Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A rescheduled meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 10, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-3.00: Vacation (Mee, pp 214) Forwarded to City Council Page 2 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) Approved Page 3 & 15 LSD 03-7.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 174) Page 5 CUP 03-6.00: Conditional Use (Tinsley's Amusements, Inc. pp 135) Page 12 Appointment of Nominating Committee Page 21 Approved Approved COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Bob Estes Alice Church Lorel Aviles Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 2 Aviles: Welcome to the Monday, March 10, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call all Commissioners were present. Aviles: The first item on the agenda this evening is the approval of the minutes from the March 3rd meeting. Do I have a motion? Shackelford: So moved. Aviles: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Bunch: Second. Aviles: Renee, 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 03-3.00: Vacation (Mee, pp 214) was submitted by Seaside Pools, Inc. on behalf of David & Sue Ellen Mee for property located at 3305 South Ridge Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is to vacate the most easterly 8' of a 20' utility easement located on the western lot line of the property for the installation of an in ground pool. Aviles: The minutes stand approved. Our consent agenda this evening is VAC 03- 3.00 submitted by Seaside Pools on behalf of David and Sue Ellen Mee for property located at 3305 South Ridge Drive. This item is on our consent agenda unless any member of the Planning Commission would like to remove it. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this item this evening? I will go ahead and entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Bunch: So moved. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch. Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: Roll Call: Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Renee, call the roll please. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The consent agenda is approved. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 3 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. Aviles: The first item of new business this evening is PPL 03-2.00 for Salem Heights submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on north Salem Road and south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. There are sixteen conditions of approval. Numbers 11 through 16 are standard. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. However, we do need to change numbers 13 and 14. Number 13 should read payment of Parks fees in the amount of $36,075. Number 14 the last line should be a minimum 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace along streets B and G. Aviles: Ok. I will go ahead and read the conditions at this time. 1)The area labeled "Not A Part" shall be included in the subdivision. If the intent is for common open space it shall be labeled as such as covenants will be required which provide for maintenance. 2) The detention pond, wetland areas and open space shall be labeled as lots in the subdivision. Maintenance shall be provided for in the protective covenants. 3) A note shall be placed on the final plat which restricts access from Salem and Rupple Road for lots within the subdivision. 4) All utilities shall be placed underground. 5) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road. Staff is recommending improvements to include 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. 6) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for Rupple Road. Staff is recommending an assessment in the amount of $11,494.00. 7) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for the Rupple Road Bridge. Staff is recommending an assessment of $7,350.00 based on estimated bridge construction costs and projected traffic generated by this development 8) Planning Commission approval of the tree preservation plan with a payment for mitigation into the tree fund in the amount of $10,350. 9) Street "G" shall end in a cul-de-sac. 10) The developer shall pay $6,192.00 pursuant to City Council ordinance for connection to waterlines along Salem. 11) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 12) 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 Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 4 general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 13) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $36,075.00 (65 lots @ $555). 14) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with ten foot greenspace along Rupple Road, Salem Road and Street "A" and a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace along Streets "B and G". 15) Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. 