Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A rescheduled meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 14, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED VAC 03-6.00: Vacation (Allen, pp 295) Page 3 PPL 03-9.00: Preliminary Plat (Clabber Creek, Phase 11, pp 322) Page 6 PPL 03-10.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Creek, Phase II, pp 61/100) Page 9 LSD 03-12.00: Large Scale Development (Skate Station, 639) Page 11 CUP 03-7.00: Conditional Use (Crawford, pp 639/640) Page 11 ANX 03-2.00: Annexation (Williams, pp 363) Page 24 RZN 03-14.00: Rezoning (Williams, pp 363) Page 27 CUP 03-10.00: Page 31 RZN 03-15.00: Page 36 Conditional Use (Lindsey, pp 136) Rezoning (Meadows Enterprises, pp 607) CUP 03-8.00: Conditional Use (Harris, pp 370) Page 39 ADM 03-10.00: Administrative Item (DDEP) Page 50 Appointment of Subdivision Committee ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved No action taken Appointed Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Alice Church Christian Vaught Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen Bob Estes Jill Anthes STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 3 Estes: Good evening. Welcome to the Monday evening, April 14, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first order of business is the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Anthes being absent and Commissioner Estes leaving after the election of officers. Estes: A quorum being present the next order of business is the election of Planning Commission officers. The nominating committee has met and has recorded their nominations. They are for Chair Sharon Hoover, Vice Chair Bob Estes, and for Secretary Don Bunch. There is a preprinted ballot in front of you Commissioners, if you would take a moment and mark the ballot. There is also a place for you to write in a candidate should you choose to do so. After you have marked your ballots if you would please pass them to the left to Renee she will count them. Renee, would you tally the ballots please and announce the results? Thomas: The results are Sharon Hoover as Chair by a vote of 8-0, Bob Estes Vice Chair 8-0, Don Bunch, Secretary 8-0. Estes: Madam Chair, it is with much pleasure that I pass you the gable for the year 2003 and 2004. This date is a very significant date to me because it is my only daughter's birthday. Her birthday dinner and party start at 6:00 so Madam Chair may I be excused? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 4 Approval of the minutes from the March 24, 2003 meeting. VAC 03-6.00: Vacation (Allen, pp 295) was submitted by David Mix of Dykes, Bassett, Mix on behalf of Chris Allen for property located at 2541 Litchfield Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is to vacate a 43.7 sq.ft. portion of the utility easement located along the south property line of the subject property for an existing encroaching structure. Hoover: Yes, thank you Bob. The first order of business is the consent agenda. On the consent agenda we have the approval of the minutes of the meeting from March 24`h and also an easement Vacation at 2541 Litchfield Lane. Does anyone wish to remove this item from the consent agenda? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to remove this item from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for a motion. MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Hoover: Is there a second? Church: I will second it. Hoover: Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The consent agenda carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 5 Hoover: I guess there is one item that is not on the agenda. Am I supposed to introduce the new City Engineer or these new people? Conklin: Sure. Hoover: Tim would you mind introducing the new people and our new Planning Commissioners? Conklin: Certainly. Let me start out welcoming Christian Vaught as a new Commissioner. Congratulations. Also, Jill Anthes who was not able to be here tonight was appointed also by the City Council and serving her second term Nancy Allen was reappointed. I appreciate you reapplying and serving some additional time here on the Commission. I did hand out a press release that went out today. The City of Fayetteville recently reorganized some of the city departments. As a result of that there are some changes in personnel. Starting today Mr. Gary Coover is our new City Engineer. Today is his first day. Gary please come up so they can see you. He has worked in Northwest Arkansas the past couple of years with McClelland Consulting Engineers and CEI. He has other experience with project management. He has a great deal of knowledge and understanding with regard to drainage, engineering design and transportation. He is replacing Jim Beavers who is now our Stormwater and acting Floodplain Administrator. Some additional changes that have occurred, Dawn Warrick has been promoted to Zoning & Development Administrator and she will be responsible for enforcement of the zoning and subdivision regulations and current planning. She has worked with us since 1995, she bas done the development coordinator position, associate planner, and senior planner. The Landscape Administrator has taken a position as Parks Planner. She will be leaving at the end of this month. We have hired an individual named Craig Carnagey. He has a bachelors and masters degree in Landscape Architecture. He has worked with the City of Portland in their Urban Forestry Division and their Parks & Recreation Division. We also have another staff change. Sara Edwards who is sitting just to my left over here has taken a job with the City of Springfield, Missouri. We have hired Jeremy Pate, he has a bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree from the University of Arkansas. He is currently working in Colorado doing plan review and he will start May 5`n Julie Bland was hired on February 18`h. She replaced Shelly Rushing as the Long Range Associate Planner. You will get an opportunity to work with Julie a lot closer on our long range planning and those are the changes that we have made as part of the Community Planning and Engineering Services Department. Thank you. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 6 PPL 03-9.00: Preliminary Plat (Clabber Creek, Phase II, pp 322) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BMW Investments for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30 acres with 89 lots proposed Hoover: Congratulations Dawn and Sara. It looks like we are going to have a lot of change in the department. The second item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat for Clabber Creek. Sara or Dawn can you tell us this one? I just wanted to let the audience know that two items have been pulled from this agenda. Items number four the Planned Zoning District for St. Joseph's Catholic Church will not be heard tonight and also item number eight the rezoning for 741 Huntsville Road so if you are here for either one of those that will be rescheduled. Hoover: Tim or Dawn do we know when the PZD will come back? Warrick: I believe it will probably be the first meeting in May, May 12th but that is not confirmed at this point. Hoover: Will that come back to Subdivision also? Warrick: Yes, May 1st. Hoover: That meeting is at 8:30 a.m. I'm sorry, go ahead Sara. Edwards: Ok, what we have is the development of 30 acres which is zoned R-1 into 89 residential lots. This is Phase II of the Clabber Creek subdivision. Phase I of Clabber Creek was approved in May of 2002 and is currently under construction. Water and sewer are being extended to this site. 45' of right of way is being dedicated along Mount Comfort pursuant to the Master Street Plan. Improvements to include curb and gutter and a 6' sidewalk along the north side of Mount Comfort Road is proposed. Tree preservation is being proposed in the floodplain area to the north of this site. The existing canopy is 3.7% with the proposed to remain 2.9% with offsite mitigation proposed on the parkland property being dedicated to the city. We are recommending approval subject to the following conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of required assessment for Rupple Road Bridge. Staff is recommending an assessment in the amount of $10,080.00, based on projected traffic from this development. (See attached memo). 2) Planning Commission determination of required off- site improvements. Staff is recommending that Mt. Comfort Road be widened to 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. 3) A note shall be placed on the final plat which prohibits access to Mt. Comfort Road. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 7 Hoover: Do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Bates: Good evening, I am Geoff Bates, I am an engineer with Keystone Consultants and I will be representing the developer tonight. Phase II is just an extension of Phase I, it is the same size lots, the same density of lots, detention will be provided, it is basically just like Phase I. Hoover: Ok, do we have any member of the public that would like to address us on this Preliminary Plat for Clabber Creek? Seeing none, I will bring it to the Planning Commissioners. I would like to ask the Subdivision Committee if there were any unique issues or concerns about this project. Ostner: I don't recall. Bunch: None come to mind. One thing I would like to do on condition of approval number three is to be a little bit more specific rather than prohibiting access from Mount Comfort Road specify that it will be lots 1 and then 11 through 16. Otherwise we may have trouble building Berkley Drive, just a little clarification there. I would point out that it appears that the tree preservation is not on this site but it is part of an overall program for including other phases. It includes a considerable dedication to the city. Geoff you may want to tell us a little bit about that and how it fits into the overall. Bates: I just know a little bit about that. They dedicated I believe 19. some odd acres to the city for tree preservation for this phase and future phases. It is about a 300' strip along Clabber Creek. Every tree that is out there is within that. Conklin: Madam Chair, the city administration has been working with the developer to look at how the city could acquire the land that is along Clabber Creek. The owner has deeded to the city 19.15 acres which is basically the centerline of the creek up to this subdivision boundary for Phase II and then also it goes over to Rupple Road. This effort is to try to make sure that we can preserve this environmentally sensitive area with educational opportunities with Holt Middle School and the elementary school nearby to bring students into these areas and help educate them about the environment and aquatic resources so that has been completed. It is a little unusual because typically we don't have the developer deeding us land. In this case we have the developer that deeded us the 19.15 acres and we are very grateful and pleased that they are willing to do that. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 8 Hoover: Thank you Tim. Are there any comments or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: Madam Chair, I make a motion that we approve PPL 03-9.00 with the change that Condition Number Three read "A note shall be placed on the Final Plat which prohibits access to Mount Comfort from lots 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, and 17. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, do we have a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoover: Commissioner Bunch seconds. Is there anymore discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-9.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 9 PPL 03-10.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Creek, Phase II, pp 61/100) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located north of Zion Road and west of George Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57 acres with 131 lots proposed. Hoover: Item number three is the Preliminary Plat for Copper Creek. Sara, will you present this? Edwards: Yes. This is submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located north of Zion Road and west of George Anderson Road. It is zoned R-1 and contains 57 acres with 131 single-family lots proposed. This also is Phase II of an existing subdivision. Copper Creek Phase I was the first phase. Water and sewer are being extended to serve the site. Right of way is being dedicated along Zion and George Anderson Roads with street improvements proposed to include improvements to city standards with curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the development side and improvements to county standards on the remaining parts of the street. Tree preservation existing is 1.86%, preserved is 1.7% with $4,050 going into the tree fund for mitigation. We are recommending approval subject to some conditions. 1) A note shall be placed on the final plat which prohibits access from George Anderson Road for all lots and from Zion Road for lots 5 and 113. 2) Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements. Staff is recommending that both Zion and George Anderson Road be improved 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drainage on the sides adjacent to the development with the remaining half of the streets being paved to meet county standards. Hoover: Thanks Sara. Would the applicant come forward? Moore: Thank you. I am Brian Moore with Engineering Services representing Gary Brandon who is also here tonight. We are here to answer any questions that you have. Hoover: thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this Preliminary Plat for Copper Creek? Seeing none, I will bring it to the Commissioners. Again I would like to ask the Subdivision Committee to comment and let us know if we had any concerns or issues? Osmer: The issues we covered were worked out about the trees and some utility easements. It seems to be in order from the Subdivision standpoint from what I can see. Bunch: I think some of the engineering concerns that were discussed were some lift stations and I think that has all been resolved. Also the relocation of Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 10 the proposed tennis court across the street so it would not interfere with the tree preservation area. By the way Brian we need on the enlarged version of the tree preservation plan, that note needs to be relocated. On the main part of the drawing it is relocated but it is not on the blow up. Hoover: I forgot to ask, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Hoover: Great. Are there any comments or motions? MOTION: Bunch: Just one little observation before I make a motion. This is encroaching into the rural area of Fayetteville and one thing that we need to constantly be aware of is that as we have a mix of urban type development and rural development that we need to constantly be aware of the agricultural practices and the fact that sometimes they are a little different from city lifestyles. That is just a little caveat there for buyers to beware that they are moving into an area that is predominantly agricultural and there will be agricultural pursuits in close proximity along with agricultural type smells and agricultural type noises. That being said, I move that we approve PPL 03-10.00 for Copper Creek Phase II and III. Osmer: Second. Hoover: I have a motion from Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Ostner, is there any other discussion? Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-10.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 11 CUP 03-7.00: Conditional Use (Crawford, pp 639/640) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Neal Crawford for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.4 acres. The request is for a warehousing in a C-2 district (use unit 21). LSD 03-12.00: Large Scale Development (Skate Station, 639) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Neal Crawford for property located at 2283 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.46 acres with a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Hoover: Item number four the Planned Zoning District for St. Joseph's Catholic Church has been pulled from the agenda so we will move onto item number five and item number eleven. Item number five is the Large Scale Development for the Skate Station and the companion item is number eleven which is the Conditional Use for warehousing on this particular site also. Sara, will you present this? Warrick: I am going to start. I think it is probably appropriate that item number eleven the Conditional Use be heard first. If for some reason there are larger issues with the Conditional Use application and the warehousing not be permitted by the Planning Commission we may need to make some other adjustments. This request is to allow the use of warehousing in the C-2 zoning district, which is a use that is required to have Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant with this project is proposing to develop a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse in conjunction with an indoor skateboarding facility. The warehouse is proposed to be used for storage of wooden ramps and jump boxes which are used by the skate board park to create different setups for the user. Ramp components would be stored when they are not being actively used in the accompanying facility. Staff has recommended in favor of this Conditional Use request with four conditions. 1) Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development project. 2) Warehousing in this facility shall be limited to materials and equipment related to the commercial venture on the site. Warehouse space within this building shall not be leased out by other users. 3) Loading dock serving the warehouse shall be located as shown on the most current site plan (revised after Subdivision Committee) for the associated large scale development — near the parking lot and away from the rear of the structure which adjoins single family residences to the north. 4) Parking lot lighting shall utilize full cut off sodium lighting fixtures and shall not exceed 35 feet in height. Any outdoor lighting shall directed away from any adjacent residential areas. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 12 Clark: My name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting. I represent Neal Crawford. We have agreed to these conditions, I have the signed conditions for the Conditional Use. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have. Hoover: Dawn, did you want us to look at these totally separate or should we go ahead and hear this first? Warrick: It is appropriate for you to look at them together if you choose. Your votes will need to be separate. They are intermingled as one project. Hoover: Could you go ahead and present number five, the Skate Station? Warrick: I will ask Sara to do that. Edwards: What we have is a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park with a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Water and sewer are existing. They are dedicating additional right of way along S. School Street to meet the Master Street Plan requirement. Tree preservation existing is 26.5% of the site. They are proposing to preserve 22.1% of the site. The requirement in the C-2 district is 15%. We are recommending approval subject to some conditions. The fist one is approval of the associated Conditional Use. Second is Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The other conditions are standard with the exception of #5, which I do need to amend at this time. It should read sidewalk fees in the amount of $1,854 and we are recommending that money be accepted in lieu of construction of the sidewalk across this site. Hoover: Thank you. Did the applicant want to give a presentation about this project? Clark: I'm not sure that I have a great presentation to give. Hoover: You can just explain it for those that aren't familiar. Clark: The Skate Station is an existing skateboard facility that is owned and operated by Neal Crawford. He has recently closed his location due to lease issues with the existing owner because the owner wanted to convert the use. He was located behind the Coop area and the owner wanted to change the use of it. He thought he could provide a little higher return on his money with a different tenant so that put Neal out to find another location. He bought this piece of property. We have been working on the plans for a few months now and he would like to basically relocate his business from where it was off of 6th Street down to S. School. He provides a benefit for the kids. They come in, they use the park and he Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 13 could probably explain it better as far as the operations of it. Basically he found this one. We located the building and set it back well from the highway. It will be screened by the dense trees that will be located on the existing property. We preserved basically all of the trees with the exception of one where the building is going to be and where the driveway access is going to come through we had to remove a few trees from that. The property has a floodplain associated with it along the front. There was a lot split that was approved a year or so ago and split the property into two. The front piece is along a ditch line or creek line and there was a floodplain associated with that. We are raising the road in order to protect the property where the road will be to prevent the overflow from the creek which will no longer run across this property and to the home owners to the west. We are providing a detention pond to release less water than would be to pre -developed conditions to put it in a nutshell. Hoover: I guess at this time I am going to open it to the public to either comment on the Conditional Use for this warehouse on this piece of property and also comment on the Large Scale Development of the Skate Park. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? If you would come up and state your name. Meares: My name is Cyndy Meares and I have three pieces of adjoining property. One is 2241 S. School, 2263 S. School and then we have some adjoining property on Sally and that is 525 Sally Drive. I just question if this is in the best interest of our community, especially for our children. This is an extremely busy highway. The only busier highway in our town is I-540. To have children that are going to be riding skateboards and bicycles up and down this street on a regular basis on very small sidewalks and in some instances no sidewalks really concerns me. There will be small children, 8, 9, and 10 year olds that will be unsupervised riding up and down the street. Our shop building, 2263 does not have a walkway in front of it. It is a very, very large gravel driveway so the children will not be riding their skateboards or their bicycles across that particular area and that is just as the road starts to curve around. When the children will be riding along the sidewalks they will probably, in my opinion, jump off of the sidewalk and go through this street to get to the next piece of sidewalk which is two businesses down from the adjoining sidewalks. There will be nothing there for quite a long time. Dramis Hardwood Floors is right next to our property. They have a very, very small sidewalk that they park their cars on because that is the only parking lot they have unless they want to park in the back of their business. They park at least two or three cars there on a daily basis. There is no room for skateboards or bicycles on that property. This is just a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or killed. It is not a child friendly area. This is our businesses. We have several professional businesses and it is not compatible for Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 14 children. This is not a place for children I think to play. They will be loitering there, they will be talking because as children do that is normal. They will be drinking their cokes and eating their candy bars and dropping them up and down on the sidewalks of our businesses that we have tried so hard to upgrade our end of town. I seriously wonder if maybe this ought to be moved to another area that is not as busy or congested. The 18 wheelers that drive on the inside of that curve are moving through there. My husband and I and our children used to live on that piece of property. It has a rental house on it that we have put a 4' chain link fence all around to keep our children inside when we moved there because we had a business on the 2263 part, which was All Seasons Small Engines at the time. The semis are moving through there between 40 and 50 miles per hour and they are not looking for small children that are falling off skateboards and are falling off their bicycles. I also am concerned about the possibility of crime and break ins on our property. It is just a concern. I know that all children aren't bad. When you get a large congregation of children it is a strong possibility and so I worry about that also. Do they have any ideas about the idea about the hours that it will be open if it is approved and go through there. Is it going to be open until midnight so we have children walking around in the dark? There isn't a whole lot of good lighting there. There isn't a place for children to be walking up and down there for any kind of supervision. What kind of supervision is going to be at this place? Is there just going to be one or two people running it for 200 or 300 children that are there? Is there any way that anyone could go and look at this piece of property and you are quite welcome to stand on our property and even if it just takes five minutes for you to analyze and look at the danger that we are going to be facing and the possibility of lawsuits on our end, on the gentleman's end that is going to be putting up the Skate Station. I think that is my main concern, the children. I think it is not a matter of if it happens, it is a matter of when it is going to happen Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience? Meares, J: My name is John Meares, I am the husband of the woman who just spoke. A couple of notes that I would like to add to what she just said, this property in question adjoins a residential area on two sides with no preparations for separation of that from the two properties such as privacy fence, chain link fence, anything like that. The one thing that really concerns me is that I live downstream from this floodplain that was mentioned. I know that in the six years that I have lived in that house I have seen a foot of water going across my backyard twice. That is what doesn't run across the existing floodplain now when it floods. If that structured area is built up to increase the flow of water through there I am afraid that more than once every three years I am going to see a foot of Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 15 water through my backyard. My house is built on a fairly low slab. If I get 6" of water or more in my backyard it is in my back door. I really don't need water coming inside my house again. If the road is to be built up I would at least request that it be looked at down stream from this floodplain. Several houses to see what it is going to do to the existing water flow. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Meares. Is there anyone else from the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission but let me get clarification and answer a couple of your questions with staff. Is there a fence next to the R-1? I know we have an ordinance that addresses this. Warrick: The applicant has shown a 6' tall wood board privacy fence adjacent to the residential uses to the north and to the west. Staff would not be opposed to making that a condition on your Conditional Use item. It is shown on the plans. Clark: I believe it is required by ordinance. It is redundant to make it as a condition but if you wish to it is not a problem, we have it on the plans. Hoover: Thank you. Matt would you address the drainage question that Mr. Meares had? Casey: The existing conditions show that the floodplain tops the bank of the 100 - year flood and it flows across the site into the backyards of the people along Emma and it goes directly back into the channel where it came from. As Mr. Clark pointed out, they are going to build it up and keep it within the channel and protect those homes over to the west side. Clark: Additionally related to drainage, I intentionally oversized the detention pond to reduce the flow at a rate that was lower than our pre -developed rate just from our property. That is so we block the water that would normally have jumped the ditch and flowed onto the properties to the west and in addition to that I have reduced the flow that will come from our piece of property as well by over sizing the detention pond. Hoover: Thank you. The two issues I just want to make sure that we address that everyone realizes that we are looking at these two that are technically separate. We have to vote on the Conditional Use for the warehouse space separate from the Large Scale Development but I do want to make sure that we have some discussion as to the safety and possibly the hours of operation. Allen: I would like to ask Mr. Clark to address some of the issues that Mrs. Meares had, specifically the safety of the children and the sidewalks. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 16 Clark: Also, the hours you will be opened, what kind of supervision you will have and lighting. The hours of operation are that they open at noon and they close at 10:00 p.m. The issues of safety along the sidewalks I have been told that 90% of the children are brought by their parents. They come in vehicles and are dropped off. That is based on the other location. The children that ride their bicycles and the children that will be riding skateboards along S. School Street are the kids that ride up and down School Street today. The ones that are unsupervised by their parents are unsupervised by their parents, they run the way they want to go and they go where they want to go and I don't think whether this location or this facility is there, they will still be riding on School Street or they will be walking along School Street. If there are no sidewalks anybody that has ever tried to skateboard will know that you pick your skateboard up and you walk. I don't think any of the children will be foolish enough to get out into S. School Street on their skateboard. There may be some but I don't think there is anything that we can do about that. The parking lot will be well lit but not lit so well that it creates a problem for the neighbors. Staff has placed a restriction on us on the size and height and characteristics of the street lights or parking lot lights. We will abide by those. It will be lit well enough that we shouldn't have a problem with children. Allen: How many will usually be on staff supervising? Clark: Two to three supervisors or people that are working for the facility. Hoover: Are there another questions Commissioner Allen? Allen: Those are all of the questions that I had. Shackelford: Madam Chair, I have a couple of questions of staff. First of all, on the Conditional Use if you would refresh my memory. Traditionally a Conditional Use runs with the life of the project, with the owner of the property, with the property indefinitely? What is the duration of the Conditional Use? Warrick: The Planning Commission in different circumstances has placed different conditions. The application is for a Conditional Use and you do have a right to place conditions and safe guards that you feel appropriate to the project as the Planning Commission. Typically if nothing else is specified it will run with the land as long as the use is the same. Meaning, if for instance, this property changed hands and there was another commercial venture that went into the commercial building on the site if they complied with the same conditions of this Conditional Use for warehousing that is Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 17 Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Warrick: Clark: Shackelford: Allen: Warrick: solely related to that business then it would be applicable unless you choose to limit it in some other way to limit your approval. In the past we have looked at Conditional Uses independently which I think is appropriate and different conditions have been placed upon them based on specific projects. As it is written in condition number two warehousing in this facility shall be limited to materials and equipments related to commercial ventures on this site are we saying that this Conditional Use will run with the property so that any other commercial development that went in could maintain this use as a warehouse on this location? With these stipulations that is correct. I just needed some clarification there. The second question is on the Large Scale Development side of it. As we have heard public comment and as I have noticed looking at the plat, this does border residential on two sides. Have we heard any input, any anything from the residents as far as their feelings for this project? We heard some of the adjoining property owners this evening. I believe we also had public comment at the Subdivision Committee level from different ones. I think you have heard the bulk of the concerns this evening. If I may, one of the other concerns that was staff's comments was that Alderman Reynolds I believe met with some of his constituents and were at the Subdivision Committee and the concerns that they expressed were related to the location of the dock on that northern most building and we shifted that one in order to satisfy their concerns on that. The other concern that was expressed at that meeting was that they wanted some protection from the proximity so that the kids weren't walking through their yards and we agreed to build the fence at that time. Those were the other concerns that were expressed. Thank you. Couldn't the hours of operation as part of the conditions? They will only apply to the warehousing if that is what you choose to do. The Conditional Use is only applicable to the warehousing activity on the site. Allen: Also, I wondered staff's rational on the sidewalk. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 18 Clark: If I can on that, I don't mean to speak for staff. What has happened on this is that we have Hwy. 71 Business which is set up high and then as soon as you drop-off of the existing asphalt walk we drop down actually into a floodway. The floodplain ordinances do not allow us to fill in a floodway without going through Corp. permits and FEMA studies and all of those things and I think staff has concurred that it was a bit excessive for us to try to go through those administrative functions in order to build a sidewalk where there is already an existing sidewalk. There are floodway issues that would not allow us to fill in order to put the sidewalk in where current city ordinances require it, which is back at the right of way. Allen: Do you have anything to add to that? Casey: Mr. Clark covered it. Hoover: Mr. Clark, the existing sidewalk that is 3' is going to remain? Clark: Yes Ma'am, with the exception of where we put our driveway through in which case then we will meet the city's requirements for sidewalk construction there. Hoover: Ok, so we do have some sort of sidewalk on the property. Clark: That is correct. Hoover: Thank you. I guess we haven't addressed commercial design guidelines. Do you have a material board or can someone present? Mobley: I am Bob Mobley with Mobley Architects. I do have some material samples. As you will see on the elevations we have a mixture of concrete block and this is the proposed masonry to be used. It is a buff, split faced block. The rest is synthetic stucco and we propose to use a cream color and that connects to the block. We have two areas of metal siding, a real tan color and then the awnings that we have, the eyebrows, we elected to go with a burgundy color. Those are all of the materials that we have on the exterior. In regard to the design standard, the way I read it the main elevation street side should be limited in it's use of metal siding. We have no metal siding on the street side so I think we are in concurrence with that. Are there any other questions? Hoover: Commissioners, are there any other questions about the commercial design guidelines? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 19 Allen: Why was it decided that there would be no need for definition of the building on the south and west? Mobley: I don't think the standard really requires anything. We are not in the Overlay District, which does require some definition as I recall unless I'm mistaken on that. The actual design ordinance really addresses the main elevation only. Allen: This is a part of town that I am hoping we can start doing some good things with. I thought maybe you might volunteer. Mobley: We did on the north side of the warehouse. We did incorporate some windows in response to one of the comments we had and wrapped the concrete block around what would be the north side of the warehouse so we did make an attempt in that regard. Hoover: Commissioner Allen, if you go to page 5.2 it reviews our commercial design guidelines and it does point out that large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces we want to avoid or minimize. I think that might be what you are referring to. Allen: It is. Hoover: Are there any other comments on design guidelines? Bunch: At Subdivision Committee we did discuss the south elevation and the west elevation and our concerns did include the lack of articulation on those wall surfaces. However, they most likely will not be visible from a public right of way. The large tree preservation area that is between these buildings and Highway 71B and the adjoining business to the south pretty well block this whole south facade so that is one of the reasons that you did not see a change in this coming from Subdivision is that we figured that that was pretty much an un -viewable portion of the building. Ostner: The other part of that which you sort of mentioned Commissioner Bunch, is that to the south is not residential, it is commercial so on this large, unarticulated wall we reasoned that it faced another commercial area and it wasn't facing a right of way and the other unarticulated wall is small. Allen: Ostner: So small doesn't matter? Well, it is not a large unarticulated wall. That is how it got here through Subdivision. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 20 Allen: Clark: Allen: Clark: I continue to have concern about the children's safety along that highway. I would think that a large number of the children who would frequent that park would come from that part of town and more than likely be walking there. Whenever the facility was located a mile or so to the north at 6th Street we still had 90% of the children being delivered or dropped of by their parents. We would anticipate that 10% would be arriving by bicycle or skateboard. I don't know that we can do anything about that. Those are the children that frequent all over town or drive all over town on their bicycles or skateboards and whether it be coming to this facility or just going up to Mr. Burger to get a soft drink they are out there on the highway. It is probably not the safest place for them to be but we can't legislate parental responsibility so I don't know that there is anything that we can do about it. I promise you my children would not be but I love my kids and I am not going to allow them in an unsafe situation and I wish that we could do something to require all parents to protect their children and their children's interest but we can't legislate that. I know from having taught at Jefferson School a lot of those children might be involved in wanting to participate that those folks love their kids too but are unable for the most part to take their children to places such as that. I guess there is no easy answer, I am just expressing a concern. The answer would be to have the Highway Department or have the city go in and construct the sidewalks and on the other properties, Mrs. Meares was saying that her property doesn't have a sidewalk. If she is concerned about it she could replace it and put a sidewalk across her property also. I know it is a burden but I don't know what we can do. Bunch: Commissioner Allen, also in response to your concerns. These issues also arose at Subdivision Committee and in between this site and the previous site for the Skate Station we have a city park that has not only a bicycle motocross track but is in the process of building a skateboard track and the kids that come by bicycle or skateboard, many of them come on School Avenue or 15th Street currently, which are both busy streets and both have inadequate sidewalks. We are actually if you look on your map on page 5.8, it is less than a mile radius from a city facility that is paid for by taxpayer's money that is subject to the same conditions. Another concern that we looked at is that the traffic on S. School Street is nowhere near what it used to be prior to the opening of I-540. There has been a tremendous reduction in S. School Street traffic. Allen: Those are good points. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 21 Ostner: I know it sounds like we are the big defenders of the Skate Park but I am just trying to share what we have already been through at Subdivision. We looked into a cut through sidewalk to not jump out into Hwy. 71 and it wasn't feasible with the way the lot lines were lined up and what it would come down to is someone's home having to volunteer everyone to walk through their yard and no one was willing to do that so we tried to give an option so kids wouldn't have to go out on the big street and come in the front, but we weren't able to do that. MOTION: Shackelford: We have two specific things that we are looking at here. One is a Conditional Use and one is a Large Scale Development. It seems to me that most of our questions and concerns at this point involve the Large Scale Development. In an effort to keep this thing moving forward I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 03-7.00 and take the vote on it so we can consider the Large Scale Development. Hoover: Commissioner Shackelford has made a motion, do I have a second for CUP 03-7.00? Church: I will second it. Hoover: We have a second by Commissioner Church. Is there anymore discussion on the Conditional Use which is for the warehouse? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-7.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Hoover: Do we have any more discussion on the Large Scale? I do have one question. Do we have any signage on this building? Clark: We have not addressed that. He is saying no. We do not intend on putting any signage up, I think it is word of mouth is what brings children into this one. Hoover: Ok. Clark: We may be back to you when he decides he needs a sign but we will come back. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 22 Mobley: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Bunch: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: Bunch: Hoover: MOTION: Shackelford: There will be some signage, probably not on the building but out by School. Mr. Crawford said he just has not applied for that yet but there will be something coming. Sara, will that come back to us? Yes. It should've been presented with this Large Scale so we can hear that as an administrative item or if you would like to defer that to the Subdivision Committee to decide on we could do that. Would the Subdivision Committee consider that? Are most signs of this nature handled administratively? Is that even a requirement for the Subdivision? The reason that you see this is to make a determination with regard to Commercial Design Standards. With regard to D.1.E, which is large out of scale signs with flashy colors. As long as we keep it low and subdued it may not have to go? We would be willing to review that administratively if you would like that as well. If you would please handle that administratively and if the administration thinks it is beyond the scope of their decision to bring it to Subdivision Committee. Is there any other discussion about the Large Scale Development? From the conversations that we have heard from both the applicant and the public it looks like there have been some questions and concerns regarding this and it looks like the Subdivision Committee has done a very good job of addressing this situation. I had concerns about the safety with the sidewalks with the pedestrian traffic and that sort of thing, it looks like we have looked into that area and we have done what we can do given the restrictions of the floodplain issues and the existing infrastructure in this location. Regarding the commercial design standards, I think they have done a good job in that area. The two possibly questionable elevations are facing commercial areas and are restricted somewhat by existing buildings and landscape. Based on that, I again think the Subdivision Committee has done a great job and based on their findings I am going to go ahead Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 23 and make a motion that we approve LSD 03-12.00 subject to all stated conditions of approval. Hoover: Can you add that the sidewalk fees are $1,854? Shackelford: Yes. With the modification that number five sidewalk fees are due in the amount of $1,854. Hoover: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Church: I will second it. I just wanted to make one more comment too. I think this is a really good project and I am a firm believer of I think this will help to keep kids off the street just by nature of the type of business. It all boils down to who is supervising the children too. I think good supervision will take care of a lot of the problems that we are bringing up at this point too. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Church. Is there any other discussion? Bunch: In the not too distant past we did have some Lot Splits in this immediate vicinity that had the same sidewalk issues and at that time many of these same issues arose and those Lot Splits were granted for the applicants with knowledge of the same existing conditions. Edwards: That is correct. We also assessed fees at the time of Lot Split for the Dramis Hardwood property. Bunch: So we determined also at that time that it was not really feasible to make major alterations to the sidewalk scheme? Edwards: Yes we did. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-12.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 24 ANX 03-2.00: Annexation (Williams, pp 363) was submitted by James Williams for property located at the northeast corner of Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive. The property is currently an island containing approximately 0.57 acres which is surrounded by the City of Fayetteville and property owned by the University of Arkansas (across I- 540). The request is to annex the property into the City. Hoover: Our next item on the agenda is ANX 03-2.00 for property at Mount Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive. Dawn, will you present this please? Warrick: Yes. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Shiloh Drive and Porter Road, which turns the corner and becomes Mount Comfort Road at this location. The site is frequently the location of a fireworks stand in the summer due to its location. It is a unique location in that it is completely surrounded by the city but in the county therefore, having the ability to provide a location for a fireworks stand. The property to the north was recently developed for office usage. Other adjoining uses include I-540 to the east, there is a residential area to the west and there is office and residential mixed use to the south. The area is classified as community commercial on the Future Land Use Plan. This particular area is identified in the city's General Plan document under our annexation policy as an island which is desirable for annexation. Findings from various service providers in the city are located in your staff report on page 6.4 and we did receive information from Engineering, Fire and Police. None of those divisions voiced concern with regard to annexing this particular property. Utilities are available to serve the site upon development. The project site is also within the city's Design Overlay District and therefore, any development on the property will be seen by the Planning Commission as a Large Scale Development, regardless of the size. That is a condition of development within the Overlay District. There is an accompanying rezoning request which incorporates the subject property as well as the tract to the west. Staff is recommending in favor of this Annexation. Hoover: Thank you. Dawn, it is just an island? Warrick: It is an island basically. The reason that it is considered outside of the city is because it was the corner of the University of Arkansas Experimental Farm. When the interstate cut through that corner was left as a remnant on the west side and the rest of the University of Arkansas Experimental Farm is technically not considered within the city limits with regard to regulation because it is a state owned property. Therefore, it is not governed by the city. This was really just a remnant of that action when the interstate cut through. That is why it was considered basically as an island. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 25 Williams: My name is Jim Bob Williams and I am here to see if I can answer any questions that you have. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any members of the audience that would like to address ANX 03-2.00 the corner of Mount Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive? Kneiss: My name is Ken Kneiss and I represent Farm Credit Services who will be the neighbor to the north. The only thing I wanted to ask and maybe I should've done it sooner, the traffic conditions certainly during the rush hour periods in the morning and in the evenings right now are pretty severe. I was curious if there was anyone on staff or someone that could address what was looked at from a traffic perspective in making this. I understand that it has already been through the various procedures and has the blessing of the city and I don't have a problem with that. I am concerned with the traffic issue because right now every morning and every evening like so many other places in town it is a pretty big issue. As you are headed west to join into Mount Comfort Road in the morning there are cars continually cheating if you will, and going around on the right hand side of the road. If you add a lot more traffic to it I just see that issue becoming a lot larger and I am just wondering if that has been addressed and if so what was the outcome. Hoover: Thank you. I think that we will be addressing that. Right now we are just looking at the Annexation to bring the property into the city at the moment. The next item is the Rezoning of the property so we will be looking at that too. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address the Annexation? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: Even though I have very fond memories of early childhood buying firecrackers at this location and hate to see my fireworks stand go away, I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve ANX 03-2.00. Allen: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion from Commissioner Shackelford and a second from Commissioner Allen, is there any more discussion about the Annexation? Bunch: A question for the applicant and staff, we are showing in the Annexation request .57 acres and in the legal description we are showing a total of .81, is the discrepancy there right of way dedication? Warrick: There is some right of way that will be taken out of that. The discrepancy is actually there is a tract to the west that the applicant has purchased and Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 26 it is also a part of the Rezoning request, which is your next item. It is approximately .2 acres and the applicant is proposing that it, as well as the subject property, be rezoned from when the annexed property is annexed into the city it will be given a zoning designation of A-1. The property immediately to the west of it is also owned by this applicant is .2 acres and that is currently zoned R-2. Those two properties combined are what we will be looking at for the Rezoning request. That brings us up to .77 acres and the rest of it is a right of way issue. Bunch: The legal description that was given in the Annexation petition from the county actually included both pieces of property, the property that was already in the city and didn't need to be annexed? Warrick: I believe that they were making double sure that that property was already covered but I believe that was just an error in the Order of Annexation. It didn't need to incorporate that .2 acre piece of property, it already is incorporated in the city limits. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 27 RZN 03-14.00: Rezoning (Williams, pp 363) was submitted by James Williams for property located at the northeast corner of Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive and contains approximately 0.77 acres. The western tract of property (0.20 acres) is currently zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and the eastern tract (0.57 acres) is proposed to be annexed into the City with a zoning designation of A-1, Agricultural. The request is to rezone both tracts to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Hoover: The next item is RZN 03-14.00 which is the same piece of property. Dawn, would you like to tell us about the Rezoning? Warrick: Sure. This is the same piece of property that we were discussing with the Annexation with the addition of a small tract to the west which is currently zoned R-2 and has a small home on it. That contains approximately.2 acres. With regard to findings that are necessary in order for the Planning Commission to consider a Rezoning: The proposed Rezoning is consistent with the General Plan 2020. This area is designated as community commercial and the applicant in this case is requesting a C-1 zoning designation. The potential development that has been discussed for this particular site is a gas station and convenience store, which is a use that is permitted in the C-1 zoning district. Staff believes that the Rezoning is justified and that it is consistent with land use planning, the General Plan 2020. It's proximity to the interstate makes the residential use of the property less desirable. Combining the already zoned R-2 portion of the subject property and the area that is under consideration for Annexation will allow for a reasonably sized development site. Like I mentioned before, the property is located within the Design Overlay District which will require the applicant to process a Large Scale Development so that the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the development plans. With regard to traffic danger and congestion, one of your findings, additional traffic will most likely be generated by this commercial development and it would likely be a larger traffic generator than a residential use on this site. The applicant's purchase of the adjoining property to the west does allow for some additional opportunities with regard to direct access to the site. Adjoining streets, Mount Comfort/Porter Road is I believe a minor arterial in this location and then Shiloh Drive, which is the outer road to the Interstate is a principal arterial in this location. This is a tricky corner with regard to traffic. We will look at that very closely at the time of development proposal when we are looking at the Large Scale. The location of access drives to the site will be very important and staff will work with the applicant and with Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission when we get to that point to hopefully work out the best solution with regard to accessing the site safely. With regard to altering population density staff found that this proposed Rezoning will not alter population density. With regard to provision of service from various providers within the city, we had no Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 28 Hoover: Williams: Hoover: Kneiss: Hoover: Shackelford: Warrick: objections or concerns from Fire, Police or Engineering. The Fire Marshall reports that from fire station #2 to this location it is approximately 2.2 miles with a 3 minute 44 second response time. I believe that covers the findings that you are required to make. Staff is recommending in favor of the requested Rezoning to C-1. Thank you Dawn. Does the applicant have a presentation? Not at this time. I will open it up to public comment Mr. Kneiss, would you like to address us on the traffic again? The same issues as I stated before. Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience that would like to comment on this Rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Dawn, you mentioned that the traffic would be looked at in the Large Scale Development. Clarify for me, this is less than an acre but a Large Scale Development will be required because it is in the Overlay District, is that correct? That is correct. Shackelford: So we will see this project again as a LSD? Warrick: Yes you will. Shackelford: Conklin: Thank you. I just wanted to mention one other thing about the traffic. When Duncan & Associates looked at a road impact fee the size of the site, and I am not sure how it is going to be developed, I think one of the plans are to develop it into a gasoline service station. Typically a convenience type store or gas station didn't typically generate a lot of additional traffic. It was more for the convenience of the people within the area. I do realize that this is on I-540 so there may be some additional traffic coming off of the interstate but the impact fees that were looked at based on land use and how much traffic is generated from a small gas station/convenience store were very minimal because studies have shown that people that are using those facilities live in that neighborhood or live in those areas and they are already traveling on Mount Comfort/Porter Road. We do have two Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 29 schools out in that area and it is not generating brand new trips. I just wanted to add that. Hoover: Dawn, I have a question. You mentioned another street other than Mount Comfort and I don't see it on our map. Warrick: Porter Road becomes Mount Comfort Road in that location and I think I also mentioned Shiloh Drive which is the outer road adjacent to the east property line. Hoover: Thank you. Bunch: Within a one mile radius to the south of this there is a section of Shiloh that is awaiting completion pending funding from various other traffic generators in the area. Would this project have any impact on the bridge on Shiloh that we are gradually accumulating money and hopefully someday we will build that will ease traffic on Shiloh? Conklin: Actually Shiloh Drive is in our CIP program. You are talking about Shiloh Drive between Mount Comfort and Wedington? Bunch: Yes. Conklin: That is within our CIP program. I have talked to the property owner south of where it dead ends and I think that developer is just going to wait until the city does the CIP project before that bridge is constructed. That is in our CIP. Bunch: Is this project close enough to be considered a traffic generator to make a contribution? I imagine that it would be extremely small even if there was one. Conklin: We are going to have to take a look at it. Once again, based upon our impact fee consultants, if it is a small convenience type store or gas station, it would have a very minimal impact on traffic. Most of the studies have shown that traffic that is generated by those facilities are within those areas. The only thing that I am a little unclear of is with regard to it being adjacent to I-540 and that may change some of the study's findings but typically a gas station convenience store in these areas or residential areas have a minimal impact on traffic. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Are there any other comments or motions? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 30 MOTION: Ostner: I think this is a good thing to rezone this to C-1. I will move that we approve RZN 03-14.00. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, do I have a second? Allen: I will second. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Allen. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-14.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 31 CUP 03-10.00: Conditional Use (Lindsey, pp 136) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located east of North College Ave. between Joyce Blvd. and Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial (4.68 acres), R -O, Residential -Office (10.78 acres) and R-2, Medium Density Residential (11.97 acres) and contains approximately 27.42 acres. The request is to allow multi -family dwellings on the 10.78 acres within the R -O, Residential Office zoning district. Hoover: Item number nine is CUP 03-10.00 for the property located east of North College Avenue between Joyce Blvd. and Zion Road. Dawn? Warrick: Yes. The subject property is located south of Zion Road, north of Joyce Blvd., and west of the Zion Valley Planned Unit Development, east of Frontage Road. Frontage Road runs north and south behind the Northwest Village commercial development. That is the commercial shopping center that contains Barnes & Noble, PetCare and Toys R Us. The applicant proposes to combine several tracts into a comprehensive multi -family development. In order to develop multi -family residential on the portion of the applicant's property that is currently zoned R -O this Conditional Use is being requested. The largest part of the applicant's property is currently zoned R-2, which does allow medium -density residential on the property adjoining the subject tracts to the east. The amount of property that we are talking about in total is approximately 27.42 acres. The subject of this Conditional Use however, the R -O zoned property is 10.78 acres. Staff is recommending in favor of the Conditional Use for multi- family density with five conditions. Those conditions are 1) Approval of this conditional use permit with associated conditions does not exclude additional requirements for off-site and on-site improvements which will be reviewed more comprehensively at the time of large scale development. 2) Installation of sidewalks shall be required with a future large scale development on the subject property. 3) A future large scale development on this site shall contain a mixture of building sizes and facades which will provide the appearance of a more diverse community of residential uses. 4) Elevations of the structures within this development shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of large scale development review. 5) Density shall be limited to not more than 18 units per acre on the subject property (10.78 acres / 194 units). Hoover: Is the applicant present? Kelso: Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner. We have read the conditions and we have signed them and agree to them and I will answer any questions that you might have. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 32 Hoover: Shackelford: Warrick: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Just a question of staff. Why are we looking at a Conditional Use instead of a Rezoning in this situation? Why wouldn't we rezone the property to multi -family? Staff felt that it was appropriate to look at a Conditional Use because it gives the Planning Commission more control over the project. It is something that you can request a Conditional Use for, it cuts the time of processing in half or less with regard to the applicant's time to understand whether or not it is a doable project. The Rezoning of course would require Planning Commission consideration as well as City Council approval in the form of an ordinance. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Allen: Concerning condition number three about a mixture of building sizes and facades, I wonder if you could explain to me specifically how this will be accomplished. Kelso: Kim Fugitt the architect is here and he could probably discuss the actual buildings. Fugitt: My name is Kim Fugitt and I thought I might get out of this today. We really don't have a specific plan right now to accomplish that. We will. We don't have a problem with providing various building types and elevation types similar to what we did there at Southern View along Hwy. 540 where we alternated or did three different building types along Hwy. 540. The condition is a little sketchy as it reads with us providing that so I am not sure if that would be something that would be determined here at this meeting or at Large Scale Development as far as if those different facades would be acceptable or appropriate. We would come back at Large Scale Development and make a proposal at that time and see how you felt about that. Warrick: I think staff would prefer to look at it all at Large Scale so that we could see the whole project comprehensively instead of just addressing the area that is part of this Conditional Use. That would give us time to work with the applicant to look at different possibilities and then they can bring forward a proposal to the Planning Commission at that time. Williams: I have a follow up question on that. I noticed in your letter it says proposed buildings to be two story each containing 12 units and yet the Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 33 Kelso: condition says the buildings will be different sizes. I just don't want us to get off on the wrong foot and make sure we all understand what we are doing here. Those seem to be incompatible requirements, those two statements. The way we would interpret it is that different size buildings as far as their floor plans, still have 12 units and two stories but there are different floor plans and things like that that we can do and that would be the makeup of the actual building footprint sizes. Williams: Would that be satisfactory to you even though they are going to be all 12 unit buildings? Is that what staff understands as different sizes? Conklin- That is what we understood with different size buildings. If you want a different number of units per building you need to be specific if that is what the Commission is thinking. Williams: I just want to make sure that when they go back and do their work that they are going to be able to satisfy you when they come back. Hoover: Thank you for pointing that out. Which brings some clarification for me. I am a little confused here. On this entire piece of property is there just going to be multi -family or will there be some Commercial in the C-1? Kelso: It would be a mixed use on the Commercial part and we are looking at that right now. Obviously the sketch that you have is just multi -family, it is the 10 acres that we are asking for the Conditional Use and then there are almost 12 acres there next to it and the 5 acre piece is what is zoned C-1 right now and we would look at a mixed use on that that would have Commercial with different type buildings. Hoover: Staff, I am curious, would a Planned Zoning District have worked for this piece of property? Warrick: It could have. We talked with the applicant about the different potential options that they had Rezoning, the Conditional Use, incorporating the entire thing into a Planned Zoning District and made them aware of what their options were. The Conditional Use was a way for them to understand whether or not the Planning Commission would support the type of density that they were proposing and then to be able to tailor a project to that. The Planned Zoning District would have taken the time and the processing of having a project that was completely designed on the front end through the entire Planning Commission review process and then forwarded to the City Council for action with regard to the zoning of the property. I believe the applicant in this case chose to pursue the Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 34 Kelso: Conditional Use because it was the most time sensitive way of determining whether or not the density that they were looking at was appropriate. That is something that they may wish to address as well. Let me add to that. The five acres where that is zoned Commercial I think it is our intent to come through with that piece as a Planned Zoning District because we are planning on having multi -family and Commercial mixture on that piece. The rest of it will just all be multi -family so that is why we are here. Hoover: Ok, so only five acres will be that part of it and the rest is strictly multi- family? Kelso: That is correct. Hoover: I am curious when you come back through will everything be planned at one time as far as the streets ingress and egress? Kelso: That would be the intent. Hoover: Both pieces of property? Kelso: Yes. Conklin: Staff has been meeting with Crafton Tull and that has been a big concern of ours is to make sure that when it does come through that we do understand what connections are going to be constructed and paid for by the developer for this project and for the mixed-use project. Basically on this one it came down to we do have an ordinance that states that if it is zoned R -O you can apply for a Conditional Use for multi -family. They used that process to get here tonight. Hoover: Mr. Kelso, you are aware of the finding about the Master Street Plan and all of the streets that are going to be required when you come back? Kelso: Yes. Ostner: On the issue of density this Conditional Use they are requesting 18 units per acre as a density, is that the same as R-2? Warrick: It is lower than what R-2 would allow. R-2 would allow a maximum of 24 units per acre so this is reduced from that. Ostner: For the C-1 Residential is not allowed so they would either need to rezone by the old rules or do a PZD? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 35 Warrick: There are some provisions for Residential as an accessory in a Commercial zoning district which would provide for some Residential usage. It depends on the primary use of the site as to how we would need to treat it for processing, whether it would need to be a Planned Zoning District or whether it could be either attached Residential by right at a certain density or detached Residential as a Conditional Use. There are some options there that we would need to look at. Conklin: Typically what we have seen is that the Residential is no longer accessory use to the primary use. Typically even in mixed-use developments you have to have a certain amount of Residential to make a lot of the Commercial and office type use work on the bottom floors. Typically it is not an accessory use to the Commercial. Commercial is accessory to the Residential. That is what we have been finding out. What we will probably see more and more of is utilizing or Planned Zoning District in order to accomplish that. There are going to be planned Residential districts because once again, it takes a lot of Residential to make the Commercial type activities work on the first floors. Ostner: Just one other question. On the request that you all made about buildings with different sizes, I think that is important. I think there has been a concern about apartment complexes looking that way and you all have worked hard over on I-540 for that. For me the interpretation of different sizes is somehow massing. The same square footage or same units but one skinnier, one longer just to break the monotony. That is purely my two bits if that is what this is for to get our response. That would be my personal response. Thank you. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Allen: 1 agree with Commissioner Ostner. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve CUP 03-10.00. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: Is there any more discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-10.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 36 RZN 03-15.00: Rezoning (Meadows Enterprises, pp 607) was submitted by James McCord, Attorney on behalf of Meadows Enterprises, Inc. for property located south of Goff Farm Road and west of Dead Horse Mountain Road. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 67.47 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-1, Low Density Residential. Hoover: Next is item number 10, RZN 03-15.00 for the property south of Goff Farm Road and west of Dead Horse Mountain Road. Dawn? Warrick: This request is to rezone 67.47 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential. The property is located south of the existing Stone Bridge Meadows subdivision. It circles around a portion of the already developed golf course which was installed with that original phase of the subdivision. The proposal is to rezone the property in order to create future phases of Stonebridge Meadows, which is an R-1, Low Density Residential subdivision. The applicant does state in the information submitted that a portion of the property to be rezoned with this request would be dedicated to the Fayetteville School District in the future. Part of the application information indicates that the proposal would include the development of approximately 90 single-family homes in similar character and nature to Stonebridge Meadows Phase I for the next phase of the development. With regard to findings, this Rezoning is consistent with the General Plan 2020 which designates the subject property as Residential. The amount of traffic generated by the property would increase most likely as we would be changing the density from two units per acre to four as permitted by right. However, the impact of the traffic generated by the development would need to be evaluated at the time that the subdivision is processed through the review process. With regard to provision of services, Engineering states that the site does have access to an existing 6" water line along Huntsville Road and a 6" sewer main which is located also along Huntsville Road. The Fire Marshall states that fire station #5 is approximately 2.4 miles from the subject property with a response time of 3 minutes 43 seconds. Fire hydrants are available. Adequate provisions for fire protection will be required with the new development. The Police Department reports that they do not believe that there would be any adverse affects to public safety if the property is rezoned. Staff is in support of the request to rezone the property from A-1 to R-1. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward please? McCord: I am Jim McCord representing Meadows Enterprises, Inc., the petitioner. Bill Meadows, the president of Meadows Enterprises, Inc., is present. We would be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Staff has Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 37 Hoover: MOTION: Bunch: Hoover: Shackelford: Hoover: Ostner: Hoover: Warrick: Hoover: thoroughly reviewed the request and recommends passage as submitted it being consistent with the Land Use Plan and zoning principals. Do we have any member of the audience that would like to address us on this RZN 03-15.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. We just looked at a subdivision out in the county at our last meeting which when you look at urban sprawl and that sort of thing, that was a subdivision out in the county that was going to be on septic tanks. This is very close to it but is within the city limits and will put it on city sewer. If we are going to have a density of growth on the outlying areas I would much rather see it within the city limits than in a situation where we are putting septic tanks on our overloaded course topography. That being said, I move that we recommend RZN 03-15.00 to the City Council. I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, is there a second? I will second. Is there any more discussion? As Commissioner Bunch mentioned, sprawl is an important issue. This is way at the perimeter of our city. It concerns me that we develop it before we develop our core which already has existing services. That is what makes sprawl and that is what makes driving times go up and the burden on our infrastructure and taxes. However, there is a need for housing in this town and I think we should approved this. I am concerned about sprawl and I don't think stopping this is going to help the matter so I am for this project. Thank you Commissioner Ostner. Dawn, did you say that there is going to be a school out here or there is a possibility? The applicant indicated in their submittal that a portion of the property that is proposed to be rezoned would be dedicated in the future to the Fayetteville School District. I really don't know more beyond that but it was indicated in that material. Thank you. Are there any other comments. Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 38 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-15.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 39 CUP 03-8.00: Conditional Use (Harris, pp 370) was submitted by Judy Harris for property owned by Ray & Linda Flack and located at 1997 Greenview Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.15 acres. The request is for a child care in R-1 (Use Unit 4). Hoover: Item number twelve is CUP 03-8.00 for a child care in an R-1 zoning. Dawn, would you present this? Warrick: Yes. This request is to utilize the single-family home at 1997 Greenview Avenue as a child care facility. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Greenview Drive and Mission Blvd. Surrounding uses are primarily single-family residences with the exception of a mix used commercial development at the north side of the site. At that location a former grocery store has been converted into mixed uses, office, restaurant and a child care. The applicant proposes to convert the existing 1,736 sq.ft. single-family residence into a child care facility. Hours of operation are proposed to be from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. with a minimum of two employees on site at all times. An outdoor play area will be created in the backyard. The applicant states that while there is adequate room for five to six vehicles to park on the site, there will generally be no more than two or three vehicles dropping off or picking up at any given time. City ordinance does limit the number of children in a child care facility in the R-1 zoning district to no more than ten. Staff is recommending in favor of this request. We have proposed twelve conditions of approval and I will read those. 1) No new parking areas shall be installed at this location. Existing parking shall be used for the proposed child care facility. 2) Applicant shall provide documentation of satisfactory inspections by the Building Safety division and Fire Department which certify that the structure is safe for the proposed use. 3) The number of children attending this facility shall be limited to no more than 10 or the number approved by the State licensing board, whichever is less, in accordance with §163.11(B). 4) Contribution of a fee in lieu of sidewalk installation shall be paid in the amount of $5,490.00. (Mission (principal arterial): 125' x 6' sidewalk = 750 sf. x $3.00 per sf. = $2,250.00 + Greenview (residential): 270' x 4' sidewalk = 1080 sf. x $3.00 per s.f. = $3,240.00). 5) A minimum outdoor play space of 80 square feet per child, calculated on the basis of the number of children occupying the outdoor play space at one time shall be provided. 6) A screening wall shall be installed (fence of vegetative) where one does not currently exist between the subject property and adjacent residential uses in accordance with § 163.11(B) and § 166.10. 7) A more detailed site plan shall be submitted which identifies the outdoor play area and all required screening. 8) A Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be issued for the child care facility indicating this conditional approval. 9) Any proposed signage shall comply with the City's sign ordinance. Necessary permits Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 40 shall be issued for all signage. 10) Only residential type exterior lighting shall be installed. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from nearby residential uses. 11) The applicant shall comply with any guidelines from the Solid Waste division necessary to appropriately dispose of trash generated by this facility. 12) All conditions of this approval shall be met prior to opening the proposed facility. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Harris: Good evening. My name is Judy Harris and we have no problem with anything except for the sidewalk. At this time we are a small business. We are trying to open, we are trying to make something here. We cannot at this time afford this that they are wanting us to do. We are not saying that we can never afford it, it is just at this time we cannot. That is the only problem we are having at this time. We would like for you to maybe waiver this at this time and give us a chance to do this. That is about all I can tell you. We do have some papers there. We are not just a daycare. We do learn there. We don't just come and play. We learn a lot. That is our main goal. We love these kids that we will be watching. This is our goal. We want to keep them safe. The sidewalk, it would be nice but I don't really see that this sidewalk is going to take care of these kids. This money could be used for other things like taking care of these kids, making sure they have food, making sure they have what they need to play with. Other than that, I would just appreciate it if you would help us out. That is all I can say. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Dawn, would you elaborate some more on the sidewalk fees? Warrick: The fee is calculated based on the ordinance provisions based on the type of streets and the type of sidewalk required on the adjoining streets to the property. This is a corner lot and therefore, it has quite a bit of frontage on streets. Greenview, a residential street, would require a 4' sidewalk. That is where the primary frontage is, they have 270' for the lot and then along Mission, which is classified as a principal arterial in this location, is 125' and the type of sidewalk that is required for that level of a street is a 6' sidewalk. Based on the square footage and calculated at $3.00 per square foot, that is the way that staff came to the calculation for the proposed contribution in lieu of installation of sidewalk. Hoover: Do we usually ask for a contribution of sidewalk when there is a Conditional Use? Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 41 Warrick: A Conditional Use is a time identified in the ordinance when it is appropriate to review for sidewalk requirements and so yes. Hoover: Historically on all of the ones that we have had in the past are we figuring $3.00 per square foot? Warrick: The calculation is standard. It is based on the street type as called out in the Master Street Plan and the square footage necessary to provide a sidewalk along the frontage of those streets. I guess that the most recent Conditional Uses that we have seen with regard to this particular type of requirement, we have had a plant nursery on Huntsville Road. They did request relief from the requirement and Planning Commission chose to make that requirement applicable at the time that they improve the structure on the site. There was also a requirement for a church that was making a relatively large addition on Old Wire Road that was also seen as a Conditional Use. They appealed that condition, the condition for sidewalk contribution and the Planning Commission reduced the amount that was required for that project. Hoover: Would they need to come back to appeal this or can we change this tonight if someone so desires? Warrick: I think if they wanted to appeal the condition that it would be appropriate to follow the process and submit a letter requesting that it be reheard. Hoover: Which would be what the church did? Warrick: That is correct. Shackelford: If that process was followed how long would the delay be to the applicant for that to be heard? Warrick: We could bring the administrative item to your next Planning Commission meeting, which would be the 28th. Shackelford: Obviously I am just one vote of seven here tonight, but that fee of $5,500 on a small business like this does seem somewhat prohibitive to me. I would definitely like to hear conversations regarding an appeal of that condition, whether it is here or through the process that the church went through, just to put that on the table for conversation. Hoover: Commissioner Bunch, did you have a comment? Bunch: When we delayed the hearing of the church sidewalk that was because our Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 42 reorganized sidewalk department I don't believe had a chance to review it at that time. Apparently this has gone through a review process so it is a slightly different situation. Also, this appears to be a complete change of use for the structure where the church was an addition to the building that wasn't going to change the specific use. It was more or less adding classrooms and maybe a recreation hall or something like that and it did not include an enlargement of the main meeting hall so this is a little bit different situation. I have no real preference whether we hear it tonight or whether we delay and hear it later. I just wanted to point out those similarities and differences. One of the reasons we delayed the other one is because we had not had a staff review for it. Warrick: With regard to your comments, staff has reviewed this and there are certain criteria that we need to look at with regard to an appeal. I reviewed some of that ordinance before making this recommendation. We are, as Commissioner Bunch said, looking at a business, a change of use from a residential operation to a business. It is a business that is related to children, it is located in the vicinity of schools and other types of mixed use operations. There is a restaurant nearby, there is mixed use to the north. The contribution for sidewalks in this location would go towards developing sidewalks in this quadrant of the city. The amount of pedestrian traffic generated by the development is one of the criteria that is considered, as well as those other things that I mentioned with regard to proximity to the other uses as well as schools. Vaught: Are there adjacent sidewalks on the properties on either side? Warrick: The properties immediately adjoining this site do not have sidewalks. Vaught: So they would more than likely make a contribution instead of just building the sidewalks? Warrick: That is staff's recommendation, a contribution in lieu of installation of sidewalks. Ostner: Are you remodeling your building? Harris: No we are not. This house will be used strictly for the daycare. We can meet the fire code, the health code, we have gone through everything. Allen: Just to follow in that same area. How is the house being utilized at the current time? Harris: Right now we are just in it doing what we have to do as far as the Fire Department, the Health Department. No one lives there. We lease it Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 43 strictly for the purpose of a daycare and it is just there waiting on an approval for us to go ahead and start. Allen: It is not being used as a daycare at this time? Harris: No, we can't start until we have approval from the city. Williams: Approximately what are the ages of children you are going to be watching at this daycare facility? Harris: We will have two under the age of two and the rest will be up to four. Williams: When I worked on that ordinance to allow for an appeal in case the requirement was more than the rough proportionality of the impact I really didn't mean it always to be just an appeal. I think sometimes it might make sense to have it come along with a recommendation from a sidewalk amount from city staff. I would think that that could save time for everybody in the future if we notified petitioners of that particular right so that they could appear tonight and be ready to understand that there is an appeal right to the Planning Commission. I guess some of the Planning Commissioners would be willing to consider your appeal tonight on that but I don't know if you feel like you are ready to present that. That would have to be your decision. Harris: All I can do is do my best and tell you what I know, that is all I can tell you Sir. Williams: I guess my question would be would you want the Planning Commission to consider reducing the amount of the suggested amount for the sidewalk contribution tonight or would you rather have more time and wait for another meeting? Harris: I would rather do it today, tonight if we could. When you do that are you going to give us a certain amount of time to get that up? Like I said, we are just starting and we aren't open yet so we are not bringing in any money at this time. Williams: I think part of the conditions for a Conditional Use is that it must be paid to obtain a Conditional Use so I think the answer to that is that you would not get additional time. You would have to come up with the money before the Conditional Use could be granted. Harris: Ok. Hoover: Mr. Williams, if we did consider it tonight, I was under the assumption Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 44 that staff would need to make a recommendation of what that reduced amount would be and I don't know if they are prepared to do that tonight. Warrick: Staff has recommended a condition and those factors were considered in the recommendation. Conklin: The only thing that we could probably offer is if you directed us to look at something different. We did make a recommendation this evening. Hoover: Ok, thank you. Church: When we went with a lesser amount for the church I am just wondering how we arrived at that amount. Hoover: I am also wondering that. Warrick: Staff made a determination and came up with a figure that we felt like was a fair, roughly proportional assessment. Our City Attorney did advise us that it is not an exact science. It is something that does lend some discussion in determining what is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed project. Hoover: Is that based on activity level? Warrick: In that case it was based on the increased use that was going to be proposed at the location. They were expanding classroom space and not increasing the amount of sanctuary or seating space so not necessarily increasing the congregation at the church. Hoover: I do remember that now. I thought that was a good argument that they were not increasing their membership, that would remain the same so I could see looking into that. Harris: Can I say something about that