli? Rushing: Yes Ma'am. This property is located west of George Anderson Road. It is east of the Copper Creek Subdivision. The applicant is requesting to annex into the city. I do want to let you know of some public comments that we have received on this request. The first is that we received a copy of an email from an adjacent property owner expressing concern over the legal descriptions that were submitted. Since we received that email we have spoken with the applicant's representative, they have provided us with a new legal description and you have maps in front of you showing the revised maps. The current legal description reduces the size of the property slightly. You will notice that there is not very much of a change of the boundaries of the property. Aviles: What is the new size? Conklin: There was approximately about a 3" discrepancy so you are not going to be able to really see it on the maps. It was a surveying error. Rushing: We also received an email in regard to the signs posted out at the property. We did post a sign, the sign had fallen down. We did go out there and put the sign back up. We located the sign in a place that we hoped would be as visible by as many people as possible. It was located at the corner of Copper Creek and Zion Road to improve visibility for that sign. I just want to let you know that when property is annexed into the city it is annexed in as A-1 and so we do have an accompanying item to rezone the property to R-1 Residential. That is the next item on the agenda. The proposed rezoning could result in approximately 228 units on the property based on the maximum dwelling units per acre for this site. Using a persons per occupied unit of 2.21 from census information for the City of Fayetteville, we estimate a total population of 504 people. We used our trip generation software to determine the average weekday two way volume which was estimated at 2,182 trips. George Anderson and Zion Road both are designated as collectors on the Master Street Plan. Collector streets are designed for between 4,000 vehicles per day or 6,000 vehicles per day with a left turn bay. We did adopt an annexation policy in March of 2002. We used this policy to make findings on this request. Part of that involved a study of the request by the Engineering Division as well as Fire and Police. We did find that it appears that Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 42 Aviles: Harrington: Aviles: Clark: utilities, as well as public services, can be adequately provided at this location. I do want to point out that George Anderson and Zion Road both are gravel roads at this location. The site does have access to an existing 8" water line and an 8" sewer line that is located in the adjacent Copper Creek subdivision. There is also a 12" water main along Zion Road. The Fire Depattinent estimates the response time to be between six and eight minutes and fire hydrants probably will be needed at the time of development. We are estimating approximately 228 units. After speaking with the Police Depatlment, they did not have any objections with the annexation or the rezoning but did want to point out that the city needs to keep in mind that as the city annexes more and more land the Police Department's patrol responsibilities increase and as the city grows in area officers' crime deterrent patrols decrease simply due to the fact that there is more area to cover. I wanted to let you know of that comment. We do not feel that there is going to be a need in upgrading utilities at this location. The property will be required to go through the subdivision development review process and we find that the request is an acceptable size for an annexation. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the annexation. Thank you Shelli, is the applicant present? Good evening everyone, I am Mickey Harrington. I am representing the sellers, the Andersons and Mr. Brandon the buyer, Gary Brandon Enterprises. The engineer and Mr. Brandon are available to answer questions. I do believe that this is pretty straight forward. The discrepancy in the legal description, which has been corrected, amounted to a one, one hundredth of an acre change so instead of 57.01 it is 57.00 acres. That is the difference. It is a smaller piece due to a survey trying to avoid an obstacle and a few inches difference that has been corrected. I don't think that the number of houses out on this parcel is going to be anywhere near the number of units that were described in the report. I know that is the maximum allowed but just for your information, I know it is premature but it will be nowhere near that number. It will be essentially an extension of the Copper Creek development that is already out there and will look very similar if not the same type of development just heading to the east from the existing Copper Creek subdivision. I would be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this annexation request? Yes Sir, please come forward and tell us your name. I am Arthur Clark, I live directly across Zion Road to the south. I have quite a bit of drainage as it stands as a farm. I am a little concerned about what are they going to do with the drainage increase when we get streets and houses, etc. Also, what are they going to do with Zion Road. Is it going to be paved, is it going to be widened, which it needs to be? If so, all of the road comes south of the quarter section line. Am I going to be required to move a fence or something if the road is widened or will they go to the north into this subdivision? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 43 Aviles: Tim or Shelli would you like to address that? Some of these may have to go to the applicant in terms of the drainage. Conklin: With regard to the roads, we will be looking for street improvements to Zion Road and George Anderson Road at the time of development. We will have to take a look at exactly where the property lines are and where the road is with regard to where the road is built. There will be a process of development review, notification will be sent out and that will have to be worked through if this is annexed and rezoned by the City Council through that development review process. With regard to drainage, once again, at this time it is an annexation and rezoning. We do have a storm water ordinance and drainage will be considered as part of that development review process with regard to how to handle it. As a city policy storm water detention on site is almost always required in order to make sure that the pre -development flows and the post - development flows remain the same going off the site. Aviles: Ok, thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address us on this annexation? I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commission and to the applicant. Estes: It will be necessary that I recuse on this annexation request and the companion rezoning request. The reason for my recusal is that I was involved as an attorney of record in litigation regarding the subject property within the last 12 months. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes, so noted. Commissioners? Bunch: I will move that we recommend ANX 03-1.00 to the City Council. Hoover: I will second. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Hoover. I do have just one question for the applicant. You mentioned that this was going to be pretty much a mirror image of the Copper Creek adjacent to this, is that going to include the same types of densities? Harrington: Yes. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there additional discussion? Bunch: Madam Chair, I would like to make a couple of comments. One is that I know that this will be coming up during the development process but there is a one lane bridge on Zion not too far from this and I think that came up with the Copper Creek subdivision. Tim, could you enlighten us on what the city's position is on changing that one lane bridge? Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 44 Conklin: That is something that we will have to take a look at when this comes through. I can get more information for you on that when that development comes through with regard to the improvements. Bunch: I just want to make sure that we keep it in the forefront because that is a question that has come up with the other developments in this area. In case we have any offsite improvements that are necessary to keep it in the fore front. Conklin: When Stonewood and Copper Creek were developed street stub outs were provided and of course they have utilized those street stub outs to connect both subdivisions together. Those street stub outs have been extended back to the east which would allow access for this subdivision also so it's main access wouldn't be directly on Zion Road. However, it would have access to Zion Road. That is something that we will look at. I have mentioned that to the engineer that is looking at this and that is something that staff is aware of with regard to that one lane bridge on Zion Road. Bunch: Also, for clarity on the issue since George Anderson Road and Zion Road will be in the city with the annexation should it pass are we going to have a situation where half the road is in the city and half is in the county and what do you foresee as the resolution to building these roads out? Conklin: We are going to require a road that can handle the traffic for the subdivision. In the past we have required street improvements to meet city standards on one side and street improvements on the other side, maybe not curb and gutter. It is something that we always look at and deal with. If you recall just a month ago with the Nelson Berna Funeral home at the intersection, we were trying to get street improvements on both sides and the property owner to the south didn't want to provide the right of way and lose the trees to provide that intersection. On that project we got V2 of the street for the entire length of that property. I guess what I am telling you is that it is kind of on a case by case basis. We do want to make sure that when the streets are built that they are built to handle the traffic. Bunch: Just one other comment This is a question for the City Attorney I guess. If this annexation goes through, it is an encroachment into existing agricultural pursuits with animal husbandry and farming and that sort of thing and I realize that there are poultry houses immediately across the street. In the winter time they may not be so odiferous but in the spring and summer when you take the curtains off and run the fans you need to be aware that as we build subdivisions into areas where there are agricultural pursuits that there are certain things that aren't quite like city life. Kit, could you tell us a little bit about what type of regulations we have to do not have concerning the encroachment into existing agricultural areas? Williams: We don't really have any regulations that would stop adjoining areas from continuing with the agricultural pursuits that they have done for a long time. The city would have some potential power if there was something that was really bad going on through it's Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 45 nuisance power even beyond the city limits. I don't think though that the City Council would ever want to affect established, ongoing long term businesses because we approach closer to them. I would think that anybody that would be buying a house in the subdivision should be, they should know what the are around there looks like and I am sure they can see chicken houses and things across the street there and would I think probably have some idea of what they might smell like and of course they could talk to their friends in the other subdivisions that are already being built next to these other chicken houses and probably find out that in the warmer months you can occasionally smell chickens. Aviles: Thank you. Do you have any other questions Commissioner Bunch? Are there any other questions? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 03-1.00 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries on a vote of eight with one abstention. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 46 RZN 03-4.00: Rezoning (Brandon/Anderson, pp 61/100) was submitted by Michele Harrington of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug on behalf of Gary Brandon of Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc. for property owned by George & Saralee Anderson and located at 3632 East Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area (requesting annexation to A-1, Agricultural) and contains approximately 57.01 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Aviles: Our last item tonight is the companion rezoning to this annexation, it is RZN 03-4.00 submitted by Michele Harrington of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug on behalf of Gary Brandon of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property owned by George and Saralee Anderson and located at 3632 E. Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area (requesting annexation to A-1, Agricultural) and contains approximately 57.00 acres. This request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential. Staff is recommending approval. Shelli, could you enlighten us please? Rushing: Yes. The applicant is proposing to construct single-family homes on the subject property. As we mentioned in the accompanying annexation request, the rezoning could result in 228 units as a maximum based on what is permitted in the R-1 district at four units per acre. The population could be a total of 504 persons. Using Trip Generation rates, the average weekday two-way volume would be approximately 2,182 with the Saturday volume being 2,301. Once again, both George Anderson and Zion are designated as collectors in this location. A collector is designed for 4,000 vehicles per day, or 6,000 vehicles per day with a left turn bay. General Plan 2020 designates this site residential. Police, Fire and Engineering had the same comments as they did for the Annexation that we just heard. Aviles: Thanks Shelli. Is the applicant present? Harrington: Mickey Harrington representing the owners, the Andersons and Gary Brandon, the developer. I am here to answer any questions that you may have. Aviles: Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on the requested rezoning? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the applicant and Commission for further discussion, comments, or motions. MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-4.00 by the City Council. Aviles: There is a motion by Commissioner Hoover, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any further discussion? Renee, call the roll please. Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 47 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-4.00 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Estes abstaining. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero with one abstention. Meeting adjourned: 7:38 p.m.