16) Prior to signing the final plat the following is required: a. Project Disk with all final revisions; b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01. Final layer of pavement and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. All completed improvements will be verified by the City Engineering office and shall include monuments, lot stakes, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, culverts and bridges, water supply, sanitary sewer system, and street lights. c. Payment of parks fees and or receipt of signed deed. One original signed deed shall be provided to the Parks Division and one original shall be recorded by the developer with the final plat. When the deed is filed a file marked copy shall be provided to the Parks Division. d. All street lights are required to be installed prior to signing the final plat. Proof of payment by certified check to the electric company for installation and materials with a receipt is required if not installed. Sara, do you want to give us the staff report before we hear from the applicant? Edwards: Yes. We have a 65 lot subdivision that is just south of Salem Village. It lies between the proposed Rupple Road and the existing Salem Road. Wetlands have been delineated. Floodplain does exist on the north portion of this site. Tree preservation existing is 4.27%, proposed is 2.79% and mitigation is being assessed in the amount of $10,350. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions that have been read already. Aviles: Thanks. Is the applicant present? If the applicant is not present, I don't know if we can proceed without the applicant present on a Preliminary Plat. Mr. Williams? Williams: I think we have signed conditions you probably can proceed. Although, I know normally you don't but I don't think there is anything procedurally that says you could not go forward. Aviles: I am thinking maybe I would like to just table it until the end of the meeting and see if they show up. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 5 LSD 03-7.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates, LLC on behalf of Mike Hoffman & Curtis Wegener of Fayetteville Hotel, LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.30 acres with a 4 story, 113 room hotel proposed. Aviles: The third item on the agenda this evening is LSD 03-7.00 which is a Large Scale Development for Marriott Courtyard. It was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Mike Hoffman and Curtis Wagner of Fayetteville Hotel LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.3 acres with a four story 113 room hotel proposed. There are 12 conditions of approval. Items 9 through 12 are standard conditions. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: I will go ahead and read those. 1) The curb cut for this development shall line up with the curb cut proposed for the Olive Garden. Olive Garden was approved with a temporary access from Mall Avenue until such time that the private drive was constructed. The new access for the Olive Garden will be required to be constructed with this development. 2) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver from the five foot greenspace required between the parking lot and the eastern property line. The proposal is for the property owner to the east to grant a ten foot greenspace easement. In the event that the easement is granted, staff is in support of the variance. This easement shall be granted prior to building permit. 3) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District Regulations. The proposal is for a brick base on an E.F.I.S. building with E.F.I.S. pilasters on the east and west elevations. Staff is recommending that the pilasters be constructed of brick as well to further articulate the wall surfaces. 4) The parking lot lighting shall be full cut off sodium lighting fixtures, not to exceed 35 feet in height. 5) All mechanical, utility equipment and dumpsters shall be screened. 6) The private drive shall be constructed to meet minimum street standards. This will allow for future street dedication to the City of Fayetteville. The property owners of lots 17A, 17B, and 17C will be responsible for maintenance of the private drive. 7) A pedestrian connection shall be made from the hotel to the Mud Creek Trail. 8) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 9) 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 Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 6 only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along both sides of the proposed private drive. 11) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 12) 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 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Sara, would you like to give us the staff report? Edwards: The proposal is for a 113 room hotel with 123 parking spaces. Along with this proposal a private drive will be constructed which lines up to Van Asche on the west. Sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the private drive. A lot split was approved at Subdivision Committee which created this tract. It is located immediately north of the Olive Garden on Mall Avenue. The square footage of the hotel with all of the floors is 70,282 sq.ft. Water and sewer are both available along Mall Avenue. For tree preservation, existing trees on the site is 9.03% of the site, proposed to be preserved is 9.03% of the site. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions that were read. Aviles: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Koch: My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering. Aviles: Do you have a presentation to make or would you like to answer questions after I take public comment? Koch: I will just answer questions. Aviles: Ok, thank you. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development at this time? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and close discussion to the public and I will bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission for motions and discussion. Estes: Koch: Jim, what is your position regarding condition of approval number three that the pilasters be constructed of brick? As currently proposed that is the way our client desires the building to be constructed without brick pilasters. We do have some articulation with the Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 7 surfaces of the building. I don't see the other elevation for the west end showing that currently. Estes: We have a west elevation in our packet, is that where you would like to direct our attention? Koch: I just wanted to reiterate that above the brick on the first level of the building they don't want to put any brick above that. It would be the E.I.F.S. material that is depicted on the materials board. With some variations on the surface of the building but no brick on the pilasters. Estes: Thank you Jim. Aviles: Mr. Koch, could you let us know about your plans for item number seven the pedestrian connection to be made from the hotel to the Mud Creek Trail? Where do you plan to make that? That was as a result of a discussion at our agenda setting session. Koch: We are currently working with Steve Hatfield on the design of the trail and how we will marry our site with the trail. I have not received detailed drawings in order to be able to do that yet. I don't anticipate there being a problem for us to work together to achieve these objectives. There is some drainage concerns that need to be addressed in order to make that possible as well as cross connection for pedestrians. Aviles: Right. Staff can work with them during the development of the plans to make sure that that happens. Commissioners? Hoover: Is there a north elevation? Koch: Yes. The architect gave me an elevation that is not colored. They just hand sketched in what the courtyard containment area is going to be like. They are proposing that that be brick. It would be brick walls with different rolling materials such as a bronze and aluminum and different things like that. Aviles: Do you know why the client objects to the brick pilasters going higher? Koch: Money, cost. Ostner: Mr. Koch, if the material is the problem with the cost, something we just approved on 6th Street is entirely E.I.F.S. but the pilasters are a different color of E.I.F.S. Would that be something possible? Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 8 Koch: I did pose that scenario to our client. However, the Marriott's approved architectural standard this year is what we are showing here and that is not something that they currently desire at this time. Aviles: If the Planning Commission were to approve the Large Scale with a recommendation for either alternate materials or an alternate color do you have a feeling for how long it would take the Marriott to be responsive to that with staff? Koch: Ward: Fortunately I haven't had to go back to the Marriott's architectural review committee for some type of change like that. However, just as a best guess I would say we would be talking about months before we even got an answer and it could be a deal killer for the project. I don't think we are here to do the Commercial Design Standards of each building and pick out the colors and all the materials. I personally think this building meets our Commercial Design Standards. Everybody has got their own idea. If it was my building I would want it all red brick all the way to the top, that is what I like, red brick all the way but it is not my design and not my building. With that, I will go ahead and recommend approval of LSD 03-7.00 allowing them to build it as they show on their elevations and drawings. I know that staff always looks at this very closely and we do too at Subdivision. I am not sure it would look that much better or different or anything else with a little bit more brick on it or a little bit different color. Everybody can put their input on that. I think that they presented us a very nice Marriott Courtyard hotel and I feel like we should approve it unless it doesn't meet our Commercial Design Standards and I feel like it does meet those standards. Ostner: I have one other question before we move on that motion. There is only one ingress/egress right now on the site plan, if that future road is extended, it is now a private drive, are you all planning another ingress/egress more to the east? Koch: No we are not. Through some other efforts and planning for potential developments on this particular lot to the east of our site further into the lot away from Mall Avenue we are going to need to construct a significant detention area and it just doesn't work out right now for them to have a cross connection from the east nor do they desire it. We are anticipating detention in that area as well as the greenspace mentioned in the conditions of approval but we are not planning for any additional access from the east boundary into the site. Ostner: That would be from the northeast. Koch: I say east generally on the other side of our project from Mall Avenue. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 9 Aviles: Shackelford: Koch: Shackelford: Edwards: Shackelford: Allen: Conklin: Williams: I have a motion on the table by Commissioner Ward for approval as presented, do I hear a second? I will second. I have, if it is ok, a couple of comments and then a question for the applicant. I agree with Commissioner Ward also on the Commercial Design Standards. If you look at the elevation with the brick, with the awnings, with the different rooflines I feel that this project is in line with what our Commercial Design Standards call for. I also agree with what he is saying that this is a national franchise with approved building types and I don't necessarily feel like it is our place to go back and try to redesign their plan for them. I feel that it is within what we normally approve for this type of development. The question I have for the applicant, number two for conditions of approval is a requested waiver for 5' greenspace in exchange for a 10' greenspace easement to the property to the east. Has that been completed and can you update us on that process? On our plans I do have a note that says 5' greenspace to be retained by future development. However, I think that in addressing that condition at Subdivision Committee I mentioned to Sara Edwards that we would work on the actual easement dimensions and the scope of that easement with the easement plat that is going to need to be done eventually. Staff, you are in support of that? Yes. I might just take a minute to explain when two parking lots go by side by side each is required to have 5' on their side so I went ahead and made the requirement for 10' so that that one 5' couldn't count for both developments but I think we can work that out with an easement plat at the time of permit. Thank you. Does staff feel that the project as designed meets our standards? Staff does believe that it does meet our minimum design standards. Our recommendation is to approve the project. I just want to call your attention to our ordinance about whether or not to approve a Large Scale Development. In order to deny a Large Scale Development in the process that we are looking at right now, I think only subsection D.2 is what you are considering. That is that the proposed development would violate city ordinance, a state statute, or a federal statute. Of course you are just looking at the Commercial Design Standards but you would actually have to find that this proposal in front of Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 10 you does, in fact, violate the Commercial Design Standards in order to vote against approving this Large Scale Development. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Williams. Allen: Estes: I was just going to add that I will vote for the project but it sometimes concerns me that it seems like a project comes through and we bend for them instead of them for us. Madam Chair, I will also vote for the motion but I am disturbed by two things. Number one is staff tells us that it does meet our minimum Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District regulations but then staff recommends that the east and west elevations be modified. Tim, can you help me out? Conklin: Here are our Commercial Design Standards. D. Design Element guidelines for Commercial Structures. The elements to avoid or minimize include a. unpainted concrete precision block walls. This project is not using unpainted concrete precision block walls. B. Square, boxlike structures. This structure has articulation. It is not just a square, boxlike structure. C. Metal siding which dominates the main facade. It does not have metal siding that dominates the main facade. D. Large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. I think when you look at the entire project it is not a large, blank, unarticulated wall surface. E. Large out of scale signs with flashy colors. Those are the minimum standards that we are using. We made a recommendation in order to enhance the articulation on the wall from E.I.F.S. to brick. However, it did not change the actual physical design of the building. It is the use of color and material and the question was posed does it meet the minimum standards? I believe it does meet the minimum standards. We strive to try to enhance the projects as best as we can. Estes: The second thing that concerns me is that the east and west elevation, one is going to face the US 71 Highway corridor and the other one is going to face Mall and those are the elevations that staff is recommending that the pilasters be constructed of brick as well as to further articulate wall surfaces. With the staff report and with staff's comments that it meets the minimum design standards I will vote for the motion. Aviles: I will echo that. I just think that Commercial Design Standards being subjective in nature are very difficult to draw a finite line and say "We have to have this or that." However, Commissioner Ostner's recommendation of possibly a contrasting color band should be, I think, strongly considered by the Marriott as being a cost effective way to bring the project certainly within reasonable bounds of Fayetteville's Commercial Design Standards. I realize that this is a large project that has Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 11 many good features about it. It has a very attractive facade front and back but the two ends are going to be visible from our major retail area and our major interchanges. I will vote for the motion as well but with the strong recommendation that they consider contrasting colors or something. Commissioners, are there any other comments? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve is LSD 03-7.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. Mr. Koch, the motion passes unanimously. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 12 CUP 03-6.00: Conditional Use (Tinsley's Amusements, Inc. pp 135) was submitted by Sandy George on behalf of Richard Tinsley for property owned by The Macerich Company (Northwest Arkansas Mall) which is located at 4060 N. Mall Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is for the temporary use of this location for a carnival. Aviles: The fourth item on our agenda this evening is a Conditional Use for Tinsley's Amusements. It was submitted by Sandy George on behalf of Richard Tinsley for property owned by the Macerich Company which is located at 4060 N. Mall Avenue. There are 13 conditions of approval. Dawn, do we have signed conditions? Warrick: Yes we do. Aviles: I will go ahead and read those now. 1) Planning Commission approval of two consecutive 7 day periods of operation for the proposed project. The applicant proposes to be open for 10 days (March 21st thru March 30`h) while § 163.14 states that this type of facility may operate for "not more than seven days and (conditional use approval) shall not be granted for more than three such periods for the same location within any 90 -day period." 2) A Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be obtained from the City Planning Division for this facility prior to operation. 3) A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Safety Division for this facility prior to operation. 4) Any structure over thirty inches (30") in height shall be setback from property lines as required by C-2 zoning regulations (§161.14). 5) Compliance with the City's noise ordinance. 6) Fire Marshall and Building Inspection approval prior to operation of this facility. 7) The applicant shall provide the City of Fayetteville documentation of approval from Arkansas Department of Labor regarding inspection of carnival rides prior to opening the facility. 8) Trash shall be contained on-site in a sanitary condition with dumpster service secured with a local provider for periodic removal. 9) Utility service shall be contained on-site and provided by the applicant. 10) Generators used for this purpose shall be equipped with mufflers to mitigate noise. 11) No banners or free standing signage shall be permitted. 12) Vehicular access to the site shall be from Mall Ave. only by way of an existing curb cut. 13) The applicant shall provide a Certificate of Business Organization Structure including fictitious names together with name and address of agent for service of process to be filed with the City Planning Division and the City Clerk. 14) The applicant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance including named insured, limits of liability and policy period to be filed with the City Planning Division and the City Clerk. Dawn, have they provided these documents to us yet? Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 13 Warrick: Some of the information has been obtained. They are providing updated insurance information and some of the inspections will be completed prior to the event. We are in the process of obtaining all of the information. Aviles: None the less, everything that I just read would have to be obtained prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy? Warrick: That is correct. Aviles: Do you have anything additional? Warrick: The subject property is located on the east side of Mall Avenue between the Northwest Arkansas Mall and Joyce Blvd. The site is used by the mall for overflow employee and seasonal parking. It is basically a large gravel lot which is vacant. The applicant proposes to conduct a carnival on the site for ten days between March 215t and 30th, both days inclusive. The proposal includes several rides, a novelty food trailer and between 8 to 10 game concessions. Hours of operation are proposed to be weekdays 4:00 to 10:00 p.m., Saturday noon to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday noon to 9:00 p.m. The same operation did use this site for a carnival during March of 2002 and we did process a Conditional Use at that time for that project. The request at this time is for the temporary use of a carnival at the subject property. This type of temporary facility is categorized under our Use Unit 2 in the City's Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a Conditional Use in all zoning districts. Aviles: Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? Please come forward and tell us your name. If you have a presentation you are welcome to make it. Ramsill: My name is Bill Ramsill from Highhill, Missouri. Do you want me to go over this sheet again? Aviles: Not if you don't want to. We will take public comment and then after that I will close discussion to the public and we will come back to you and to the Commission. Ramsill: Ok, everything that she just said I was going to say myself. Aviles: Thank you. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Conditional Use? Seeing nobody, we will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commission and to the applicant. Church: Madam Chair, I will need to recuse on this item. Ward: Tim, last time that we approved this there were quite a few conditions, did they meet all of those conditions and everything went smoothly, did we Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 14 have any complaints from the Police Department or Fire Department last year? Conklin: Yes they did meet the conditions. Dawn, did you receive any complaints? Warrick: No. MOTION: Ward: With that, unless anyone else had questions, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 03-6.00 for Tinsley's Amusements with all 13 conditions of approval. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, do I hear a second? Hoover: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Is there any additional discussion before I call the roll? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-6.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Church abstaining. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries with a vote of eight affirmative and one abstention. Thank you very much. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 15 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. Aviles: We will return now to Salem Heights, item two on our agenda, is that applicant present? Gabbard: Yes. Aviles: We had already gone through the conditions of approval, which I understand that you have signed. Gabbard: Yes Ma'am, that is correct. My name is Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering. Aviles: Mr. Gabbard, do you have a presentation for us? Gabbard: No Ma'am, I just want to apologize for being late. I think I set a world speed record for changing a tire. Aviles: Ok. We waited just for you and we are glad to do that. Gabbard: I appreciate that. Aviles: I had gone through the conditions. Had we taken the staff report? Do we need to talk about the floodplain or the wetlands? That has all been pretty well taken car of. Is there any public comment? Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing no one, I will bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission. Allen: We continue to approve projects in this part of town and we continue to talk about our sewage capacity being at 95%, I just wondered will this make us at 96% or 97%, what happens next? Conklin: OMI, which is our contractor for our waste water treatment plant, recently presented to the City Council information regarding our capacity of our waste water treatment plant. A lot of our capacity issues relate to wet weather flows depending on the rainfall that we have in Fayetteville and how much we have and the duration and how fast it comes down impacts our ability to handle the flow into the plant. I am not going to attempt to try to give you that presentation this evening but I will ask OMI to give a presentation to the Commission if you are interested in hearing from our waste water treatment plant operator with regard to the treatment plant Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 16 capacity. With regard to the other points, it is more than just the amount of water going into the system, it is also removing the total suspended solids and other types of material out of the treatment plant or out of the waste stream. With regard to that, they do have the ability to continue accepting additional flows into the plant. What I will try to do is schedule something for the Planning Commission so you can hear from our contractor. Allen: I would like that. I have one other question. How close is the nearest fire station to this project? Conklin- That would be on Eagle Street and Garland. Allen: So approximately how many minutes would that be from the project? I am sure you haven't been out to make that run but an estimation? Conklin: We have been throwing around so many response times that I am afraid to throw one out. I am not going to guess. I can get that to you later. On our annexations and rezonings we do have the Fire Department give response times as part of those recommendations that go forward. This was already in the City of Fayetteville. I am not going to guess on the response time but I can get that to you. Ostner: There was a mention of a certain RJN report dealing with the lift station, which you might have already covered that. They were in the process of getting that result when this was in Subdivision. I was just wondering if that might have come through and what those results might have been. Conklin: The city did recently receive a draft report that is being reviewed by city staff and responses will be given back to the consultant. What Commissioner Ostner is referring to is the city's ability to deal with the flow into the Hamestring Creek Lift Station. The city has undertaken a study with RJN and city staff is working on looking at that issue. What we have been doing as part of this development review process is informing people who are developing of that ongoing study and at this point in time staff is continuing to recommend approval of development based on current information that we do have. Aviles: Commissioners, are there any other questions or motions? Ward: Kind of in response to some of Nancy's concerns there, right across the street from this subdivision is Holcomb Elementary School. Not very far from that is Holt Middle School. There are several large subdivisions further west of this particular subdivision. I can't tell you exactly how long it would take to drive a fire truck out there, I would say eight to ten minutes but it is definitely much closer than a lot of our other subdivisions Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 17 Aviles: Gabbard: Aviles: Shackelford: Aviles: Ostner: Gabbard: Ostner: Gabbard: Ostner: Aviles: Ostner: that we have approved further out and I'm sure that before the schools were built out there this was looked at very closely, especially the elementary school across the street. With that, I will make a motion to approve PPL 03-2.00. There are sixteen conditions of approval and number 13 we did change to payment of parks fees in the amount of $36,075 and on number 14 we did change the