Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A rescheduled meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 24, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-4.00: Vacation (BENCORE, pp 523) Forwarded to City Council Page 3 ADM 03-8.00: Administrative Item (Young, pp 610) Approved Page 3 ADM 03-9.00: Administrative Item (Community Christ Church, pp 292) Approved Page 5 CPL 03-1.00: Concept Plat (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Approved Page 7 LSD 03-8.00: Large Scale Development (Ruby Tuesday, pp 588) Approved Page 36 LSD 03-9.00: Large Scale Development (Walgreens, pp 523) Approved Page 42 PPL 03-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) Approved Page 48 ADM 03-11.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Bridgewater Lane and Unnamed Minor Arterial) Page 50 PPL 03-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) Page 52 ADM 03-2.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan -46'h Street, pp 438) Page 57 Forwarded to City Council Approved Forwarded to City Council PPL 03-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Persimmon Place, pp 438) Approved Page 59 R-PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, pp 255) Forwarded to City Council Page 66 ADM 03-6.00: Administrative Item (UDO) Forwarded to City Council Page 72 Report of the Nominating Committee Page 75 Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 2 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 24, 2003 Page 3 Aviles: Welcome to the Monday, March 24, 2003 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Ostner arriving at 5:35 p.m. and Commissioner Ward arriving at 5:40 p.m. Aviles: We have a lengthy agenda this evening but first I would like you all to greet our Mayor, Dan Coody. Coody: I wanted to present a couple of awards this evening for appreciation of all of you folks that are leaving the Planning Commission. I wanted to say thanks to the Chair, Lorel. The people don't know how much work the Planning Commission gets involved in. The folks who run for the City Council and get elected to City Council don't know what a real job is. You guys do it. It is this Commission that basically sees to it how Fayetteville unfolds into the future and this is a dramatically important committee and we certainly appreciate all of your efforts. If you will please let Lee know, I am assuming he is coming tonight. If you would give this to Lee for me I would appreciate it Thank you all very much for all of your contributions. VAC 03-4.00: Vacation (BENCORE, pp 523) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants on behalf of BENCORE for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.076 acres. The request is for an alley vacation. ADM 03-8.00: Administrative Item (Young, pp 610) was submitted by Chris Young for property located at 5635 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.5 acres. The request is to appeal certain conditions of approval for CUP 03-3.00. Aviles: I know that I can speak for Lee too and say that we have both been privy and honored to serve on this Planning Commission. Thank you very much again. You are welcome to stay. We have a lengthy agenda this evening. The first two items are consent items. First is VAC 03-4.00 for BENCORE properties located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and S. School Avenue. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.76 acres. The request is for an alley Vacation. The second item is ADM 03-8.00, which is an Administrative Item submitted by Chris Young for property at 5635 E. Huntsville Road. This property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 2.50 acres. The request is to appeal certain conditions of approval for CUP 03-3.00. Is there any Commissioner that would like to Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 4 discuss this and remove any of these items from the consent agenda? Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on these items before we vote on them? Shackelford: I will make a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Hoover: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Approval of the Minutes Aviles: Let the record reflect that Commissioner Ostner is now present. The next thing we will do is consider a motion for approval of the minutes for the March 10, 2003 meeting. Allen: I move for approval of the minutes. Church: I will second it. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of March 10, 2003 meeting was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 5 ADM 03-9.00: Administrative Item (Community Christ Church, pp 292) was submitted by Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction on behalf of Community of Christ Church located at 2715 N. Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.10 acres. The request is to appeal certain conditions of approval for CUP 03-2.00. Aviles: The first item of new business this evening is ADM 03-9.00 for Community Christ Church submitted by Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction on behalf of Community Christ Church and located at 2715 N. Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.10 acres. This request is to appeal certain conditions of approval for CUP 03-2.00. Sara or Dawn? Warrick: The Community of Christ Church applied for a Conditional Use that was heard by the Planning Commission at the March 3`d Planning Commission meeting. That item was approved at that meeting with condition number four, payment of $4,500 in lieu of installation of the required sidewalk. The applicant at that meeting did put the Planning Commission and staff on notice that they had decided to appeal that condition. Staff, with that information, went back to re -look at this required sidewalk item. There is a section under the sidewalk ordinance that allows for discretion with regard to rough proportionality when applying the requirement for installation of a sidewalk or a contribution in lieu of the sidewalk installation. Staff did review that and made findings, which are found in your agenda packet on pages 3.1 through 3.3. With that information staff has recommended a reduced contribution based on the type of use and the amount of improvement, addition that is being proposed with this development and staff is now recommending that that assessment for contribution in lieu of sidewalk installation be reduced to the amount f $642.86. Aviles: Thank you very much Dawn. Is the applicant present? Please come forward and give us your names and the benefit of your presentation please. Nugent: I am Jeff Nugent, Pastor of Community of Christ Church. Collier: Kelley Collier, I am on the building committee for the Community of Christ Church. Aviles: Do you have a presentation or do you want to answer questions after I have taken public comment? Nugent: No, the only thing I think we wanted to say is that we would accept the staff recommendation of $642.86. That would be fine with us. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 6 Aviles: Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will bring the discussion back to the Commission and to the applicant. Motion: Estes: I move for approval of ADM 03-9.00 in accordance with staff's recommendation and based upon the consent of the applicant. Aviles: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Estes. Bunch: Second. Aviles: And a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any additional discussion? Let the record reflect that Commissioner Ward is here. Is there any additional discussion? Hoover: I would like to make one comment on some of these sidewalks. On this one I will definitely be voting for this because they are not adding any more use to their facility. They won't be adding to the congregation, it is just a classroom for the existing congregation and since they haven't added anymore people, when we are looking back at this trip generation and trying to figure out proportionality of bow much impact this is going to have on the sidewalks, I would say that in this case it doesn't. I am glad that we are looking at it on a case by case basis. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Hoover. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-9.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 7 CPL 03-1.00: Concept Plat (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Aviles: Fourth on our agenda tonight is CPL 03-1.00 for Sequoyah Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Sara, can you give us the staff report? Edwards: Yes. The proposal is for seven buildings, a total of 39 dwelling units. The request is for approval of a Concept Plat. In the event that this Concept Plat is approved the project will be resubmitted as a Large Scale Development and reviewed in detail with regard to code compliance. Parking required is 48 spaces. They are proposing 58 spaces with 9 on street on Olive Street. Right now there is right of way existing on Olive, 60'. There is 30' of right of way for Center and 60' of right of way for Fletcher which is existing to the east of the site. Their proposal is that Olive be constructed along the entire property line with a width of 28' in front of the property. 20' for driving lanes and 8' for parking stalls. In addition, they are proposing to widen Olive to Spring Street to 20' in width and proposing a cost share for a 4' sidewalk along the east side of Olive. Access proposed is solely through Olive Avenue. Tree preservation, right now it is 100% covered, they are preserving 20.17% and 20% is the requirement in this district. We do not have signed conditions of approval. Aviles: I will read those in just a second. There are 13 conditions of approval, 8 through 13 are standard conditions. I would just like to say something about this process. Normally we do not see concept plats. It is my understanding that this is being done as a courtesy because the street connection is a very important item in the design of the project and the developer did not wish to go further with the project before he knew whether the street would be required to be connected, which is the staff's recommendation. Tim, would you edify us on this? Conklin: I do realize this is something that you typically do not see at this level. We have been working on this project for quite some time now and the issue has been with regard to the question of should Olive Street be extended with a connection of Center Street down to Walnut. Staff was recommending that that street connection be made as part of this project. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 8 The applicant wanted some assurance of would that connection be required by the Planning Commission. They are looking for a recommendation of whether or not the Commission is going to support staff with that recommendation to extend Olive and build that part of Center Street. If that is a decision that is made they will go ahead and do their preliminary engineering on that to determine how to construct those improvements to make that connection. They do not want to go forward and do a lot of engineering if that street was not going to be required. As Ms. Edwards stated, their proposal is not to make that connection through down to Walnut. Aviles: So I can make sure that I can scope the discussion properly, other than the conditions of approval, which I am about to read into the record, the issue that we are discussing here this evening is the street connection. Conklin: The street connection and they have modified their site plan to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. I would expect that they would probably share that information with you also. Aviles: Has it been modified since agenda session? Conklin: No. Aviles: Ok, thanks Tim. I am going to read these conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements and required access. Olive is currently substandard. It is only 18 feet wide and does not meet state fire code. With the allowance of on street parking two-way traffic cannot be accommodated. The pavement and sub -base is failing and can likely not accommodate construction traffic. The site has access to Fletcher but no access point is proposed. Right-of-way for Center exists adjacent to the site and south to Walnut. Staff is recommending the construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive Street and Olive Street adjacent to the site with waivers from the minimum street standards if necessary. 2) Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the property. 3) A 10 foot utility easement shall be granted on both sides of the existing 30 foot water line, which is required for maintenance of the line. 4) All buildings will be required to meet increased setbacks based on height where applicable. 5) Lighting shall not encroach onto adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to installation. 6) Any damage to Olive Street by construction traffic will be repaired at the developer's expense. 7) Planning Commission recommendation of the requested cost share for sidewalk construction along Olive. The developer proposes a sidewalk along Olive from the project site to Spring Street and has requested a cost share. 8) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 9 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 only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $14,625 (39 units @ $375) 11) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum four foot sidewalk along Olive. 12) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 13) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Is the applicant present? Bunch: I have a question on condition number three. It shows an existing 30 foot waterline, is that a typo? Edwards: That should be a 30 inch water line. Shackelford: In the past I have recused from Planning Commission actions involving Greg House due to a business relationship. At this point I don't have any commercial relationship with Greg House currently. After visiting with our City Attorney, Mr. Williams bas indicated that I need not recuse from this if I didn't want to. My plans were to hear this and vote on it if no other member of the Planning Commission had an issue with that. Aviles: Thanks for letting us know. Commissioners, are there any questions? I appreciate it Commissioner Shackelford. Is the applicant present? House: Yes Ma'am. Good evening, I am Greg house for those of you who don't know me. I represent Houses Development Company. Actually I am a little bit in the dark about what we are doing tonight because I thought we were kind of going forward with most of the concept, not just the issue of the street. I thought this would be part of the overall process that the concept plat was related to density and issues other than technical things like tree preservation, landscaping, and drainage. Maybe I'm mistaken. We came prepared for most of the discussion rather than just the Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 10 discussion of the connectivity. Am I wrong in that Tim? Conklin: The primary issue is access which is when we met with Mr. House, concerns about spending a lot of money designing and engineering a street connection. Also, as I thought I stated earlier, has presented a concept design which has moved some buildings and added some parking and my understanding is it has been seven buildings, 39 units, that really hasn't changed. Once again, there may be some other issues that we will discuss this evening. Aviles: I think the concept plat is rather as a favor to the developer because if your plan had been submitted without the street connection it likely would've been disapproved on that basis. That being the main point we will be discussing that in detail this evening. I believe Tim, at agenda session, said that you have met other ordinance requirements regarding density and so forth as they exist in R-2 zoning. The traffic is an issue that we will be discussing. Conklin: That is correct. With regard to the density issue, that is a zoning issue. This is zoned R-2 so it is really not something that should be discussed as part of this development. What we are discussing is access to the development and other development ordinances. The primary issue that we have been discussing with the applicant is with regard to what is appropriate for access to this site should there be a street connection, should Olive Street be extended. You are within an historic platted area. Rights of way exist. Connections may be possible if you complete out the grid system. Staff recommended looking at how to develop some of this connectivity, street connections in areas that were not very steep like you see in other areas. Center Street going north up to Fletcher, staff did not recommend that at this time. Center Street south of Olive to Walnut from my observation out there, it does look like vehicles have traveled a gravel drive in the past so it is possible to drive on it today. I would like to note that it would require a variation in our minimum street standards in order to make this connection. The larger policy issue that I have discussed with Mr. House and his engineer is this area is zoned R-2. We are seeing increased density being built in this area. If this area is increased from two units per acre to 20 units per acre what kind of street network do we need in the future? What type of connectivity do we need in the future? We have an existing grid pattern, right of way that was recorded and platted. Do we as a city complete that grid pattern and make those connections with the idea that this may develop with multi -family as we are seeing, this may develop as single-family regardless of whether it is multi -family or single-family, urban design principles traditional houses are along streets. Do you want to complete the street network? With regard to the overall design, once again, modifications have been made with regard to building location placement and parking. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 11 Aviles: Those are in conformance with city ordinances. What I would like to do is to focus our discussion this evening in terms of the discussion. I think that we have a large issue in front of us in terms of offsite improvements and what Houses Incorporated is willing to do with regard to cost sharing on that and that the access is the issue that we need to address on this if we are meeting the other ordinances and design standards, lets not waste everybody's time. We have got a lot of people here tonight. Can I see a show of hands if you are here with the public to address us on this concept plat. We are going to hear from everyone. I would like to be very clear on what I am asking the applicant and the public to address. That is the offsite improvements, the access to the site, and the implications for cost sharing. Since we have a lengthy agenda tonight and this only number four of fourteen if you could keep your comments short, to the point, and try to avoid repetition we would certainly appreciate that. Mr. House would you like to continue with your presentation? House: Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. I understand and it will cut my presentation down considerably. To paraphrase, we are talking about offsite improvements, access to the site, and the cost sharing. First let me begin by stating that the plan that we submitted originally as part of the Large Scale Development process was submitted meeting all of the requirement of the UDO, city street standards and international fire code. That plan is the plan without connectivity to Center Street. Let me say that again, the plan that we submitted meets all of the requirements of the UDO, the city street standards, and the international fire code. That is why we feel it is not necessary to connect to Center Street from a legal perspective. If the city feels that it is necessary for other policy considerations like what is going to happen on the hill in the future, we are not opposed to that. The question is how do we pay for it. Is it incumbent upon our company to have to pay for the development of a street that is not adjacent to this property, that is not necessary for the development of this property because the rest of the hill is going to get developed in the future. While I agree it may help ease the burden of some traffic out on Olive because a connection to Center Street would theoretically provide another access, many property owners would benefit from that besides ours. I understand there is a theory called rational nexus, which is hard for me to get my hands around and I am a lawyer. I have asked my engineer to do a rational nexus study to determine what share should be ours, how the improvement of Center Street would benefit our project. Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks in conjunction with a traffic study by Ernie Peters out of Little Rock have come up with an estimate and a percentage that they deem is the amount of benefit to our property by the improvement to Center Street. It is amazingly enough, a pretty small number. That was submitted in the packet that we gave the Planning staff the first of last week. Hopefully it is in your packet. It would be a letter Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 12 from EB Landworks to Tim Conklin dated March 17th if I can direct your attention to it. In that letter Ms. Bunch talks about how much her estimate is of cost, vehicle trips per day, and what the percentage of our impact would be and it is fairly minimal, something around 2%. This is supported by a study by Ernie Peters that did a traffic analysis and the whole report is probably in your file as well. This is based on Olive being a local street and the city street standards define a local street as two 10' lanes. Olive, as it exists, is 18' to 20' wide so it has two 10' traffic lanes. We have proposed in our submittal to make sure Olive is 20' wide for those areas that it is not to meet the local street standards. Supposedly somebody has figured out that that takes 4,000 trips per day. Mr. Peters has stated after his study in conjunction with some city studies for this area, that our trips are going to be approximately 297, let's call it 300 trips per day on Olive so as you can see it is not huge just going in and out of Olive without even going out Center Street. The impact of the traffic that we are going to create on Olive is less than 10% of the allowed traffic as it exists. Basically, rather than belabor you with all of the stuff that we have already submitted, we have made our argument in all of the stuff that we submitted that access to the site is reasonable as it is but we are willing to help pay for Center is that is determined necessary. The offsite improvements, we have already submitted that we would do a new street from the existing portion of Olive to Center. Our original plan was to just have a cul-de-sac at the entrance to our property but in the spirit of compromise with the Planning Department we agreed to pave all of Olive so that the potential of connectivity could be done now or in the future. I guess I will ask to see if anyone as any questions. If that is all that we are talking about, I can talk about density and having met with the neighbors and all of our agreements with the neighbors and all of that. Aviles: We are just going to limit the discussion to access and your participation in offsite improvements. Should you be required to extend the street, have you come up with a figure that you would be willing to participate in for that? House: We have submitted that it is 2% of the total cost and the estimates are it is going to cost approximately $100,000, I think the real number is $94,000. I guess we would have to put some sort of cap on it in the event that it cost $300,000 but that is what we have submitted based on the engineering. That is for the Center portion. We will already have quite a bit of money in the rest of Olive but that is for the Center Street portion. Aviles: Thanks Mr. House. I see that there are members of the public that would like to address us. Come on up, tell us your name, where you live, and give us the benefit of your opinion. As I said, if you could keep it to the point of access we would appreciate that. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 13 Caulk: Aviles: Conklin - I am Bob Caulk. I live on Missouri Way and I am here speaking on behalf of the Mount Sequoyah South Neighborhood Association. The only thing I had to say that was on this point was in the package that the city had they talked about waivers from minimum street standards as appropriate. I don't know what that means but it scares me anytime I see us talking about building a new street anywhere in the town of Fayetteville and talking about building it to less than the minimum street standards. Thanks Sir. Tim, do you want to talk to us about that before we hear from the next person? Our current street standards probably would not allow Mount Sequoyah to be built as it is today. The question is you have got a platted annequated subdivision plat, not just Mount Sequoyah, I would say areas surrounding downtown Fayetteville also. Do you go ahead and complete out those street connections and develop those neighborhoods and if not, what are we going to do? Are we going to allow development to occur at the edge of where these streets exist and develop it to R-2 without any additional streets being built in these historic areas of Fayetteville. The question is with regard to waiving the minimum street standards within reason is it possible to make some of these connections within this area? Fayetteville would not look like Fayetteville today if we utilized our street standards that we have on the books today. You would not have Mount Sequoyah or some of the streets in downtown Fayetteville. Aviles: Right, because of steep grades. If we built Center it would be possibly steeper than the transportation manual would require but as flat as we could get it, is that the right term? Conklin: The grade right there, I don't have that exact number. Matt may be able to help me out here a little with regard to the radius coming off of Olive to Center, that could possibly be an issue, the cross section being 20' wide verses 28' wide. A lot of engineering hasn't been done so I am not sure of every waiver that would be required. That area right there is not as steep as other areas on Mount Sequoyah that already have streets built. Aviles: Thanks Mr. Conklin. Would the next person that would like to address us come forward, give us your name, and tell us where you live and give us the benefit of your opinion. Vick: Good afternoon, I am Al Vick, 514 E. Rock. I have a couple of concerns as far as access, maybe three as a matter of fact. One of them is we are talking about extending Center Street. There are people that live so close right now to where Center Street would be and where it would be extended and paved that they would almost be able to literally stick their hands out the window and have the traffic go by and hit them. I believe Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 14 that some of those people are here this evening, but I will let them speak for themselves. That is one concern. Another concern with both the idea of Olive Street being extended into that cul-de-sac and the extension of Center Street, I don't know how many of you are aware of this but that whole area from the 1920's until I have been lead to understand around 1960, that area was a landfill, it was a dump. I am wondering if there have been any studies so far in terms of what is under that ground over there before all of this gets turned over and various chemicals and things might be let lose that would expose people in the neighborhood to. Also, with the creek running right by where that cul-de-sac is, it is a dry creek now but it wasn't. There was a spring that led into it until it was bulldozed and clogged up but the water does run into tin pan creek or whatever that creek is that crosses by Willow Street and Rock. There are new federal regulations that are soon going into effect in terms of storm water runoff. I am wondering when we are talking access and when we are talking about extending these things have there been studies done about that, about the landfill situation and about the water. Aviles: Thank you. As we hear back from the applicant we will try to address those. Vick: Ok, but you will answer those questions? Aviles: We will sure try. Vick: Ok, I think they are important. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you. Next? Brown: I am Jennifer Brown. I live on the corner of Fletcher and Dickson and I am speaking on behalf of my concern and another concerned citizen of Fayetteville who does not live in that area but who has been expressing deep concern about the sewer backups during heavy usage and also heavy rains. My question is would the offsite improvements, has that been looked into whether or not this particular site is going to be able to handle the extra sewage because our sewer system has backed up during heavy rain and heavy usage and when I take walks up to Oklahoma Way I smell raw sewage and I have for years and I have reported it to the city a number of times. I don't know that it has been fixed but it is right across the street from where Greg House lives. I am not sure that our mountain side can handle anymore sewage. I am wondering if that has been addressed. Aviles: Do you have any questions about the traffic access? Brown: You said offsite improvements and this is offsite. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 15 Aviles: I was limiting that to traffic and so forth. We can answer your question about the sewage. Matt, if you will explain about that. Casey: I did look into the sewer situation for this area and the area that she is speaking of that is having problems is in a separate main line than the development that we are looking at here. The development area for this main have not had any problems lately. Brown: But will they is the question. Aviles: The city has the new sewer plan in process and every developer is put on notice that if there is not sufficient capacity for the development that no further taps can occur. I just wanted to say that this is not really the point of this concept plat. Did you have any other things that you would like to talk about the traffic or anything? I see Mr. Earnest in the back. Hugh, would you like to come up and say something? Earnest: No, I was just pointing, I'm sorry. Aviles: Ok, we are still taking public comment so don't be shy. Come up and tell us your name and address. Chaddick: My name is Susan Chaddick and I live on the corner of Spring Street and Olive. I have concerns about the traffic. I think that we are almost insulting the renters and the neighbors to suppose that there are only going to be 48 cars or 51 cars that drive back and forth during a days time. We have seven residences that have people living in them now and Olive Street as it exists, bears an awful lot of traffic. We have young children that are walking to the school bus to their schools and it is not a safe situation at points now with only seven residences. If you add 48 bedrooms and that amount of traffic our little street cannot take it. I regret having to lobby for the opening for Center Street but I feel if we are going to allow for a complex of this size to go in then we have to have two accesses. Aviles: Thank you very much. Next person please. I will close public comment here shortly but if there is anyone else that would like to address us about this development regarding the traffic please come forward. I saw more hands than people that have come up to speak. We only have one time to take public comment during while we are hearing an item so it is now or not. Gable: My name is Julie Gable and the reason that I was hesitant is because I didn't have anything particularly new to add to what Susan Chaddick had said but I just want to emphasize that I live on 106 N. Olive and the traffic that we have and the parking situation that we have right now is even more Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 16 than we can take at this point. I just wanted to reiterate what Susan had said. Aviles: Thank you Ms. Gable. Meldrum: I am Carol Meldrum and I currently live at 1501 E. Mission but I am anticipating moving into the neighborhood of 401 E. Dickson and was hoping I was moving into a nice, quiet neighborhood in retirement. I do not believe that the increased traffic going down Dickson Street from Olive with the complex being developed is going to be what I like. I just wanted to second those comments. Aviles: When I close public comment we will hear back from the applicant and the Commissioners will be discussing back and forth but we will no longer take any public comment so if anybody has anything else to say now is the time. Sinquar: I am Leslie Sinquar, I live at 48 N. Olive Avenue. Based on what Mrs. Meldrum has said, I would like to reiterate a concern that I had before. What happens beyond Olive Street at the Spring intersection? It continues to be substandard. That many cars and to lend support to the point that Mrs. Chaddick made. It is silly to assume that there are going to be 48 cars at a complex of that size. What happens beyond Spring Street? Olive is still very narrow and substandard beyond that. Mr. House will be required to widen Olive and bring it up to standards but with that amount of traffic and as narrow and steep as Spring is and then as narrow as Olive is as far as Lafayette and the ditches on either side and my child has had close calls walking home from school already as it is more than once. I am also concerned about what this additional traffic will do to the character and charm of the historic district. Cars will be going through Sutton, taking shortcuts. The additional traffic there will just completely destroy the nature and character of our neighborhood. Aviles: Thank you very much. Chaddick: I am Buddy Chaddick and am under somewhat duress since I have been missing these meetings. My wife happens to be Susan Chaddick. This winter was a typical winter I think in Fayetteville, Arkansas. We had a lot of snow, as we did in 1981 when Susan and I first moved back up here. The block or two on Olive Street where the seven or eight houses are, none of us can park in our driveways when it snows. The only access we have out is we have to park on the street because we can't get out of our driveway. The only access we have out is Olive. Driving down Olive we can't go east or west on Spring Street because we can't get up the mountain either way so the only access we have is going down Olive. Now we can't go down Olive because the new apartments on Olive, Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 17 everybody is parked on the street down there so we can't make it through there. We are at a jam, we can't go to work and most of us work up there. Another very important aspect of this is we talk about the safety of an 18' street. I have a 95 year old aunt that lives across the street from us. She had to go to the emergency room. You should've seen, when you need to go to the emergency room and you are 95 years old and you can't walk, you have been wheelchair bound for 40 years, you have to have the Fire Department come out with a truck. If she had of been in dire straights she would've been dead. There is no doubt about it. It took them 20 minutes just to get the truck turned around and then once the fire truck turned around the complete street was blocked. No one could get around either side. That is old town up there, that is not new town. That is not a place to have apartments. That is old town. I think Mr. House referred to one that he was a lawyer and number two, to the hill. That is not a hill, that is a mountain. That is a mountain that is meaningful to this area. That is a mountain that is meaningful to the history of Fayetteville and it needs to remain as it is. Aviles: Thank you Sir. Bryant: I am Jessie Bryant. I am concerned about Center Street because that is where my house is. I don't really see the need of you opening Center Street and my other concern is are you going to do the rest of Center Street all the way up so that it will take the added traffic that is there? If you open Center Street the way you are talking about you are going to take a lot of property so what happens there? Aviles: Tim, can you let us know about the possibility of continuing Center Street past this? We discussed it a little bit at agenda setting session but I would like you to go into that. Conklin: Staff did not make that recommendation to go further east from Olive based on topography in that area. However, it probably is not impossible to build a street because there are other streets built on Mount Sequoyah that have similar slopes. However, we were trying to find something that as the issue came up of how far do you waive your street standards? In this section it looked like it was much more feasible to make that connection between Olive and Walnut. Staff was not making a recommendation to extend that street at this time. Aviles: How close would the right of way come to this woman's house? Conklin: I don't have that answer. There is a 30' right of way for Center Street existing. Aviles: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 18 Gable: I am Julie Gable. It looks like the city has done a survey of our street and put up some markers and my question is where those are sitting on the east side, is that where the street would go Tim? Conklin: I am not aware of the city doing a survey. Gable: Ok, well there are markers up. I guess my question is if they are widening the street enough to allow traffic to come through and park and sidewalks from what they have surveyed at this point it looks like I am going to lose my two trees and it is going to be right up to my deck. Aviles: We will have Mr. House answer that when he comes back up. Is there anyone else? Bryant I am Holly Bryant, 107 N. Olive. I have said many times I am opposed to this 48 bedroom development because it is not harmonious nor is it compatible with the existing single-family homes. I have said many times that I am against this Large Scale Development because of the increased traffic that it is going to produce. It is going to pose not only traffic problems but it is going to compromise our safety. What I would like to express tonight it that I am not opposed to this piece of property being developed, but I would like to see something built that is in keeping with the existing structures on the street, with our neighborhood. I feel given the decisions that need to be made, being in all of our best interests, the residents on my street, my neighbors that I have met through all of this, the Planning office, the Planning Commissioners, and for the future of Fayetteville I would suggest that we table any discussions regarding this development until we have resolved some of these issues and some of the concerns that we have. I would like to see us all meet together instead of us meeting with the Planning office, the neighbors; Mr. House and his team meet with the Planning office; and everyone kind of dancing around. I would love for us to all come together and see what kind of compromise we could come up with that we could all be happy with. I would like to explore a way that we can allow some development to be built that would be in keeping with the integrity of this neighborhood and with the charm of Fayetteville. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Caspick: My name is Joe Caspick, I live on Spring Street in the neighborhood there. I want to get this right on the physics of this. From what I am gathering, your engineering people can't guarantee that building Center Street isn't going to drastically alter that hill or start running into erosion problems, not only on that street as a whole but on a number of streets on the mountains around here. I agree with the person who spoke before that Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 19 things should slow down and maybe be tabled until the actual physics of this kind of development get studied. Can you guarantee me for 20 years that like the thing that went in with Bobby Schmitt, that in 20 years it is not going to dig a ditch through our property just from the runoff? Can that be physically guaranteed? I don't think the physics is done. Thank you very much. Aviles: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address us on this Concept Plat? Once I close public discussion we will hear again from the developer and the Planning Commission and then we will entertain motions and further discussion. Seeing no one, public discussion is now closed. Would the applicant or applicants like to come back and answer some of these questions from the neighbors? Again, let me remind you to keep your discussion solely to the traffic, offsite improvements, and access. House: I thought I would introduce Mandy Bunch as our engineer and as a member of our team. She is going to address some of the issues that were just brought up and I may have a few more points when she is done. Bunch: Good evening, I want to try to address some of the nuts and bolts I guess as part of this proposal. The traffic study that was done basically identified that there were 136 trips generated based on the existing development on Olive. The site generated trips per day in that report was noted as 161. That leads to a total of 297 cars. One problem that we have had trying to state traffic issues on this site is that it is not typical. It is not typical we are going to develop a street that has, as Tim was discussing, the platted right of ways on all four sides. I have looked at the extension of Center from Olive to Walnut. The slopes range, I believe that it is possible based on the GIS topo information available, it is possible to be within the design constraints as far as slope for that street to extend. One of our main concerns however, was the width of the right of way. The city required street section is 28' for a local street and there is 30' of right of way currently and there is absolutely no way to grade out the side slopes and I believe it is Ms. Bryant's house, that spoke earlier, that is probably within 5' of the right of way as it exists now on the south side. Hopefully that would clear up some of those things. Another issue, when we are talking about the capacity of the street, everybody keeps throwing around the word capacity. The capacity of the street is basically a number that is assigned to cars free flowing on a particular street or width of pavement. That number is calculated by the width of the street, by the uses adjacent to that street, by the slope of the street, speed, etc. The best tools that we have, which is what we have used with our analysis, the best tools that we have is what we have typically used in the past. Again, this is an Atypical situation. I think we have all agreed to that. Is basically to use the surface volume. Thos surface volumes are defined in the street standards by the Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 20 city. Olive Street is classified as a local street. It has two 10' travel lanes and that is what we believe is there now and it does not allow for parking on the street and it most likely is not safe to have parking on the street now. We feel that that should be enforced as a no parking situation since that is not available for them. If you look at the percentages, I kept trying to quantify the traffic and using the numbers that we had and we actually had to dig back to a 1965 highway capacity manual for the analysis of the width and actually the adjustment factor for the width since we do have the 10' travel lanes verses 12' travel lanes. That capacity would be a 24% reduction. Again, that is the only way that we found to quantify that but using the local surface volume for the street, which is less than 4,000 vehicle trips per day even with 24% reduction that brings us down to 3,000 cars and with the existing traffic plus the site generated traffic we are still less than 10% of that site volume. We could half it and half it and half it again and we still wouldn't be close to that. That is part of the reason of why the traffic engineers have had difficulties in quantifying this because there is no way to quantify it, the traffic amount is so maniacal. I think the point here is the connectivity and how the city can assign some value to that connectivity because that is not typical. That is not typical in the development, that is not typical in the UDO requirements and that is not typical rational nexus. I wanted to kind of clear up those numbers and things for everybody because I know we have had some different things running around. Also, the international fire code, which the city has recently adopted, allows one access point in and out as adequate for less than 100 units. That would be the case. With the construction of Olive Street that we are proposing it would actually be safer for fire and emergency vehicles to turn around than it is now. There is absolutely no way for them to get up and down and around on Olive Street now. Also, with the new storm water regulations, we are well aware of those and those relate to water quality and the differentiation of the threshold for the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System requirements. That is basically construction runoff, sediment laid and construction runoff. The city is going to require us to detain on our site. That hasn't happened with some of the other developments. I believe one that they keep discussing, that was not required. This will have to have detention on site that will keep the post developed flows to at or below the pre -developed flows. As to what would specifically happen on Center Street, etc., that would be up for design consideration with the staff. As we have through this entire process, we will cooperate with them. I am here for any questions like that and I think Greg had a couple of other things. Aviles: I think there was one other question about the subsurface landfill, do you know anything about that? Bunch: I am going to let Greg answer that. I don't believe we know about that. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 21 Aviles: Ok, thanks. House: If the question is about sub -surface landfill in Center I haven't heard anything about that. As far as the site that we own, I have had that for over 15 years and I knew the previous owner and I wasn't aware of any dumping that was on that site. I think that the city has been doing some fill at the corner of what would be Center and Olive over the years but I have never witnessed anything in terms of chemicals or something of that nature. That is the most I know on that subject. One of the neighbors asked about the stakes in their yard. As part of our continuing dialogue with the neighbors we discussed the possibility of widening Olive, which we objected to because of our traffic counts supporting it as it is but we wanted the neighbors to see what would happen if Olive did get widened because there are trees that would be knocked down and stuff right in front of their current front porches. Many times people aren't aware of just how drastic something like that can be in an existing neighborhood. That is what the stakes are, just a visual aid for the neighbors to see some of the alternatives. Somebody has talked about slowing the process down. We have been through this process, we have been working with the Planning Department for probably almost two years and I can go into the history of how we have talked about connectivity, talked about cul-de-sac, went back to connectivity, talked about not doing a Large Scale at all. I would rather not see the process slowed down. I think we have visited this issue quite a bit with Planning staff and the neighbors. We have met with them numerous times. We unfortunately can't come to complete terms with the neighbors. We have come to terms with the neighbors about a lot of things including increasing the parking on the site and they gave us a list of conditions that they would like to see, bills of assurance that we were able to agree with completely. There are a lot of areas we have where we have had agreement. Unfortunately, we can't have 100% agreement. This project wouldn't be feasible in anyway shape or form if we did it the way the neighbors on Olive would like us to do it. Can I answer any other questions? MOTION: Estes: What is before us is a Concept Plat and it is my understanding that our decision will be advisory only to the applicant. With that said, and having studied the material that has been provided to us on the issue of offsite improvements and connectivity we have three reports from Peters & Associates, the Traffic Engineers. One is dated November 19, 2002, one is December 18, 2002, and the last one is March 13, 2003. The underlying premise of those studies is that Olive Avenue is a local street. It is not. Olive is currently substandard, it is only 18' wide, it does not meet state fire codes with the allowance of on -street parking two way traffic can not be accommodated and the pavement and sub -base is failing. I don't Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 22 believe that either Mr. House or Ms. Bunch would attempt to dissuade us from the notion that Olive Avenue is a local street. The reason I say that with some confidence is that Mr. House, in his letter dated March 17, 2003 to this Commission, writes the international fire code recently adopted by the state of Arkansas allows a 20' wide dead end road to serve apartment complexes having less than 100 units. The 39 units that we are proposing does not meet this threshold. I have constructed the entry to the property in such a way that fire trucks and emergency vehicles can turn around. Because the underlying presumption is in error, that is that Olive Avenue is a local street, then all the resulting data is flawed. I am not prepared to vote on this at this time because what we have before us is an underlying presumption that is false and resulting data that is in error. It is for that reason that I am going to make a motion that we refer this back to the Subdivision Committee. Aviles: I have a motion for referral back to the Subdivision Committee by Commissioner Estes. I am going to go ahead and second that. House: I am not sure where the city staff has gotten information that the street is 18' wide. It is 18' wide in certain points but primarily it is 20' wide and that is what we pointed out in our letter. We can make the areas that are less than 20', 20'. The predominant surface is 20' wide and in places wider than 20'. I disagree with Commissioner Estes' comments that the underlying presumption is wrong. We feel that because the majority of the street is 20' wide and there are some portions that may be 19 'h' or 19'3" that that can be remedied with reasonable expense and the issue of construction traffic and making the street bear construction traffic can be remedied as well. Unfortunately, the underlying premise is not wrong is our position. Aviles: Commissioners, are there any comments? I will explain my second to this. I do feel that the traffic study is a best imprecise science and that you are looking at a significant change in the use of Olive Street and the potential for the extension of Center Street are both things that need to be looked carefully into. Bunch, M: Just a little more information. The classification on Locust Street came from the Master Street Plan and city staff. That was discussed in detail with the Traffic Superintendent. That was not a bit of fact that we assumed on any level. That is just for your information. Aviles: Thanks. Commissioners, are there any other comments or questions of Mr. House? We are going to go ahead and vote on this motion and second that we have. If you have something to say before hand please do. Ostner: I tend to agree that the mathematics of this situation is very imprecise but Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 23 Shackelford: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Shackelford: it is the best that can be done sometimes. I think our decision is almost completely separate from these engineering reports. I think it is fairly simple whether we, as a city, are going to force connectivity as Mr. House has written. I think the issue that Ms. Chaddick mentioned, she wants another way out besides the only way being Olive and down to Dickson and I think it is completely separate from all the measurements and all the engineering studies. It is a gray area and I don't know whether Subdivision would help that decision. I think it is a tough decision and I think it might be the time to make it now. That is my perception of the current motion. As I have made points in the past as far as tabling motions, I have always struggled with that. My underlying belief is we owe the applicant action on the request. If we are going to table this I would like to ask those that made the motion and second specifically what are we looking for in a change or addition to the information that is before us today. What changes do we hope to see from Subdivision back to this Committee before we make a decision? Commissioner Shackelford, I don't know that I can answer your question with any degree of definition so let me just share with you some of the things that concern me. What Ms. Bunch and Mr. House have said is correct. According to the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan the service volume of a local street is 4,000 vehicles per day. What they have done, and I am reading from the Peters and Associates report, therefore, based on standard capacity calculation procedures there is no capacity issue for Olive Avenue. Yet, in our conditions of approval prepared by staff they tell us that Olive is currently substandard, it is only 18' wide, it does not meet state fire code and so on. The calculations and the computations made regarding the traffic are based on Olive Avenue being a local street. I think that is one of the seminole issues. Is Olive Street a local street or is it not a local street? Staff seems to indicate, they don't indicate they tell us in the conditions of approval, that it is not. If it is not, then all of the underlying presumption is wrong and the resulting data is flawed. That is the seminole issue I believe to determine if Olive Avenue is a local street. So you are asking that they recalculate the traffic study based on the actual measurements of Olive Street as it exists? I don't think that can be done. I guess that is my concern. We are tabling this back to Subdivision Committee, I don't see what work Subdivision Committee is going to be able to do that provides initial information that changes the overall scheme as it has been presented to us at this point. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 24 Estes: Aviles: Shackelford: Aviles: Shackelford: Conklin - Shackelford: Conklin: Aviles: Shackelford: I don't want to do Subdivision's work and I am somewhat hesitant to even suggest this, but if I was on Subdivision, and I'm not, the first item of discussion would be whether this applicant needs to build Olive Avenue to local street standards. I believe, and this is my presumption based upon reading the material provided by Mr. House is that he has not considered that. I get that from page 3 of his letter that I read where he says the 39 units that we are proposing does not meet this threshold and tells us that he has constructed the entry to the property in such a way that fire trucks and emergency vehicles can turn around. I concluded from that that he is not proposing to build Olive Avenue to local street standards. You asked what Subdivision can do. That is the first issue and then other issues would follow from that. At agenda session I asked the staff to put together the impact on the possible extension of Center Street by other properties that would be made developable or be capable of being developed and they put together as a supplement to our agenda some information that is broken down into areas a, b, and c which cumulatively would have the effect of having something like 140 more units there about, to be able to be developed because the R- 2 zoning that would then go onto Center Street. That consultant didn't take that into account either and I would say that we are charged as the Planning Commission to look not only into the developments before us but the impact that the developments have on the adjoining properties, what street extensions will do and who will use those. I don't think we have enough information in front of us tonight to make an informed decision so that is why I was going to vote to send it back. Based on that, may I ask a question of staff? Yes please. Tim, I apologize, I couldn't tell from my zoning map, the areas that she is talking about area a, b, and c, are those currently zoned R-2? Yes. Ok, and the units, that calculation is based on maximum development of those locations? 24 units per acre, that is correct. So if we open that street up then we are not looking at 39 or 48 bedrooms, we are looking at another possibly 130. If those properties were developed to their maximum. Under that Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 25 assumption Mr. House could develop more units than what he is putting on this location. Hoover: Commissioner Estes, I was at Subdivision and I am concerned also what more we could have done. Let me ask you this. He is saying that the street in some areas is already 20', if he did build these to 20' and the fire protection issues were taken care of, what is your position on the connectivity with Center Street? House: Can I answer that? Estes: The question was for me but you can go ahead and answer for me if you want to. Aviles: Let Commissioner Estes go ahead and answer the question and then if you would like to say something else you are more than welcome to. Estes: I am not prepared to answer that at this time Commissioner Hoover because what I see is flawed data based upon an erroneous presumption. I don't know. How can I tell you my view on connectivity when I don't know what kind of traffic we are going to be looking at and we don't know what kind of street we are going to be looking at. I don't know. I can't vote this concept plat up tonight and I can't vote it down because I am not going to do either one based on what I perceive as an underlying presumption that is in error and the resulting data that is flawed. Check with me in a couple of weeks presuming my motion passes. Ostner: I have a question for the applicant. Mandy, did you just mention a while back that you all did a traffic count and the 161 plus the 297 existing and proposed together, what was that? House: That is correct. I think I can clarify some of this. In our letter of March 1761 paragraph 5.3 under off-street improvements I specifically state Houses Inc. will widen Olive Avenue from Spring Street to Center Street to 20' of asphalt paving anywhere that the width does not exist. We are saying that we will meet this threshold of a local street. We are prepared to pay for that. We will meet this threshold of a local street so then, with that presumption, the 4,000 cars per day rule should apply. The reference to an earlier thing about the fire code, that is only with respect to turn around. As the street exists right now it is illegal for the fire code. If we do it the way we propose then it will be legal for the fire code. Hopefully that can clarify some of that. I appreciate this is a six page letter and it is difficult to weed through all of this. That is why we think that we can meet the traffic issue. It is going to be 20' all the way. Part of it is going to be wider than 20'. Hopefully that clarifies some of that. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 26 Bunch, M: I just wanted to clarify that we did some counts and Perry Franklin did some counts on the area also so those were actual numbers. Also, to clarify a little further on the traffic study. The traffic study gives its recommendations based on the improvements that the developer was making. That traffic study was sanctioned by the developer to give you the impact of his development on the existing street system. Also, we were not privied to any of the information that came out after agenda session. We were not requested at any time to include maximum build out of that area. Also, I don't think that based on the current development standards of the city it is possible in any way to develop the hillside to maximum density. House: I might add on future development it seems rational that when those developers come in with their plan then you assess the traffic impact at that point and if these streets need to be widened because somebody at the end of Center wants to put in a 100 unit complex then that is incumbent upon him because they are increasing the density again. If it turns out that there are just going to be four homes there that is a whole other issue. It seems to me to try to guess what is going to happen and ask us to pay for it is not rational. Estes: On page one of your March 13th letter you write the existing Olive Avenue is 18' to 20' wide, which is less than the city standard of 28'. Then you have referred us over to page four of your letter that says Houses Inc. will widen Olive from Spring Street to Center Street to 20' of asphalt paving. Which is it? It is my understanding that the local street standard is 28'. That is what you write on page one of your letter so over on page four you say you are going to widen it to 20', wouldn't it still be sub -standard? House: The old portion would be substandard from a normal street width parking. The local street code says that a local street is considered two lanes with a minimum of 10' width. You don't have to have, in order to meet the traffic portion, you don't have to have 28'. The extra 8' is for parking is my understanding. Estes: Mr. Conklin, is Mr. House correct on page one of his letter where he says the city standard is 28'? Conklin: The city standard is 28'. It does allow for on street parking. If it is a 20' or 18' street and someone parks on the street now you have reduced it to basically one lane. We have heard some concerns about that this evening. House: If it means making this process go quicker we would consider widening it to 28'. Estes: That is the reason for my motion to return it to Subdivision. It seems to Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 27 me that there is some work that needs to be done on this issue. It seems to me that one of the principal matters that needs to be discussed is the underlying presumption that Olive Avenue is a local street. Ostner: This is a question for Tim. At the beginning of our meeting you eluded to the fact that our current standards that are on the books that talk about a 28' street wouldn't allow most of our historic downtown to be built because of different lot sizes and steep hills, etc. Is this the case that you were talking about where things have been built historically but our rules have changed so sometimes we have to back off of our minimums to allow these old areas to stay in place? Conklin: What I am referring to is our current street standards for a local street is a 28' street with sidewalks on both sides. There are many areas in Fayetteville that do not meet those standards. My guess is that most of us this evening when we leave this room will get on streets that do not meet a local street standard. Many of our arterial streets do not meet the local street standards that we drive on. What I am referring to is that we have many areas where if you looked at our street standards and you stated that it is impossible to build that street, most of us this evening will be driving on streets that do not meet those standards. Some of those standards or issues are related to slope. There are some fairly steep streets in Fayetteville that would with today's standards need some type of waiver. Should they have been built in the past? I guess that is up for debate. I think sometimes it is necessary to have the connectivity to connect neighborhoods together and look at where we can waive some of those standards and start building some neighborhoods that connect together. That is kind of what I was referring to at the beginning of the meeting. Ostner: Thank you for that. My view on this is that if he is going to bring Olive up to not even the standard per say in our book but standard to the maximum that could be built there. I believe these stakes in people's yards and these strings, I would guess people would say please don't do that because it is probably way in your yard and trees would have to be cut down. If a 20' wide street is safer and it is the most we can build in this historic area I would be in favor of it and I wouldn't see that as a blockage to the science as Mr. Estes has talked about. Shackelford: Tim, along the same lines I want to ask a more specific question. Condition of approval number one staff is recommending construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive with waivers from the minimum street standards if necessary. Would you support, or is staff in support of Center Street to be developed to a 20' width? Is that the type of waiver that you were intending with that comment? Conklin: Yes. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 28 Shackelford: Do you see any difference in why if staff would support a 20' width waiver for Center Street do you see any difference in Center Street and what is proposed on Olive Street which is a 20' width? Conklin: The main difference was the reduced right of way for Center Street. Olive Street there is adequate right of way. The question that comes up is if we are going to continue to develop these areas we are going to have to make sure that we don't allow on street parking because it does reduce the capacity. Especially if Olive Street is not connected through. You will have a situation if people do park on the street as we heard this evening, you are not going to be able to get cars past each other. Shackelford: So would it be safe to say staff would support a 20' wide street with the right covenants in place, whatever you want to say, to limit on street parking? Conklin: We would support it as long as we could make sure that cars can go two ways in and out. Shackelford: Thank you. Bunch: We have looked at three different proposals on this street situation. One is a cul-de-sac, one is the extension of Olive to approximately Center Street right of way and the other is to do Olive and Center. Can we get a clear reading of what street widths would be involved in those three options? Tim, can you tell us what would be acceptable to the Planning Department and to the city because we seem to be in a circular pattern here. Are we looking at a historic local street so to speak? We changed at one time from a regular collector to a historic collector to accommodate situations in the downtown area. It looks like that is what we are kind of dancing around here. Can you give us a little bit of insight that says if it is a cul- de-sac it is 28' or 20' from this point to this point and then at some point if it becomes wider where it would become wider. Give us a quick rundown of the three different options because I think that is what our main goal here is to come up with an idea of which type of situation we want to look at. Can you kind of give us a description of all three? Conklin: Sure. With regard to Center Street we have a 30' right of way. We were looking at what the possibilities would be to connect that street with a 20' wide street. With regard to Olive Street that is not constructed right now in front of the development we were looking at a 28' street which would allow some additional on street parking if the connection is made. If you do not make the connection you have the cul-de-sac and you have cars parked in the cul-de-sac, you reduce the turning radius and could actually make the cul-de-sac not function. If you have the connection there and Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 29 you do 28' in front of the development you will allow some additional on street parking. It takes about 22' for a parallel parking space. With regard to Olive Street, widening that to 20' does help meet that international building code. Bunch: What about the option if you use a hammer head type turn around? Conklin: If you use a hammerhead turn around I think in this situation what we have seen if someone has a party or people over the ability to have additional cars parking on the street, I think if there is an opportunity and the right of way is there then it would be preferable to do a 28' street since we have seen in other areas on street parking which has reduced the capacity below what is acceptable. Bunch: Would that be a 28' all the way from Spring or just a 28' from where it goes by this project? Conklin: In front of the project. Bunch: So if Olive were extended all the way to the proximity of Center it would be 20' from Spring until you get to the edge of this project and then 28' from there to the extension? Conklin: That is correct. It would be new street construction. It would not be taking place in front of the existing development and it would provide the opportunity for additional parking. Parking is one of those issues that has come up over the last four or six months now since we have looked at this project. Once again, do we have the ability to try to meet a local street standard in front of this development. There is the potential that you could have a party or something where people would need to park. Bunch: So then if Olive Street were not extended any further than to Center then this letter that came out March 20`h would only exercise option A which would be the 20 additional potential build out? If Olive were only built adjacent to the property for the proposed site then that would only bring in area A would I be correct in assuming that? Conklin: If it is built to the Center Street right of way you potentially could have a property owner or developer try to connect onto it. Just like this developer proposed originally this evening. Once again, the issue is are we going to continue to allow apaitment complexes to provide the minimal amount of street frontage and build apartment complexes that access the one street or are we going to look for actual street construction adjacent to the developments? That is something that staff is concerned about. This area is zoned R-2. We have seen several developments occur in this area. I don't think development is going to stop occurring in this area. It is a very Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 30 Estes: desirable area and if we extend Olive Street down I think that was one of the issues that came up in Subdivision Committee. If you extend the street it opens the area up for development. I am assuming that since it is zoned R-2 that development is going to occur in the area and if you don't extend the street we are going to be addressing the same issue six months from now or a year from now. Commissioner Bunch and Mr. Conklin have articulated much better than I why this needs to go back to Subdivision. Maybe even Commissioner Hoover will vote for my motion now. Aviles: It sounds like there are a lot of issues before us and I really think the Planning Commission needs to not guess at what is going to happen with the impact of the development but we need to plan for it. That is why I don't want to cost anybody any extra time but I also don't want to make a mistake. Ward: I just have a couple of comments I would like to make about it. First of all, if this was just zoned R-1 there is a little over two acres of land there, you could put nine or ten houses on this property and we are talking about the same amount of bedrooms. You are still talking about 36 to 40 bedrooms just like that. The impact would not be really much different whether it was nine individual or ten individual lots or this 39 unit dwelling. The other thing that we have had a lot of talk about lately around the city is affordable housing or coming up with housing that would be affordable for more people. I really, with all of our new ordinances and impact fees and all the cost of everything that is going on construction wise, etc., building these type of units for sale as condos I think will be what will be our affordable housing in the future. I don't see that affordable housing is going to come up with homes up on Mount Sequoyah that will be affordable. I personally when I first saw the concept I thought it was a very unique looking plan as far as the buildings and the way that the elevations looked. I am probably the only one here that lives on Mount Sequoyah and I am not sure that I am really excited about opening up more streets. Center Street, I know there are several people against opening up Center Street. The design of the cul-de-sac with a sidewalk being provided by the developer up to the top there and doing the cul-de-sac to me was a better plan than trying to bring it in and go across from Center to Olive. That is only my opinion. I would rather have it that way personally. Those are some of my thoughts on it. The density level of these units is not much greater, if any greater than if it was just going to be single-family homes. I understand that these condos will be more for condos and be for sale and I think that is maybe a unique way of providing housing that is affordable up on Mount Sequoyah. That is really all I have to say. I don't care which way we go as far as putting the street through or not putting the street through, I just always thought that Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 31 the cul-de-sac made a little more sense to me since I live up there. Aviles: Is there anybody else? Allen: I will comment that I feel like our definition of planners, the word in itself, makes me feel like we need to look more carefully at this and the impact of the whole undeveloped area by opening Center Street. I have a lot of concerns about that. It seems kind of like it is a problem either way we go but as a result of my concerns I will vote for the motion to table. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner. Osmer: I have one more question for Tim. Are there other instances where we have done things like this about a development has access or requires a minimum amount of street construction to provide access on its backside or a secondary ingress and egress as an opportunity on the Master Street Plan? Have we required either construction or partial funds or cost share? Have we done things like this? Conklin- Yes. These projects have been larger. I pointed this out to Mr. House and their engineer. Shiloh West apartments, a collector street was built paid 100% by the developer connecting over to Betty Jo. That project had frontage on Shiloh. Another apartment complex had frontage along the bypass with streets, Southern View Apartments required Stone Street to be extended through the development. That required a street to be extended to the north that was not on the Master Street Plan. The first one I mentioned was on the Master Street Plan. Just recently we have had two projects. They are much larger scale than this project but the Planning Commission did require those street connections within those developments. This issue is continuing to come up as we look at how we develop Fayetteville and look at these annequated areas with these platted subdivisions. These are never easy issues to resolve either. Ostner: My reason for asking that is I foresee this going back to Subdivision and we talk the same old things and we wind up right here in two weeks or four weeks because Mr. House has chosen to pay the money to hire these engineers to do the traffic studies. When we go back to Subdivision we don't do that. We don't have the engineers or the capabilities to do that but we have them and they have already done their part and given us their recommendation that they think Center Street should be connected, that Olive should come up to standards and that that would suffice to meet our requirements as a city and for this project. This is just a concept plat. This is all going to happen almost again in the Large Scale Development. That is what I foresee happening at Subdivision. We will all stand around and ask them, because they are our professionals. Mr. House hires his. I think it is a tough decision. I would like to see Center connected. I think Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 32 as a city connectivity is important. As Ms. Allen said there are problems either way. There are problems doing it, there are problems not doing it. I think it is a tough call but I am not in favor of tabling it or sending it back to Subdivision. If we have to go that route as a Commission I think we can work more. Aviles: I don't want to cut anybody short but I do want to remind you that we still have about 10 items to go on the agenda tonight so if you have anything to say let's say it and get on with it. Bunch: Concerning condition of approval one. Staff is recommending the construction of Center Street from Walnut to Olive and Olive Street adjacent to the site with waivers from the minimum street standards if necessary. Who pays for this if the applicant does a rational nexus where do the monies come from to complete it and when could it be completed? Staff is making a recommendation on what is to be built, how would that being built occur? Conklin: Sure. If you agree with this methodology and you recommend a cost share most likely this cost share would go to the street committee and the street committee would hear a report from staff and then it would have to go to city council for approval. This would all be subject to Council approval if you approved it saying that if he only has to contribute money then the street doesn't need to be constructed as part of this project or if it needs to be constructed then the City Council would have to approve that cost share. The most recent one I can think of, which is actually going to Council in a couple of weeks is the connection for Crystal Springs over to Deane Solomon Road. The city felt like that connection was important for that neighborhood. That is kind of the process that you have to go through. I am not sure what the City Council, how they would act on this however, if the Commission thinks it is important as a part of this development you can make a recommendation that this connection is important and that you would like to see it happen. Allen: I call for the question. Aviles: Does anybody else have anything to say? Shackelford: A couple of points I want to make. First of all, we are talking about the impact on surrounding undeveloped areas. Those areas are zoned R-2. There is some use by right to those areas based on current zoning. I have always struggled with this thought process that we basically penalize an applicant on a development for fear of what might develop around him based on the decision that we make on that property. I would ask that Planning Commission come to some sort of consensus on conditions of approval on what sort of street connectivity we want for this project and Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 33 go forward with it on that. The second point I want to make is after looking at Mr. House's information, I was under the assumption that Olive Street would be widened to a 20' width as part of their traffic study. I was also under the assumption that that width and that recommendation was acceptable by city staff. Based on that information I am still struggling with where the flaw is in the logic of the traffic and impact data and what improvements we are going to get out of kicking this thing back to Subdivision. I don't see what the difference of information for us next time is going to be next time when we hear this. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner. Hoover: This project is infill development which always a question because we have existing conditions and existing right of way. We can't always build it like we would a new subdivision so we have to look at the situation around here. It is a conceptual plat, which I think he brought to us to get our judgment of what we think should happen here and the big issue at hand is are we for connectivity and infill development and higher density. I guess I would like to say that with a project like this, it is increasing the density. There is R-2 zoning along this area and we are going to see more of these developments come in I'm sure and we are going to need to connect them. On that same concept, I think it needs to be connected. Aviles: Thanks Commissioner. Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to send CCP 03-?? Failed by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Ostner, Ward, Church, Hoover, Bunch, and Shackelford voting no. Aviles: The motion fails for lack of majority. Do I have a replacement motion? Shackelford: I would like to get more input on consensus of the Planning Commission. Obviously Commissioner Hoover stated that she feels that connectivity is important and would like to see the build out of Olive Street to connect the property. I would like to see what the consensus is from the Planning Commission in that area for any other recommendations other than conditions of approval we have as presented. Aviles: Commissioners? I have heard from Commissioners Hoover and Shackelford. Ostner: I think I might have already shared that I think connectivity is important. In a way sometimes the glass is half empty and half full. In a way it is a penalty for having to develop this but in another way he is getting to develop something that most people don't. He is getting to develop Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 34 something unique and downtown and it is different. One of those drawbacks is there are two streets he might have to develop and not one. Very few places have that. In fact, I can't think of one. A big place that can be developed with this much area that is this unique and this downtown and has this many unique opportunities as Mr. Ward talked about in selling these condos. I don't like piling on these costs at all. It is incredibly expensive to build this extra road but I think it is important to the town, to the other people who live around here. I think it is going to take traffic away. I think it is going to alleviate the problem at Spring. There will be another option, another way to get down the mountain. There are very few options now and that is what connectivity is all about. Shackelford: I am not speaking against connectivity at all. My main goal is to take action on the proposal. Lets let the developer know what terms and conditions the city must have in a project to approve the project that will allow the developer to go back to see if it is economically feasible to proceed, which I believe is the whole purpose of the concept plat that is before us tonight. I just wanted to state that I am not arguing the specific points of connectivity. I am just trying to get to what our consensus would be so the developer can make his decisions on whether or not he is going to proceed with this development. Bunch: With condition one as it is stated, if hypothetically this Commission were to accept condition one and pass this concept plat it would still have to go before Council. It would still allow the time to resolve the issues that may be questioned. The same amount of time possibly of going back to Subdivision, the same amount of time in going forward. Those same questions could be answered in that interim. What does the city want? What does the City Council want on street width? The City Council is the one that passes these. We are operating in their shadow. I feel that we should make a recommendation to them of what we feel is necessary and then let them make that decision because that is their job. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner. Shackelford: That is what I meant Dawn. Aviles: I will go ahead and say that this is my last meeting and as such, I am hesitant to offer too strong of an opinion but I have always tried to look at not only the developer's side but what is good for the city as a whole and what the impact of development is for the city. For that reason, I would say that if I were going to continue on the Planning Commission I would be looking at the density of the development and its impact on Olive Street. If it were less dense I think a cul-de-sac would be appropriate. With it being more dense then I think the street should connect. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 35 Shackelford: Madam Chair, how do you define less dense and more dense? Aviles: I think that there are lingering questions about the appropriateness of R-2 zoning in this area. I think that there are lots of things like that that are certainly issues in the neighbor's minds. I know that the developer has a piece of property that is zoned R-2 and wants to make the most of it but I think that in terms of the realities and common sense of who is going to park where that less dense equals a cul-de-sac with this specified number of units then I guess I should say it probably should go ahead and connect. Shackelford: Obviously if this was a rezoning we would be having a completely different conversation but this property is already zoned R-2. Allen: If we were to connect to Center Street are we talking about making Center Street 20' or 28'? Conklin- I think it would be difficult to make a 28' street with the existing right of way so probably 20'. Once again, the engineer did not do any detailed engineering or design awaiting the outcome. MOTION: Hoover: I believe that staff has done a very good job at analyzing this and Subdivision also. The other thing staff has shown us that there is a precedence for this. We have already asked other developers to do streets through equal density so I would like to make a motion that we approve CPL 03-1.00. Ostner: I will second. Aviles: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there additional discussion? Shackelford: Just very briefly for the record. Condition number three we need to make the sure the change has been made to show an existing 30 inch water line easement instead of 30 foot. Aviles: So noted. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CPL 03-1.00 was approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Estes and Aviles voting no. Aviles: Thanks Renee. The motion carries. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 36 LSD 03-8.00: Large Scale Development (Ruby Tuesday, pp 588) was submitted by Mark Rickett of Rickett Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Bruton of Ruby Tuesday for property located north of Highway 62 and west of University Square Plaza. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.43 acres with a 4,600 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Aviles: The fifth item on our agenda this evening is LSD 03-8.00 for Ruby Tuesday submitted by Mark Rickett of Rickett Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Bruton of Ruby Tuesday for property located north of Highway 62 and west of University Square Plaza. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.43 acres with a 4,600 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Estes: The proposal is for the construction of a 4,600 sq.ft. restaurant with 99 parking spaces. A previous Conditional Use was approved for up to 100 parking stalls. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Edwards: Yes we do. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1) Parking lot lighting shall utilize full cut off sodium lighting fixtures and shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 2) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Staff is recommending color sample submission prior to Planning Commission. 3) All utility and electrical equipment, meters, and dumpsters shall be screened. 4) A sidewalk shall be constructed along the west side of the private drive to connect to the approved sidewalk for the Hampton Inn. 5) Pedestrian access shall be provided from the private drive to the front door of the restaurant. 6) All utilities shall be placed underground. 7) No freestanding signs shall be allowed in addition to the joint identification sign which was approved to be shared by the Hampton Inn and Ruby Tuesdays. Are there any additional conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: There are no additional conditions. Estes: Is the applicant present? If so, would you please come forward and state your name and give us the benefit of your presentation. Rickett: My name is Mark Rickett representing Ruby Tuesdays. Smith: My name is Shawn Smith representing Ruby Tuesdays as well. Rickett: I do not have a presentation, I don't know if Mr. Smith does or not. I am here to answer questions that you may have. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 37 Estes: Thank you Mr. Rickett. Shawn, do you have anything? Smith: No I do not. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions of the applicant, motions, and discussion. Ward: Mark or Shawn, why don't you kind of give us a rundown of the commercial design standards. Tell us a little bit about the building, the type of materials, colors, the elevations of it and so on. That may be important. Smith: Do you have elevations? Ward: Yes we do. Smith: They do not match this board. This is not what we are doing. The building is primarily a stucco finish building. That is the mustard color that you see on there. There is cultured stacked stone, no mortar between the stacks, those make up the tower, the entryway, the pilasters which we have added. Normally most of those pilasters would also be stucco but per request in our minds we feel we have dressed the building up by using more stone also breaking up vast expanses of the same material. Ward: Smith: It looks like your east and south elevations, which have the most visibility from all public streets, it looks like you have used a lot of glass and brick or stone, is that right? That is correct. That is all the dining room in there. There was a bit of concern as to rooftop screening for rooftop mechanical units. Usually we use a prefabricated metal screen wall which we were told would not be acceptable. After some conversations and per your comments we changed it to be a screen wall that would use the exact same materials as the rest of the building, the same color, same materials. It is fully screening all rooftop equipment. I think that was the main issue for us, Ruby Tuesdays. There was also an issue with the exposed, typically we have an exposed cooler box at the back of the building. We paint it to match the stucco, which in this case would be the mustard. We were told that that would not be acceptable so what we are proposing is to finish that cooler box with a type of paint which is not just smooth paint but it has a very rough texture to it so that cooler box will look like it is stucco to help it blend into the rear of the building. That is the north elevation. I don't know what other questions I might be able to answer for you. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 38 Allen: Smith: I have been to some Ruby Tuesdays in other cities and just in my own personal opinion, I thought they were more attractive than this one. I wondered how you decided on this particular prototype for this location. That decision is made by my client. I am sure it has a lot to do with numbers of customers they think they are going to be able to serve, the amount of parking, the size of lot. Some lots you can't fit a bigger building that may be one of the buildings that you are thinking is more attractive. This is our smallest building. Pate: My name is Dan Pate. I am the Director of Construction for Ruby Tuesday restaurants. Can you repeat your question please? Allen: I said that I have been to some Ruby Tuesdays in other cities and in my humble opinion have found them more aesthetically pleasing than this particular prototype and wondered how you determined to use this one for this location. Pate: Actually, what you see here a lot of the elements are used in our standard design package that we do now. Some of the older classic Ruby Tuesdays used an old board on back, hardy board panel, etc. We have gotten away from that. We have gone more upscale with the dryvit and stacked stone look. We feel like it has given us a more rich feeling and a more customer friendly environment. There is a slew of design architects sitting at our corporate headquarters that come up with these designs which our CEO signs off on. Basically the studies that have come back for us these elevations on this prototypical type if you will, are pleasing to the customers and have increased our sales volume at our restaurants. Estes: Commissioner Allen, do you have any other questions? Allen: No, I guess that that just determined that I have poor taste. Estes: Are there any motions or any discussion? Hoover: On the north elevation, which seems to be the one that we discussed at Subdivision, I have seen some improvement but it seems like if they were willing to add some awnings or something like they did with one of the other elevations because this will be seen from across the way with the hotel. Pate: Actually, the back of the building is more of a service corridor area. There are doors for the electrical boxes, the roof access ladder is back there. Access to the cooler equipment is back there as well. Hoover: You might be saying that is the rear of the building but that is actually a Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 39 visible side that we wouldn't call a rear. Pate: The visibility from it is not from the main road, it is toward the back of the corridor of the development basically. Smith: Also, these elevations are not taking into consideration landscaping that would be planned for the site also which would be in front of the cooler box and it would be in front of some of these other things that we feel would certainly help dress that up. Hoover: Thank you. Church: One more question. How do you reach a decision on which prototype you use? Pate: Prototypes are based on our return on investment, size of the demographic of the area that we are actually putting the restaurant in and payback. For us to put the largest prototype that we have in here would not work for us economically as well as the middle sized. Church: We have just seen an example where Olive Garden built one of their latest prototype restaurants and I think we are seeing that it is definitely paying off in sells. If you are willing to invest a little on the front end I think it comes back in the end so that is why I am asking the question. Estes: Commissioners, is there any other discussion? Hoover: Commissioner Church had a good observation there. I had forgotten about the Olive Garden. They are definitely not necessarily viewed from a public street but you can see them once you are in there when the other developments go in you are going to be able to see all sides and they did carry the same material all the way around. I am not suggesting you carry your material all around just to address this as an elevation that is going to be seen from other people in the commercial subdivision. Pate: We actually do carry the material of the E.I.F.S all the way around as well as the green band. One of the elements we don't carry around is the awnings. If you look at this elevation I am not sure how architecturally you would apply any type of architectural awning in this area. As Shawn Smith pointed out we have also dressed this area up with landscaping. Hoover: How can the landscaping be in front of this elevation because it shows all paving on the site plan. Pate: You are right, I stand corrected. It is proposed as sidewalk in there. I was out of line saying landscaping would hide that. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 40 Aviles: I think you can mitigate the back view with a little bit of landscaping. There is a sidewalk that goes toward the dumpster and I think that there is room not in front of the dumpster pad but just as the sidewalk turns toward the grease traps to add some landscaping in there. Would you guys be willing to do that to partially shield the view? Pate: Sure. Aviles: Can you coordinate that with staff? Pate: Are you referring to the area to the left of the grease trap? Aviles: Yes. Pate: Yes, that is not an issue at all. Pate: We will put the high arbrivada so it will give it more of a blocking view. Aviles: I think the other sides of the building are certainly more attractive than our usual older restaurant that we see and if we can mitigate that back side with landscaping t would be in favor of it. Estes: Is there any further discussion or any motions? MOTION: Shackelford: I appreciate the comments regarding Olive Garden. That is obviously a very good looking building. I would like to remind the Commission though that this development isn't going to have the development on all sides of it that we are seeing in the CMN business park. This does back up to some existing buildings but it is not at all the type of traffic count behind the building that you see in CMN. Based on that, with the agreement to add some additional landscape I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 03-8.00 subject to all staff conditions with the specific finding that the building is in compliance with our commercial design standards. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 03-8.00 is there a second? Church: I will second. Ward: The only thing I have about the north elevation I guess the Hampton Inn is going to be sitting to the north of this property, is that right? Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 41 Pate: That is correct. Ward: I do think a little bit of landscaping would definitely help, and I can't redesign your building but on that north elevation if you put some of those same canopies or awnings above those doors and so on I think it would kind of take away that long unarticulated wall on the north end and dress it up. That would basically take care of all of our problems. I don't know if you can do that or not. Awnings usually don't cost much and that would match the south elevations and the east elevations and make the building much more attractive from the Hampton Inn. Pate: In order to expedite this process if you want two awnings back there I will be more than happy to put them back there. Ward: I think it will be seen from the hotel for sure. Pate: You have got them, two awnings. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 03-8.00 and we have a second by Commissioner Church. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-8.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 42 LSD 03-9.00: Large Scale Development (Walgreens, pp 523) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 6`h Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.0 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. building proposed. Aviles: Sixth on our agenda this evening is LSD 03-9.00 submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.0 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. building proposed. There are eleven conditions of approval. Do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: Seven through eleven are standard conditions. Ward: I will need to recuse from this particular item on the agenda. Aviles: Sara, do you want to give us the staff report? Edwards: Yes. The proposal is for a 14,560 sq.ft. Walgreen's with 70 parking spaces proposed. There are currently vacant buildings on this site which will be removed. There is an alley running through the site which must be vacated. To familiarize you with where this property is, it is across from the Mill District north of OReilly's. I would like to say that the Commission requested at agenda session that we research elevations of other Walgreen's that have been approved, which we have done which I will pass around right now. I will let the applicant address what they have done since agenda session to the elevations. Aviles: Thank you Sara. I will go ahead and read the conditions of approval. 1) Twenty-five feet from centerline shall be dedicated along Sixth Street pursuant to the requirements for a Historic Collector on the Master Street Plan. This has not been accommodated at the southeast corner of the site. 2) All utility equipment shall be screened. 3) Approval shall be subject to approval of the associated vacation for the alley which runs north/ south through the project. 4) Planning Commission determination of the required off-site improvements. Staff is recommending improvements to both Fifth Street and Locust Avenue to include widening to 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drainage. 5) Planning Commission determination of requested variance of the 15 foot parking lot setback along Sixth Street. There is existing right of way which extends around a drainage structure on Sixth Street. The applicant is requesting not to be required to meet the required 15 foot parking lot setback in this area in Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 43 Bates: order to provide consistent and uniform site development. Staff is in support of this request. 6) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. Structure: The proposed structure is adjacent to City streets on all four sides. East and North elevations as currently proposed present a large blank unarticulated wall surface. Staff recommends that elements or features present on the south and west elevations be repeated on these elevations to provide a consistent appearance for this building on all adjacent public streets. Signage: The applicant is requesting a variance from the sign ordinance. The proposal is for a ten foot tall, 92 square foot monument sign with a twenty five foot setback. The Planning Commission must first determine compliance with Commercial Design Standards prior to the item being heard at the Board of Sign Appeals. Staff has determined the proposal not to be an issue with regard to sight distance. However, staff is recommending the sign meet the sign ordinance. In order to meet the sign ordinance, the sign must first be reduced to 75 square feet. Option 1: Monument Sign. In order to utilize the monument sign option the sign may not exceed 6 feet in height and must have a minimum setback of 10 feet. Option 2: Freestanding Sign. In order to utilize the freestanding sign option, the sign may be up to 30 feet in height and must have a minimum setback of 40 feet. Staff recommends the use of a monument sign by reducing the height from 10 to 6 feet which would result in a reduction of square footage to 55.2 square feet. The sign shall not blink or flash. The other conditions of approval are standard and I won't read those into the record. Is the applicant present? Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Geoff Bates, I am an engineer with Keystone Consultants and I will be representing the developer tonight. Also with me is Mr. Tim Gallup, he is the architect if you have any questions regarding the building. I probably have just a little presentation to address some of these issues. I think personally and for the good of the city, we ought to be thankful that Walgreen's has picked this site. I think the south side of the city really needs some revitalization and I think it is great that they did pick this area and they are really trying to work and get in this area of town. These were the first elevations we submitted and we changed them up some based on Subdivision Committee comments by adding awnings on the north end and also brick. We added a split faced CPU all around the building. Aviles: Can you clarify, what that since agenda session? Bates: Yes Ma'am. There are some small elevations of these that I can pass around. Shackelford: Sara, for clarification that that you passed around earlier for us to look at, the bottom one is what location? Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 44 Edwards: Joyce. Shackelford: Proposed at Joyce. Edwards: Approved at Joyce. Shackelford: The bottom one is approved at Joyce. Estes: I am totally confused. Aviles: Let's just look at what is in front of us. Estes: This board is labeled North College Avenue and Township, why are you giving this to us? Shackelford: We're not, staff passed that out. Estes: Ok, so get rid of this. Bunch: We requested those. Estes: What is the other board that Renee has? Edwards: I can clarify for you if you would let me. At agenda session the Commission requested to see elevations of other Walgreen's that have been approved. This one in front of you is the one on Township that is constructed. This other smaller board is the one that we recently approved up by the mall on Joyce Street. Aviles: The point on those is I think that the elevations that are facing streets have articulation and so forth. This site is different in that it has got four sides visible surrounded by streets. Gallup: I am Tim Gallup with Callahan and Gallup. Aviles: Would you elaborate for us then on this most current elevation what the materials are proposed and what the color contrasting is? Gallup: We have a color board of samples over here. The building consists of brick all the way around the building on all four sides and we have a grayish green awning over the windows. It also consists of some limestone colored split faced CMU all the way around the base that resembles a limestone wainscote. What we have done since staff comments is we have added awnings on the back side over the storage Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 45 Bates: Gallup: area and doors on the north side. We have also bricked in total brick around the compactors, trash area, and the storage areas. We also feel that on the two sides that were commented on that we have a heavy landscaping area around both of those sides. I want to point out that on the north side that is all trees and green. We put a lot of emphasis on landscaping on those two sides to screen the service areas for the trucks and for the garbage pick up and also for the stacking of the cars as they go through the drive thru. We have got the landscaping on those two sides to help articulate the building in addition to the building materials. Aviles: Is there any landscaping against the building itself? Gallup: We have landscaping at the corners of the building and then the islands. Aviles: Commissioners, are there any questions or comments? Bates: On the sign for our monument sign they wanted it to be 10' tall. I wanted you to notice that the monument sign is actually set 15' back from the proposed right of way, which puts it 40' on School Street and 35' on 6th Street. It doesn't say anywhere in the ordinances but a pole sign the further back from the right of way the larger you can make the sign. We are only asking for 15 sq.ft. more and we would move the sign back accordingly. It is 40' off the street but it is only 15' off the proposed right of way. Aviles: Ok. Commissioners we have a couple of waivers and other things to consider. One is the 15' setback, staff is supporting that request and I don't have a problem with it. Ostner: On this 15' setback it is a variance because of the drainage structure? I am looking at number five because the right of way does a little bump because of this drainage structure. I know what it looks like now the Highway Department made a nice new box culvert. On your drawing you show rocks and what not, is this going to be a hole? Bates: Yes. That is a request from the city. At one time we were going to just cover it all up but there are some issues with the drainage structure and city staff would rather leave it open. Ostner: At 265 and 45 in front of Harps we have that lovely massive rock ditch. Bates: It is not going to look anything like that. This is a lot smaller. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 46 Ostner: It is still a hole and a rotten ditch. It is just a small hole. I don't think that helps anything in development and I think it should be avoided. Aviles: Is this an existing condition that we are dealing with here though? Bates: Yes Ma'am. Aviles: I think ugly detention ponds are just that. I do agree with you on that but I think some of our topography gives us some design challenges. Ostner: This isn't a detention pond. It is basically a junction box for drainages to come together but they are not letting you cover it up, is that what you are saying? Bates: Ostner: Bates: Yes. And you are wanting to because I want you to cover it up. I wouldn't mind covering it up but there are some flow issues with that existing culvert not be constructed correctly. Ostner: I would appreciate efforts to make it sightly because they can get ugly real quick. Bates: They are putting some landscaping around it so hopefully you won't be able to see it. Ostner: Great. Estes: With regard to requested variance from the sign ordinance could you drop a couple of stacks of the brick, the bottom stack and the top stack and still keep the trade dress and the mark and not infringe upon the integrity of either? You are looking at me like an owl in a tree, do you understand my question? Let me ask it this way. You have requested a variance from the sign ordinance and the proposed monument sign elevations that have been presented to us is too big so my question is that you have got three stacks of brick there. You have got the shoulders on the bottom and then you have got the second stack. Could you drop a couple of those? Gallup: Drop it down to 8'. Estes: Could you do that and not effect the integrity of it? Gallup: Yes. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 47 Estes: You could drop some stacks out of the standard utility size brick. Gallup: We would drop it out of the standard. Estes: How much would you drop out? Gallup: I wouldn't want to go any lower than 8'. Estes: Would that work? Gallup: Yes. One thing that may happen and I am not sure when you drop it down to 8' the two panels may or may not flip. When we get further down these panels may or may not flip on top of each others. Aviles: But the dimensions would be as we are discussing? Gallup: Yes. MOTION: Estes: With that said, I would move for approval of LSD 03-9.00 granting the requested variance of the 15' parking lot setback along 6`h Street and allowing for a requested variance from the sign ordinance to 8'. The monument sign would be reduced in height from 10' to 8' which would result in an accompanying reduction of square footage. Aviles: And your finding for the commercial design standards as well? Estes: Yes. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes do I have a second? Ostner: Second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-9.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Ward abstaining. Aviles: The motion carries on a vote of eight with one abstention. Thank you gentlemen. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 48 PPL 03-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located on Hunt Lane south of Hwy 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres with 12 lots proposed. Aviles: Seventh on the agenda this evening is PPL 03-6.00 for Summerbrook Estates which was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located on Hunt Lane south of Hwy 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres with 12 lots proposed. There are nine conditions of approval, six through nine are standard. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: Do you want to give us the staff report? Edwards: Yes. What we have as you said, is a subdivision in the Planning area. Public improvements meet city standards which are a waterline extension of an 8" water line and a public street with right of way 60' in width. The standards of that street as far as construction and how it will be built, our ordinances defer to Washington County. Individual sewage treatment systems will be utilized and we are recommending approval subject to those conditions. Aviles: Thank you Sara. I am going to go ahead and read those conditions and then we will hear from the applicant. 1) Gates shall be prohibited on Summerbrook Place. 2) Washington County Approval must be obtained prior to construction. 3) Final plat approval shall be obtained prior to filing the final plat. 4) An 8 inch waterline shall be extended to serve this subdivision. 5) Approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Arkansas Department of Heath permits for individual sewage treatment systems. Six through nine are standard. Mr. Milholland? Milholland: We have signed and our client concurs with all the conditions of approval. I hope there are not any problems but if there are we would be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we respectfully request approval of it. Aviles: Thank you Sir. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant for questions or motions. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-6.00 subject to the eight conditions of approval. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 49 Aviles: Thank you Commissioner. Is there a second? Ward: I will second. Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. Lots 11 and 12 crossing the creek, is there any problem there with the Corp. of Engineers or Waters of the United States or any of that kind of deal with building bridges across that? That is an all weather creek isn't it? Milholland: My understanding is they put low water bridges so they can drive across there without blocking the flow or anything. Bunch: Thank you. Aviles: Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-6.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 50 ADM 03-1100• Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Bridgewater Lane and Unnamed Minor Arterial) The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to relocate Bridgewater Lane and relocate and reclassify an unnamed minor arterial to a collector. Aviles: Eighth on our agenda this evening is ADM 03-11.00, which is a Master Street Plan for Bridgewater Lane and an unnamed minor arterial. The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to relocate Bridgewater Lane and to relocate and reclassify an unnamed minor arterial to a collector. There is one condition of approval. Do we have signed conditions? Edwards: This item does not require signed conditions from the applicant. Aviles: Sara, do you want to give us the staff report? Edwards: This is in conjunction with our next item on the agenda, which is the Preliminary Plat for Bridgewater Estates. The proposal is to relocate Bridgewater Lane, which is a proposed collector street from the southern edge of the proposed subdivision to the interior of that subdivision. The second request is to relocate an unnamed minor arterial from the western boundary of the subdivision to the interior of the subdivision. These changes are considered amendments to the Master Street Plan and must be heard at Planning Commission with a recommendation made to the City Council. We are recommending approval of the Master Street Plan relocation and recommending accepting a lesser dedication subject to the deed restricted area. Our reasoning behind that is the relocation of Bridgewater Lane will not significantly affect how that collector street will function. It will still connect the unnamed minor arterial with Gulley Road. The second request also is moving the proposed street off an existing pond so it will allow for that pond to remain and it would still provide the same connection as it was originally planned to do. That deed restricted area will provide the city in the future if this area is annexed a way to construct that minor arterial if needed. Aviles: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am here on behalf of Gaddy Developments and also we have John Rownak in the audience to assist in this matter. We are here to answer questions. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this administrative item? Seeing no one, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant for further discussion or motions. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 51 MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of ADM 03-11.00 with incorporating the one condition of approval. Aviles: I will read that condition into the record. It says the deed restricted area must be established which prohibits construction within the right of way needed for a minor arterial street. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Allen: I will second. Ostner: I am trusting our staff on this. I just want to understand a little more clearly of where the new street is going. Conklin- Bridgewater Lane is being incorporated into the development. With regard to the unnamed minor arterial, that is also being incorporated into the development with this deed restriction. Keep in mind a minor arterial street is designed to take you from one side of town to the other side of town and with high volumes of traffic. We are dealing with a fairly small subdivision that is not generating the amount of traffic that in our opinion would justify requiring the right of way at this time or construction so that is the recommendation that we are making. BWR is our Traffic Consultant. They will be looking at our Master Street Plan this spring and early summer. This is something that I will also ask them to take a look at when they evaluate our Master Street Plan and what streets are needed in Fayetteville. One of the issues that we recently dealt with was the issue of the eastern bypass and the abilities to build some of these streets in these areas and there are some concerns that staff has south of Hwy. 45 with the ability for this minor arterial to be connected further to the south. Aviles: Thanks Tim. Are there any other questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-11.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 52 PPL 03-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 31 lots proposed. Aviles: Our companion item is PPL 03-7.00 for Bridgewater Estates. It was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 31 lots proposed. There are seven conditions of approval, five through seven are standard conditions. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: I will go ahead and read those into the record. 1) Approval of the associated Master Street Plan amendments. The applicant is requesting to relocate Bridgewater Lane, a proposed collector, and Butterfield Road, a proposed minor arterial from the edges of the development to be incorporated into the subdivision and to change the Minor Arterial to a Collector Street. 2) The plat shall be revised to reflect a building setback of 35 feet for lots 8 thru 12, 15, 16 and 18 thru 20 along Horse Meadow Drive and the 70 foot right-of-way dedication extending to the north. 3) Gates shall be prohibited on the public streets within this development. 4) County approval is required prior to construction. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 7) Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen and also, as I mentioned, we have John Rownak from Gaddy Investments to help answer questions. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Culgrove: I am Sam Culgrove, I live at 3615, which is right along side what used to be Frank Kelly's land. Frank always said that the land wouldn't perk, it would take 20 years for sewer to come in. I have talked to John, he had come over to the house and said that they were going to eliminate lot 24, Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 53 which was right across from our pond and then there was some other talk that they might take out another lot. What our big concern is that we have a spring fed pond there and our other neighbor the water runs over to his pond and what happens if all these septic tanks just run into our pond? Is that EPA or does the City of Fayetteville help us? What happens? Aviles: I am going to refer most of this to our Engineer. I know that the Health Department approval is required. Matt, can you answer this gentleman's questions? Casey: Health Department approval will be required on each individual lot for the septic tank and design of their leach field. The City of Fayetteville does not regulate that so the construction of that will have to meet their approval. Aviles: The State Health Department involves some testing before approving it would have to perk and so on? Casey: Yes Ma'am, that is part of the design process. They don't necessarily perk anymore. They will have a soil morphologist come out on site and look at a couple of different test pits dug on each lot and they will determine how many feet of lines are needed for each individual lot based on their analysis of the soil. Aviles: Once the State Health Department approves the construction of the septic tank are you aware of complaints from adjoining property owners about leakage? Casey: That does not come to our division. Aviles: Ok, so he could call the Health Department and probably find out about that. Casey: That is correct. Aviles: Did you have any other questions? Culgrove: That will work. Aviles: Is there any other member of the public that would like to talk about this? I will go ahead and close public discussion on this Preliminary Plat and I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission. Jorgensen: To help answer that question concerning septic tank design, as a matter of fact, we are in the process of analysis of each and every lot. That is correct, we are going to eliminate lot 24 so we will be down to 30 lots Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 54 instead of 31 lots. We want to take that area right there and redistribute the area and make them larger lots but all of the rest of the lots are in pretty good shape. We are going to redistribute some lots down in the southwest corner also. We are in the process of evaluating each and every lot and that is correct, we have to get this approved through the Health Department. Aviles: Thank you very much. Estes: Sam, what do you use your pond for? Do you irrigate with it? Culgrove: Yes and I have fish in it and cows enjoy it. Culgrove, Sally: We just had a new cow today. I am Sam's wife. We did have some concerns because we have agriculture. This is an agricultural area. We don't have city sewer, we don't have cable, we can't get city garbage but we can get a subdivision next to us. We were kind of unhappy about that. I understand that it is their land and they can do what they want with it but it is our land too. We have cattle, our neighbors have cattle and so we were a little bit concerned. We did wait here since 5:30 to say something. I understand nobody wants it in their back yard but I guess that is just hard on us. I know that they are eliminating a couple of lots so that makes us feel better. I personally wish they would've put a 5 acre lot out instead of a two acre lot. Yes we do have agriculture and yes our cows do drink of out of our pond. Our water to the pond comes right off their land which is spring fed underneath the water. We see it coming in because the land goes down and there are three ponds we are talking about and the land goes to one of the three, all of it. There are also two spring fed creeks going through there. We have geese wintering every year too and I am guess this will be their last year too. There are a lot of issues that we have. Thank you. Ostner: I feel your pain about development. You bought that place and you were out in agricultural land. This is in the county and there is no legislative process to talk about whether they should be zoned into a residential zone or not, they are in the county and as you said, they can do what they want. Culgrove, Sally: The County told me they would vote on what you guys did. Somehow