wording where it says with a 6' greenspace along streets B and G and not just a 6' sidewalk. We did change the wording a little bit on our conditions Mr. Gabbard. You have signed those and you are up to date on those? Yes Ma'am. Thanks. I have a motion for approval subject to all comments by Commissioner Ward. Do I hear a second? I will second. There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any additional discussion? In looking at the drawing I noticed that the street widths are all 28' as our ordinance requires. My question is our ordinance allows down to a 24' street width on certain neighborhood streets with very low traffic. As I look at the drawing, the four cul-de-sacs would be eligible for this. I wanted to ask you and the Commission about that extra 4' if that would be something you would want to do. Narrow streets are cheaper and safer in general. Not the street all the way through, I think that is street "A", and of course not Salem or Rupple and the right of way stays the same but is that something that you would consider, a 24' curb to curb? Commissioner Ostner, you want narrower streets? I am asking if that is something you would be interested in. I will go as narrow as you will allow me to go. It is very unusual for a Commissioner to ask me to go smaller. I would need to converse with the Commission obviously. I think that is something that would've been more appropriate at Subdivision level. Were you at that Subdivision Committee meeting? I was not. I would've loved to have brought it up but I wasn't there. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 18 Aviles: We have a traffic study underway with the city and we are talking about traffic calming devices and things like narrower streets in general and this is an idea that certainly has a great deal of merit but I'm not sure if it has that merit to change the Preliminary Plat after it has gone through the Subdivision level and all of that. Ostner: I understand that it is very last minute but I didn't see it until now and I had to say something. The other thing that would go along with that Commissioners is a neighborhood street only has one side for a sidewalk whereas what he is doing a 28' local street there are sidewalks on either side. I think that is a good tradeoff that he only has to build one sidewalk and a town gets a narrower street with less pavement, etc., etc. It would only be on these cul-de-sacs where there are three, four or twelve homes. It is not a lot of traffic. Gabbard: On the property to the north that we took out that is in a floodplain and we have intentionally taken that out because we knew that we would have to come back later before this Commission once we get that out of the floodplain. It would require a CLOMR and then followed up by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA and if we make those roads smaller, my personal preference after 14 years of doing this, is 27' back to back curb don't ask me to go any narrower. I have seen too many situations where if you go wider they are going to park. If you go narrower then it restricts your traffic flow. However, there may be some merit in the fact that you are thinking about a smaller street. We all have opinions and my opinion is 27' back to back is as narrow as any street should ever be built that is for a subdivision. I am totally on board with a 28' back to back. In my opinion, unless you tell me to do otherwise, in all the subdivisions that I design they will be at least that. If you request and if all of you concur that I should go something different I will be more than happy to consider your judgment there. Ostner: Thank you. I understand that this is at a late moment. If we can just carry this on at some other time, this isn't a motion of any sort. There is a motion that has been seconded and I will vote for the project. Aviles: And it is an idea with merit. I didn't mean to be terrible about that but I would like things like that addressed at Subdivision Committee if at all possible. I think our Subdivision Committee does do a good job of that and will continue to evolve as we look at new street design standards and the traffic calming devices and effects and things like that. Were there any other comments? Allen: There are an awful lot of children out there and I wondered if there were any other existing parks other than the Gary Hampton Soccer Field for that area. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 19 Gabbard: Yes Ma'am. Immediately north of us is Clabber Creek and that property just adjacent to us on the north side, staff correct me if I'm wrong but is that not currently owned by Parks and Recreation? Conklin- It is owned by Parks and Recreation. It is a wetland area and does have some deed restricted wetlands. I don't think it is going to be developed into an active park. It is more of passive type recreation park. Gabbard: One of the things that I found out about dealing with the wetlands on this project and the one north of it, is that if a boardwalk is built in any wetlands the Corp. of Engineers doesn't look at that as being an impact that has to be mitigated. I don't think that the Parks and Recreation people realize this at this point but if you all decided to build any kind of boardwalk or anything in a wetland area, which would get it up above the standing water that may be seasonally or all the time in that area that it would be very easy for you to get that done without having to go and deal