they are going to have to tie together because we have been chasing that every since we heard about this. You can't call the city because you are not in the city. We found out we couldn't even get fire protection without paying an extra $500 a year even though we pay almost $3,000 a year in Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 55 taxes on our place and I know a lot of it comes right into Fayetteville so we can't talk to you guys because we are in the county but then the County says that they are just going to go along with what you guys do and so it ties us up and we will have a subdivision with nobody to talk to really. At least the other neighborhood had somebody they could voice their opinions to but here you are just doing the streets from what they told us and they do the rest of it but they are going to go along with what you do so it kind of leaves us where we are in the middle kind of with nobody to protect us. Aviles: There are a lot of times that people come to us with these concerns. I am going to ask our City Attorney to explain a little bit further about what we have to do with regard to approving developments. We go through opposition on Large Scale Developments inside the city and we are charged with trying to appease the neighbors and appease the developers and end up with conflicting interests. We are charged with whatever rules and regulations we have in front of us, which in this case does happen to be the streets and things that they put down in the conditions of approval and if they have met all of those. Culgrove, Sally: My one year old son developed asthma because Mr. Gaddy shot a cow next to us, 300' from our house and burned it for six weeks and burned green wood for another four months. His workers would come out and light it daily and leave it. That happened and you know what, we couldn't call anybody. Nobody wanted to help us. We called the sheriff but nobody wanted to take responsibility. My son developed asthma because of that. It is really a tough thing that we have gone through and maybe that is why we feel the way we do. My mom and dad were farmers and we had dead animals and we had somebody come and get them, he never burned them on the farm and we had 140 acres and never within 300' of someone's home. Aviles: Ma'am, I'm sorry. I am going to have to go ahead and just say that we need to focus our attention on the subdivision and not on the other lands on the land. What I had started to do was to ask Mr. Williams to tell us in a county subdivision what it is that we are supposed to look at. Williams: Basically, just as the staff has outlined it. We really don't have a tremendous amount of power, especially in the county. As you said, the County usually just goes along with whatever Fayetteville Planning Commission agrees to within our planning area but they don't have to. That is a decision that the quorum court has made and that is a political body that can be influenced by citizen's who want to see something different. This body is restricted to our ordinances and to what the County Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 56 allows us to do and that is what they are doing now is looking at the road situation and that is all that this Planning Commission can do. Aviles: Thank you for your comments and I am closing public discussion now. We will go ahead and bear back if there is anything else the applicant has to add or any other comments from Commissioners. Is there a motion or further discussion? MOTION: Ward: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 03-7.00 for Bridgewater Estates with 30 lots proposed instead of 31 and with all conditions of approval. Aviles: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-7.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 57 ADM 03-2.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan -46`h Street, pp 438) The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to include changing 46`h Street to a Local Street from a Collector Street and to add Broyles Avenue extension as a Collector Street. Aviles: Tenth on our agenda this evening is ADM 03-2.00 for a Master Street Plan amendment to 46th Street. The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to include changing 46th Street to a local street from a collector street and to add Broyles Avenue extension as a collector street. Sara? Edwards: Yes. This is a city request. We are currently planning, as everyone knows, a new sewer treatment plant to the southwest of the comer of Persimmon and Broyles Avenue. As part of the construction of the plant there will be heavy construction traffic. After the construction there will be approximately two trucks per day to pick up sludge. Originally the plans for the new plant included construction of roads and a bridge through Farmington to access the site. Upon further review the city staff has found that it would be more cost effective to find a route from Wedington to this site. Subsequently, at the same time we had the Preliminary Plat for Persimmon Place submitted for review and saw an opportunity to accommodate a collector street through that subdivision that would be the most cost effective way for the city and the developer has agreed to do that. This route is easier for large trucks to maneuver and is less costly than any other proposed route and it is an equally adequate connection from persimmon Avenue to Wedington. The Street Committee of the City Council has reviewed this proposal and has authorized the pursuit of this route. We are currently in the process of acquiring the land needed for Broyles Avenue to extend from this Persimmon Place subdivision to Wedington Drive. We are recommending that you do forward to City Council a recommendation of approval to change the Master Street Plan. Aviles: Is the applicant present? Conklin: We are the applicant. Aviles: Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address us on this item? I will bring it back to the staff and to the Commission for further discussion or motions. MOTION: Estes: Madam Chair, I would move for approval of ADM 03-2.00 to be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Aviles: Thank you Commissioner. I have a motion, do I hear a second? Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 58 Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 59 PPL 03-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Persimmon Place, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of ARC Construction for property located at the northwest corner of 46th Avenue and Persimmon Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 58.11 acres with 154 lots proposed. Aviles: Number eleven is PPL 03-1.00 for Persimmon Place submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of ARC Construction for property located at the northwest corner of 46th Avenue and Persimmon Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 58.11 acres with 154 lots proposed. There are fifteen conditions of approval, eleven through fifteen are standard. Do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: Thank you. Would you give us the staff report please Sara? Edwards: Yes. What we have is a 154 lot subdivision. We recently rezoned this property subject to a Bill of Assurance. The proposal is meeting that associated Bill of Assurance. In the previous item the developer agreed to extend Broyles Avenue to the north through this site. Improvements to Persimmon and 46th are both being proposed, which includes 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Tree preservation right now on this site there is 7.33% existing. The proposal is 6.03% to remain and a contribution to our tree fund for mitigation in the amount of $18,500. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Aviles: Thank you. I am going to go ahead and read the conditions and then we will hear from the applicant. 1) Compliance with the associated Bill of Assurance. Covenants must be filed with the final plat which require compliance. All fences and landscaping required by the Bill of Assurance must be in place prior to final plat approval. 2) All utilities shall be placed underground. 3) A floodplain development permit is required prior to any work in the floodplain. 4) The covenants must provide for maintenance of lot 155 which includes the detention pond. 5) Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. Staff is recommending that 46th and Persimmon be improved to include widening to 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. 6) Planning Commission approval of the associated Master Street plan amendment which adds Broyles as a Collector Street and changes 46th Street from a collector to a local street. 7) Any damage caused by trucks to 46th during the construction of this subdivision shall be repaired by the developer at the developer's expense. 8) The proposed concrete privacy fence shall be six feet in height. 9) Nine inch tall curbs shall be installed along Broyles Avenue in order to allow for future overlays. 10) A 12 Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 60 inch waterline shall be installed along Broyles Avenue within the subdivision in lieu of requiring an 8 inch waterline within the subdivision and north to Wedington Drive. The city will construct the remaining portion of the 12 inch waterline from this subdivision boundary north to Wedington Drive. In the event that the city elects not to construct the line, the developer shall construct an 8 inch line through this subdivision north to Wedington Drive. Conditions eleven through fifteen are standard. Is the applicant present? Brackett: Yes. My name is Chris Brackett, I am with Jorgensen & Associates. I am here representing the owners of this project. I don't have a formal presentation but I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Yes Sir, if you will come forward and tell us your name and your address and give us the benefit of your opinion. Zieta: Good evening. My name is Bassam Zieta my property is adjacent to the north from the proposed development. I attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and I had a list of issues that I brought up and I don't know if staff has some kind of recommendation from the Traffic Department. Let me tell you what my issues are and then hopefully somebody will be able to answer some of them. I am not here to object to this development. I am here to share with you some of my thoughts on making this development a safe development. 46th Street is a safe development. 46`h Street is a local street, it is 18' wide existing with ditches on both sides. There is a sign on 46th Street as you enter that says No Trucks. My understanding from staff is that this sign is for no trucks for through traffic. We would highly recommend to the city to restrict truck traffic from 7:00 to 8:00. The reason for that is I myself and all of my neighbors are having a hard time making a right turn on 16 in the morning. Traffic is extremely congested there. The speed limit is 50 miles per hour. To have one truck try to make a turn, whether it is a right turn or a left turn coming into 46th Street is going to create a lot of problems for us. I would highly encourage the city to put a restriction on this development as far as truck traffic from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. The second item is there is a sight distance problem past my street, which is Luttrell Street. I have discussed that with the engineer, I have discussed that with staff. I would like for someone to take a look at that because the first entrance and the only entrance to this proposed subdivision on 46th Street is about 150' from the end of my property. The speed of traffic, people race on this street. I called the Traffic Department and they were kind enough to do a speed study. I have a copy of the report, I don't know if you all have a copy of it. There are some people that drive over 50 miles Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 61 per hour. In this report the maximum speed for the equipment the city used is 50 so it could be above 50. We have a lot of children in the neighborhood and with that sight distance problem we would recommend that if the city could install a four way stop sign I think that will help to reduce the speed limit. It protects the kids from crossing. Here is going to be a sidewalk probably 1,200 linear feet with this development on 46th Street. If you have a stop sign at least people will be able to cross, go down south and use this sidewalk and hopefully in the future Persimmon when it connects to the east we can walk to the Boys and Girls Club. The other issue that I have is tree preservation. I think the consultant did a great job showing all of these trees. The city has an ordinance on tree preservation only protecting trees during construction. I have large trees on my property. I have a 51" tree on my property. You probably all have plans, you can see that. I think it is tree number three. I have some other trees. I own the whole property adjacent to this development, I will have about 8 lots behind me. I don't know if the city has any mechanism into restricting any construction in the tree area. Limit any construction of any structure that will impact each one of these trees. I will use lot number three as an example. That is where the 51" tree is. If a property owner buys that lot, the city has no restriction, they can't tell him not to build all the way to the property line. That is my information. I would like to see if there is some way to restrict any construction, not on the whole area right there only where there are existing trees. It makes a lot of sense if we are trying to preserve trees during construction we need to go all the way to preserve these trees. If each property owner is going to come in and damage some of these trees they are not going to die the next day. It takes five to six years. These trees are extremely large trees. I would like to see if you all would be able to help me on being able to try to preserve these trees. The city is going to spend I don't know how much, over a million dollars preserving trees on Mount Sequoyah. You don't have to pay a penny to preserve these trees. These trees are the same. They are not clustered but they are extremely large trees. I would look to the city to help me out and whether you can put the tree preservation only on the area where the large trees are. I am looking for input from you all or help. Thank you. Aviles: Thank you. We will see if we can answer your questions. Is there anybody else from the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and close public discussion and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission and staff. Bunch: A question for staff. What is the building setback on lots one through thirteen down through there on the north side which would be the rear setback? Edwards: The standard rear setback is 20'. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 62 Bunch: Edwards: Aviles: Brackett: Aviles: Brackett: Shackelford: Brackett: Shackelford: Brackett: Shackelford: Aviles: That is by ordinance so it doesn't necessarily need to be dimensioned on the drawing right? Right. We will get it on there at the time of Final Plat. Did you want to answer some of these questions? As far as tree preservation we have moved the utility easements that are normally on the back of those lots, we have moved the utilities to the front of those lots specifically for those trees. We are following the ordinance to the T as far as what we can do. The ordinance specifically rules out single-family construction. I was on the committee that helped draft it. We are really doing everything that I believe is asked of us by the ordinance. As far as a tree easement, we really don't want anymore restrictions on those lots after we have already moved the utilities on the front, which is kind of a drawback for selling those lots. We don't want an additional easement to where home builders will look at it and think of it as another problem for that lot. With the rear setback I believe the trees will be fine but I can't promise you. Are the rear setbacks outside of the drip lines of the trees for the most part? I haven't scaled those off but I know that they are all 20' and the tree is actually sitting on Mr. Zieta's property. I believe it will be. You may not be out of the drip line completely but you will be out of the majority of it. Over half of it is on his property. Chris on condition number eight the proposed concrete privacy fence shall be 6' in height. I am not following on here. Can you show me where this proposed concrete privacy fence and specifically how many feet of concrete fence are we talking about? It will be along the right of way frontage of 46th and Persimmon which is approximately almost 1,300 feet along 46th and it is almost 1,300 feet along Persimmon and it will be 2' west and north of the right of way. So we are talking over 2,600 linear feet of concrete? Yes. Thank you. Tim, did Perry address any of the traffic concerns raised by Mr. Zieta? Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 63 Edwards: I spoke with Perry today. He did go out and check the sight distance for that driveway and he felt that it did meet the IT requirements, which is what we go by when judging sight distance. Approximately 250' is the sight distance there. I did also have him address the possibility of a stop sign at the intersection of 46`h and Persimmon and typically the city does not place stop signs on curbs. Right now it is not an intersection and really we do not feel that there is a need for a stop sign at that point. Right now there are curb warning signs with a recommended speed of 15 miles per hour. 46th does have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. I think that covers it all. Aviles: Thank you very much. The construction traffic in and out during construction, do we have any ordinances that cover that? Edwards: We do not have any ordinances that would limit hours of construction. Aviles: That would be something that if you guys want to take up separately you could but this Commission doesn't have anything to say about that. Ward: Chris, on number eight, this proposed concrete privacy fence 6' in height, I guess that is for the neighborhood and it is going to be a solid concrete fence? Brackett: My understanding is that the neighbors did not want to see the homes. They wanted a permanent privacy fence and they felt that wood would deteriorate soon so this was the compromise that we met. We did at one time try to change that and go to a decorative privacy fence and that was not the thing to do. Shackelford: That was my question as well. Do we have any other situations in Fayetteville where we have concrete privacy fences on two sides of a subdivision? Aviles: Not that I am aware of. To me that sounds more like a freeway isolator than a subdivision isolator. Conklin: I know one side, I can't think of any two side. Williams: That was part of a Bill of Assurance when this property was rezoned so that is pretty much the developer is stuck with that. He had to include that in the plans. Conklin: That is correct. They did try to amend the Bill of Assurance and the neighbors wanted a concrete type privacy fence. The subdivisions that I Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 64 can think of off hand that have at least one side are Fieldstone, Savannah, Park Place up front. Aviles: Is this one going to be articulated? Brackett: It wouldn't be to the developer's best interest to put up a cinder block wall. It will be something that will look nice. Shackelford: Tim, I am trying to remember when we made the motion to rezone this property. Coming out of Planning Commission did we know at that point that there was going to be a concrete wall? We just knew that there was going to be a 6' screening, is that correct? Conklin- I am not sure. It took a long time for this to advance through the City Council and I think they had three neighborhood meetings and in the end I think there was a fairly lengthy Bill of Assurance. I am not sure what information the Commission had. Shackelford: I don't remember seeing that requirement. Conklin: Once again, this is not a requirement the city placed on there. It is something that I'm not sure who came up with the idea, the developer or the neighbors. Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: Chris, with regard to Mr. Zieta's concerns regarding the tree preservation I note that the criteria used by our Landscape Administrator to evaluate the tree preservation plan is that many trees in the open pasture were in poor condition and the developer is paying $18,550 into the City of Fayetteville tree fund and that that tree fund will be utilized to plant high quality species within the subdivision upon completion of the home construction. How will that function? Will the developer draw on that fund and then plant the trees or will the individual homeowners be encouraged to do so or have you thought that through? Brackett: That is actually something the city does. The money we give goes into a tree fund that the City of Fayetteville comes down through and plants street trees after the homes are built which was a need we understood from the citizens when that was going through. The developer will have no part in that as far as what trees or where they are planted. It is on the city to do that. That is our only option by the way. Residential subdivisions do not allow for us to mitigate ourselves on site. They require a donation to the tree fund. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 65 MOTION: Ward: I will go ahead and make a motion for approval of PPL 03-1.00 for Persimmon Place with a 58.11 acre site and 154 lots proposed and with all 15 conditions of approval. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Shackelford: I will 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 PPL 03-1.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 66 R-PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, pp 255) was submitted by Phil Hagan of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential lots proposed. Aviles: Next on our agenda this evening is R-PZD 03-1.00 for Jackson Place submitted by Phil Hagan of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T - Crow Ltd. for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Skillern. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential lots proposed. There are 15 conditions of approval. Ten through fifteen are standard. Do we have signed conditions? Edwards: We do not. Aviles: Thank you. Sara, can you give us the staff report please? Edwards: Yes. This is an R-PZD, which incorporates both the subdivision approval and a rezoning approval. The proposal is a 14 lot subdivision. Right now it is zoned both R-1 and A-1. There are floodplains and wetlands on the site which are located to the west. The detention pond will be constructed within the floodplain and some filling will be done within the floodplain to allow for the lots to have 6,000 sq.ft. of buildable area. Street improvements are planned for Old Wire Road to include curb, gutter, and storm drainage. A new street is proposed interior to the subdivision with water and sewer extension. The proposal meets all of the R-1 zoning requirements with the exception of lot width. Lots 6, 7, and 8 are not 70' in width at the front building setbacks as required in an R-1 district. However, they will remain buildable for the size of structure that is proposed. Draft covenants have been submitted with restrictions similar to those found in the Brookbury subdivision located to the south. I would like to point out that this item must also be heard at City Council for approval. Tree preservation, right now existing on site is 80.1%, the proposal is for 52.8% to remain. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval of the requested rezoning and that Planning Commission approve the proposed development subject to the conditions as part of this staff report. Also, we have incorporated findings required for a Planned Zoning District and the associated rezoning and found this development to meet all the required findings. Aviles: Thank you very much. I am going to go ahead and read the conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district for R- Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 67 PZD 03-1.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2) Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. Staff is recommending that curb, gutter, and storm drainage be added to Old Wire Road immediately adjacent to the site. 3) Lots will not be permitted to access Old Wire Road. 4) All signs must be approved by Planning Commission at the time of final plat approval. 5) A final plat must be processed prior to the sale of any lots. 6) All utilities shall be placed underground. 7) An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 8) The detention pond shall be enlarged to allow for the removal of the drainage swale to rear of lots 6 through 8 in order preserve trees and a vegetative buffer along the rear of these lots. 9) Easements along the rear of lots 4 thorough 8 shall be relocated to the fronts of these lots in order to preserve trees and a vegetative buffer along the rear of these lots. 10) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 11) 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. 12) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $7,215.00 (13 new units @ $555) 13) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a ten foot greenspace along Old Wire and a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace on both sides f the proposed street. 14) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 15) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. Is the applicant present? Zimmerman: Hello, my name is Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates and I am here on behalf of the owner. I don't have a presentation but I will be glad to try to answer any questions you might have. Aviles: Thank you very much. I will go ahead and take public comment. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Residential Planned Zoning District? Yes, please come up and give us your name, address, and the benefit of your opinion please. Calloway: My name is Pauline Calloway. My address is 3061 Skillern, which is next door to this property. I don't like the idea of a concrete fence so that would be one thing I would want to know about if they were going to put a concrete fence up. I know that is the other one. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 68 Aviles: Calloway: Aviles: Calloway: Aviles: Calloway: Aviles: Quattlebaum: Aviles: Zimmerman: No, I don't think we have one proposed for this. Another thing that I'm not sure about is the trees. Some of the trees are very, very large and even though they are not on my property they are toward the back of my property and I am wondering if they are going to be gone. Someone from some place up here was going to come out and walk the property with me and we were going to discuss some of these things. The lines are going to be underground is that right? The house nearest the street, I don't see how it can be as large as they say the house is going to be on this small of a lot. Also, that brings to mind, if they straighten that road out and they put the stop signs on Old Wire, Skillern Road they already drive very, very fast and if that road is straightened out with stop signs I don't know how the people will ever get out. We actually went through this at agenda and I remember the intersection pretty well. Do you have any other questions? No. We will try to go through those and have the applicant and the staff answer your concerns. Ok. Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address on this Planned Zoning District? My name is Charlotte Quattlebaum, I live at 3040 Summershade Drive. I am actually Ms. Calloway's backdoor neighbor. I had two concerns on the property. One is drainage. There is a small drainage area on Ms. Calloway's property and it is about 10' back from my property that drains down into this area. Our biggest concern is that that drainage area still goes, that it will drain out into that creek and doesn't back up into the property. The second one was the tree cover with the large trees that are at the back of the property. Phil Hagan did volunteer to walk that property but that property has quite a bit of water on it right now. We are wanting to follow up with them on that and to do over the trees that would be removed as well as how that drainage is going to work flowing down to the creek. Thank you. I will close public comment now. Would you like to go ahead and respond to these questions? For the comment about the drainage ditch along the south side of the property, it was one of the concerns, I believe Sam Turner is also a Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 69 Aviles: Zimmerman: Aviles: Edwards: Estes: property owner along the south side and he was more concerned about saving the trees rather than the drainage issue so we proposed to remove the swale along the south property line and locate any proposed utilities to the front of the lots of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and save the trees rather than the drainage swale and then we will try to collect as much offsite drainage as we can in the street and upsize the storm sewer and the detention pond if necessary. It is basically we will do either thing, we will either work on saving the trees or we will keep the drainage swale, whichever you want us to do. That can be a dynamic process during the design of this development? Yes. Sara, can you add to that about the intersection? I did also talk to Perry about this issue today and what we will do as a city is go ahead and place a stop sign on Old Wire and at the entrance to this development as well as leave the one on Skillern Road until we can determine what the best thing will be and if there are some intersection redesign that needs to be done we need to look at that. For right now we are willing to leave that stop sign to control speeds. From the plat material that we have I notice that we have before us Jackson Place a Planned Zoning District Bentonville, Arkansas. I think it is a splendid idea that we exercise superintendence authority over Bentonville I just wanted to know what is our statutory authority for doing so. Zimmerman: That was a little accident. Aviles: Zimmerman: Shackelford: Edwards: Shackelford: I assume you will get a new cover sheet before this goes any further. Definitely. Sara, on the stop sign issue, you said there would be a stop sign on Old Wire Road. Will that be a stop sign for traffic that is coming south on Old Wire Road as well as traffic that is going east? Will there be two stop signs there or will there be one? It will be for traffic going south. So the traffic coming off of Hwy. 265 and going east, if they are continuing on through that S corner they will not have a stop sign correct? Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 70 Edwards: That is right. Hoover: I have a comment, I was reading carefully through the notes here and I wish I would've noticed this earlier, I would like staff to confirm this and talk about this a little bit here. It says that maximum density served by a cul-de-sac is 40 units, this is a requirement we have in our PZD? I am just curious because now I am relating it something else that came through tonight. Conklin: We have a Residential street that states a maximum 24 hour volume is 300 to 500 vehicles per day. A single-family home produces about 10 trips per day so it is within that range. Hoover: You are saying that is how we determined to establish 40 units is the maximum number we could put on a cul-de-sac? Conklin- That is similar to our Master Street Plan standard. Aviles: Commissioners? I will go ahead and make a motion to approve this PZD subject to all staff comments. You have not signed those, do you have any questions about any of those? Zimmerman: No, I did fax it back. Aviles: Ok, so we will go ahead with the 15 conditions as stated in the agenda. I am making this motion because every since I joined the Planning Commission however many years ago I have been looking for a PZD and it is my pleasure to make a motion to approve one before I'm off. With that being said I will make a motion. Ward: I will second. Aviles: I have a second by Commissioner Ward. Shackelford: I am still somewhat concerned about traffic on that corner. If you are coming east on Old Wire and you don't have a stop sign and you are coming through an intersection where there are stop signs from two directions I am still not sure that we have alleviated the situation of trying to get off of Skillern Road and out of this neighborhood. Obviously this goes beyond this development and we don't need to slow down this development for this question but at what point will the city readdress that issue and look at the overall safety of that intersection? Edwards: Our Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, wants to leave the stop sign on Skillern while we look at how it works with this new street coming in. We Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 71 are not willing to make a final commitment as to how that intersection design will work until we see how that functions. Long term our goal is to keep the traffic free flowing on Skillern. Once we get it better designed we are going to need to narrow that intersection. Shackelford: Thank you. Aviles: Is there anybody else? Ostner: I have a question. I am not certain but it looks like this street is 24' wide curb to curb. I wanted to thank you for that. That is an option, you could've gone bigger and I think that is the way to go. I appreciate that. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve R-PZD 03-1.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 72 ADM 03-6.00: Administrative Item (UDO) was submitted by the Planning Division of the City of Fayetteville for adoption of the codification of the Unified Development Ordinance, Title 15 of the City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances with proposed amendments. Aviles: Item thirteen on our agenda is ADM 03-6.00 for the UDO which was submitted by the Planning Division of the City of Fayetteville for adoption for the codification of the Unified Development Ordinance, Title 15 of the City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances with proposed amendments. Dawn? Warrick: You all should've received big binders with the draft Unified Development Ordinance in it. As well as this evening we distributed an amendment that included a revised memo and some updated pages to include in that document. Title 15 of the Unified Development Ordinance of the Code for the City of Fayetteville was adopted by ordinance number 4100 June 16, 1998. Since that time we have been working off of that original document and every ordinance that has been passed has basically just been appended to it and has not been codified into the original document. At this time we have made some updates and we are proposing that we forward the codified Unified Development Ordinance, Title 15 to the City Council for adoption. The memo that is included with your booklets incorporates findings that the revised Unified Development Ordinance includes all ordinances that have been passed since it's last adoption through December 31, 2002. You will remember that at that point we decided to stop processing ordinances that revised or amended Title 15 so that we could focus on bringing to you this codification and move forward to get this to the point that it is much more user friendly applicable document. There are some general updates in the document throughout we have modified the document by removing the term mobile home and replacing it with manufactured home. That is to reflect industry terminology. We have also, in each instance replaced the title City Planner with Zoning and Development Administrator. That is to reflect new reorganization within city government. It does not change the function of the Unified Development Ordinance, it changes the title of the individual who interprets the UDO. Continuing on in the memo, we have basically identified each of the changes within the chapters, the Unified Development Ordinance contains 25 chapters and I don't know if you want me to read through each of these changes. The reason that you have an amendment from the time that we talked at the agenda session has to do primarily with new information that the City Attorney has passed our way with regard to legislation that has gone through state legislation and is in the form of a bill ready to be signed by the governor with regard to manufactured housing. Mr. Williams, I don't know if you want to expand on that any. We have basically modified one of our zoning districts. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 73 Williams: I am sorry that I couldn't get the memo any quicker to you all on this but it was only on Friday that I learned that they had actually passed this bill. With the governor's previous fairly close contacts with the manufactured housing industry I am sure he is going to sign this bill. I though it would make sense when we are recodifying to try to take that into consideration and the changes I suggested attempted to keep us as much in the status quo as we can be at this point in time. We did have to make some changes and alterations in order to comply with what will be the future state law and I'm sorry I couldn't get the memo to you any earlier. I thought about trying to mail it to you but Friday my secretary was sick so there was just no way that I could get the memo to you any earlier. Aviles: This represents a huge body of work and I want to commend the staff of the City Attorney's office for undertaking it because it is a complicated document and to get it in order is no small task. Williams: I would love to take the credit but most of the credit goes to the Planning Division who did the vast majority of the work on this. We worked with them but I think that they are the responsible party for getting the Unified Development Ordinance to you in this shape and I recommend it for your approval. Aviles: I would like to recommend tonight that we go ahead and move this on to the City Council. If anybody has any specific questions about anything in it we can incorporate those before it gets to City Council. I have looked through it and nothing jumped out at me but I'm sure as I say, with as many sections and cross sections and references, that there is probably something to change but that can be handled before it goes to City Council. Warrick: I will note that there is some relatively substantial change just in the nomenclature for our zoning districts and we have modified the way that we name our zoning districts to better reflect the density and the use that is permitted within the residential districts. That is something that will probably require a pretty steep learning curve for those of us that are very familiar with the current district nomenclature. It doesn't change the uses, it doesn't change the setbacks, the densities, it just changes the description and name of various residential zoning districts. Aviles: Nothing about the development process has changed so you will have an opportunity to get the developers in on the learning curve and give them a handout on that specific change. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 74 MOTION: Hoover: Bunch: Aviles: Ostner: Conklin: Aviles: Roll Call: Aviles: I would like to make a motion that we approve ADM 03-6.00 and thank the staff for our whole new UDO. I will second. There is a motion by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there anybody else? I just want to thank you again. This is a huge endeavor and for all the times that I have been mean, that I wasn't given a book that made any sense, I take most of them back. This is much better than the old one and it took a lot of work. I appreciate that and as city staff, we owe to the Commissioners, the City Council, the citizens and the developers a set of development ordinances that we can put on line and get updated. We used to outsource this and we are doing it in house and hopefully this will go through, Council will adopt it and we can get this on our website and get the information out about grading and tree preservation and all the other development ordinances we have for the City of Fayetteville. Thanks. Renee? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-6.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thanks Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission March 24, 2003 Page 75 Report of the Nominating Committee: Aviles: Finally on our agenda this evening we have the report of the Nominating Committee with Nancy Allen as Chair. Allen: Before I make the report of the Nominating Committee on behalf of the rest of the Commissioners I certainly want to thank Commissioners Aviles and Ward for their six years of tireless service to the Planning Commission and your sagacious words will be missed. The Nominating Committee has nominated Sharon Hoover as Chair, Bob Estes as Vice Chair, and Don Bunch as Secretary. Aviles: Then you will vote on that at the first meeting in April.