with a long drawn out individual permit from the Corp. There is a nationwide permit and the individual permit when you impact more than /2 an acre you have got to go for the individual. If it is less than 1/2 of an acre you can get a nationwide. An individual permit translates to about a year of time. With those boardwalks the Corp. of Engineers love it. I just thought I would pass that onto you guys. Aviles: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? Ward: Just going back to a little bit of reference of what Alan was talking about. I personally like the wider streets. I am in subdivisions everyday showing homes and so on and the wider streets on the cul-de-sacs, even though the sidewalks are there, all the baby strollers are out there in the streets, all the joggers are in the streets, all the bicyclers are riding in the streets. Sidewalks are getting used very little in those subdivisions. They are always in the streets. It is pretty safe because the only traffic in there is the people driving to the next house going home. In this type of subdivision I like the wide streets because there is no reason for anybody else to be in there except the neighbors. Ostner: I think the sidewalks might be used more if there is less asphalt. Ward: They won't use them. Ostner: They will. Hoover: Perhaps we should have some type of educational seminar or something on street widths and what really is traffic calming and what is safer Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 20 because we seem to have a difference in opinion here and I think there are some statistics that actually show one way or the other. Aviles: Tim, what is involved in this taskforce on our transportation issues with the city? Have we got some upcoming seminars that the Planning Commission could avail themselves of? Conklin: We hired BWR Consultants to do a traffic study for the City of Fayetteville. We had our kickoff meeting at the Town Center. Groups were formed that looked at different aspects from traffic calming to access management to name a few. As part of that study they will be coming back and making recommendations. I think doing exactly what Commissioner Hoover has suggested, looking at what is appropriate street widths for traffic calming and presenting that to the city. That is ongoing, completion for that project is in August. There will be another public meeting late spring or early summer prior to that study being finalized. Aviles: Thank you very much. In addition to that, don't we have standards that are set out and somewhat discussed in a National Transportation Safety Manual that you guys use? Conklin: We do have our Master Street Plan cross section standards that we do have a 24' street. It is limited to use for streets that have less than 300 vehicles per day. Typically you have about 10 trips per day per single-family home so that gives you an idea of how many houses you can have. It is usually on a cul-de-sac or a small looped street that we do allow that. Some developers have used a 24' street. Most recently Crystal Springs Phase III came through and they utilized the 24' street in several locations. I believe Stonewood and Copper Creek have some 24' streets that were utilized. Those are our minimum standards. We typically haven't required that of developers. Developers have chosen by themselves to use a 24' street. Aviles: Shackelford: Thank you. It has been a while since we looked at the conditions of approval, but just for the record, there are 16 conditions of approval, 5 of those are assessments or fees associated with this that exceed $71,000. I just want to take a minute to compliment the applicant and the developer for your willingness to work with the city and not contesting any of these fees. That obviously will be on top of the impact fees that will be associated with this development. I think this will be a good source of revenue for smart development going forward. I appreciate your working with us on that. Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 21 Aviles: I agree. Back when these properties were being rezoned I had questions in my mind and Commissioner Ward and I had several discussions on whether or not there was a need for this much housing in the area I think it has certainly born out that question and answered that question in my mind as much growth as we have experienced on the west side of town. The rezonings were certainly justified and fall in line with what you said about the fees and assessments. Is there anybody else? Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Madam Chair, I would like to thank you and the Commission for hearing me even though I was late. Committee Aviles: Gabbard: Nominating Aviles: Estes: Allen: Ostner: Aviles: Conklin: Aviles: That concludes the new business on the agenda. I do have one announcement. Tonight I am going to appoint a nominating committee. Commissioner Ward and I are quickly coming to the end of our terms so we will need some new officers. To do that, I would like to appoint Commissioners Estes, Allen, and Ostner for the Nominating Committee. If you guys could meet sometime between now and our next meeting to come up with a slate of officers and then that will be voted on according to our bylaws at the first meeting in April. Do you all agree to serve on the Committee? I agree. Certainly. I accept. Thank you very much. Tim, do we have any announcements before we adjourn? No announcements. With that we will stand adjourned.