please? Hoover: Yes. Harris: The sidewalk that they are wanting will not even be used by any of us. The children will not be allowed to walk out there. That is a dangerous road. I would not let my children walk on that sidewalk so it is not even going to be used for us. They are in the backyard only with two care keepers out there at all times. This sidewalk would not even be used for us, it would just be there. Hoover: Tim, do you want to comment to our system of sidewalks and how we are Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 45 trying to network the city with connectivity for pedestrians? Conklin: Sure. The idea that we are trying to implement is that we are trying to make a continuous network. I don't intend to try to debate this issue but the sidewalks potentially could be used by people that ideally may live in the neighborhood or have an opportunity to walk to the facility. As we heard earlier, the argument of well there isn't a sidewalk adjacent to this one therefore, we shouldn't have a sidewalk. If we never begin to build sidewalks we will never connect to anything. It has been a policy in the City of Fayetteville to require development when it occurs to have the sidewalks installed. The ordinance revision that allowed us to collect money, there were situations where the applicant and staff felt like maybe the money could be used better to build sidewalks within a particular area and therefore, that option was arrived at. Of course, as our City Attorney has indicated this evening, there is the argument that an applicant can make with regard to rough proportionality. Is the impact of this proposal, does it justify the amount of money that staff is requesting? Those are the three things that we look at. Hoover: Thanks Tim. Ostner: The differences between this and the church I think have been covered. During our meeting with the church staff wasn't prepared to pear it down and give their official suggestion. They have tonight. The other difference that this reminds me of the nursery. They were required to come down here for their Conditional Use but it finally came out that they weren't pulling a building permit at all so that is when we backed off of that because they weren't doing any construction. However, we do need sidewalks in this town. Personally I wish we could just talk about an amount right here. I would be willing to cut it in half. I think on Greenview is important in your neighborhood for there to be a sidewalk. It is a dangerous street. I don't think that Mission is. It is a state highway, it is a really steep bank. How we get through this I'm not sure. I would be willing to vote for it tonight and have her appeal. Hoover: Based on 1/2 of the cost? Ostner: I am just putting that out as a number. Williams: Can I give you a little bit of guidance that the Supreme Court has given when you are supposed to consider these things? What the Supreme Court does say is that each one of these must be considered on a case by case basis, there is not just a flat test. It would be a lot easier if there was always a flat test but there is not. What you have to look at is the increased impact that this development has over the existing development. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 46 The single-family home would have had some need for sidewalks. You look at the difference between what was needed in the past and what is the increased need that this new change in this development is requiring. Now we have a daycare center with up to ten children. Keep in mind that we are talking about not the fact that we like sidewalks and sidewalks are all needed but what is actually going to be the impact so that we can constitutionally place that burden on the petitioner here not because we want more sidewalks here, there or wherever. You need to look at the fact that there might e as many as ten young children two to four is what was said by the petitioner, which often are not walking on sidewalks but could possibly some at least could use sidewalks in the neighborhood to come to her daycare, probably not all of them. That is what your guide should be. Is she placing an additional need on the city's infrastructure of sidewalks by opening a daycare center? That is about as far as the Supreme Court could tell you to go and then the rest is what you are trying to figure out, what the bare impact is that she can be assessed. Ostner: Mr. Williams, was that Supreme Court ruling a sidewalk issue or was it a development ruling? Williams: There have been several but one of them was very close to a sidewalk issue, it was a bike trail issue. There have been others so it wasn't specifically a sidewalk issue. Although, there have been lower court rulings on various different infrastructure improvements and that is the general test that the Supreme Court announced. Ostner: My confusion is that sidewalks are a community issue and my house only develops two adults use. It would never justify a sidewalk and that is very confusing to me to think of this one piece of property and the trips per day, the walking trips per day that it would generate. It seems a little confusing for me to talk about the added burden placed on the sidewalk. I guess I need to understand that more. I do know that we have a goal of connectivity with our sidewalks and that is why the Planning office made this recommendation. Shackelford: I just wanted to make a couple of comments. Mr. Williams basically said a lot of what I was going to say. I want to preface it by first of all saying that I both live and work within the one mile radius map on this property. This is very much in my quadrant and close to home and I do realize that we do need sidewalks in this area. With that being said, as I did mention earlier, I would support some sort of waiver situation that would reduce this amount basically because two fold. One I think it is very prohibitive for this particular case. I know we are talking about a business but this is not a traditional business. This is a group of individuals that is going to provide daycare for ten children. The second thing is I was going to talk Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 47 about the added burden that this business would place on the use of sidewalks. Based on the fact that first of all, I have a two year old and if I am going to get him somewhere I can't get him ready in time to walk him anywhere. I don't see that anybody is going to walk their children to this location. I don't see that these kids are going to be walking in this location and I don't see that this particular business is going to add that much extra burden to the infrastructure in my neighborhood. This is an area that is very close to me. I would like to see City Staff come back to us. Trust me, I hate to table anything, I like to make motions and go. I would like to see City Staff come back with some sort of rough proportionality study that can give us a better feeling of their opinion of an impact on the infrastructure based on a child care with ten students. I am not anywhere near an expert and I don't know how I am ever going to be able to justify a dollar amount at this point and put on this. It is out of my area of expertise but surely we have somebody on our city staff that is a whole lot smarter than I am and can do that for us. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. I feel the same way. I don't feel qualified at the moment to make that determination but I can certainly understand the need for the appeal. Commissioner Bunch, did you have a comment? Bunch: Basically when we wrestle with this rough proportionality issue, Mr. Williams brought it to our attention and we wrestled with it and wrestled with it and I think what we finally came up with was, and I'm appealing to staff to flush out what I'm saying here, we based it on various zoning usages. This is an R-1 zoning. Possibly for a starting point in the consideration would be to look at what we were using for a guideline in R- 1. Warrick: A single-family home would require a contribution of $630, a duplex would require a contribution of $720 by our ordinance. Bunch: Ok, so that gives us the low threshold I would think of trying to figure out what the rough proportionality is because that would be it's use as a single-family home. However, we are looking at a Conditional Use for a business here and I think it would be a greater burden than a single-family home but definitely not as great of burden as we are showing in condition four. I would entertain at least starting at the point that we determined previously for rough proportionality for a single-family residence but then look at other factors on how we could scale it up from there and arrive at a number that I think would be a little more equitable than roughly $5,500. Conklin: With regard to rough proportionality, I think it can be somewhat of a moving target. If this was a brand new childcare facility being built from the ground up most likely it would have sidewalks, just like a used car lot Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 48 on School and 15th Street has sidewalks. The main issue that we are looking at, staff is listening to the Commissioners and we can come back and give you our best effort at rough proportionality but when you look at what we require in the City of Fayetteville and what other municipalities across the United States require with regard to sidewalk construction, there isn't so many square feet of sidewalk per person generated. I don't think we are going to find that. I just don't think we are going to find that. We definitely can do some research and can give you a number that is not the same number in our staff report. It kind of goes back to Commissioner Ostner's question about we are dealing with single-family neighborhoods. This evening we saw some Preliminary Plats. Guess what? They have sidewalks on both sides of the street and they are single-family homes. There is not a magic number of people per square foot but we will definitely try to come up with something for you. Hoover: Thank you. Bunch: Staff, we had a childcare facility somewhere in the vicinity just west of Morningside Drive between Huntsville and 15th Street and I believe that we required a sidewalk on that one? I am not expecting you to bring that up out of memory. Conklin: That was the Head start. Bunch: That would be another one that we could look at with asking this consideration, what we have done with other similar type facilities. Conklin: Ok. Hoover: I think what all of this discussion is leading to is that this does need to come back as an appeal so there can be more discussion and staff can have more thought about it and we can do some more research. MOTION: Shackelford: With that being said, I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 03-8.00 subject to all 12 conditions as stated. Obviously the applicant has heard these conversations and knows that there is at last an audience for the appeal. I personally would encourage you to go through the process and come back in two weeks with an appeal. Let us have statements from our staff. I think we can make a lot more educated decision at that point. Harris: There is one other thing that I would like to say. He was talking about a center from ground up. I don't know how you all do your gathering of Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 49 information or anything but if you will look at the regulations on childcare there is a total different thing when you go from a facility and into a home daycare. It is a whole different ballgame. That might help you, I don't know if it will. There are different rules and regulations that they go by. It is not the same as a center being built from ground up. Shackelford: Thank you. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Bunch: Second. Hoover: I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there anymore discussion? Vaught: I have one more question on payment of the fees. Can we work with them on payment deferring? I think you said on another project you had deferred the development of the sidewalks when you referred to the greenhouse earlier. Warrick: The nursery greenhouse on Huntsville Road, the requirement for sidewalk installation was actually for installation of sidewalk and not a contribution in lieu. It was deferred until such time as they make changes or improvements that would require a building permit to the structure on the site. Hoover: Will we have that discussion with the appeal? Warrick: That was the result of the appeal. Hoover: So we can have that then. Are there any other comments? Can we have the roll call? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-8.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Hoover: Thank you Ms. Harris. Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 50 ADM 03-10.00: Administrative Item (DDEP) DDEP has developed and will present a first draft of the plan to aid and assist city planning staff in development of priority and design for streetscape and sidewalks throughout the DDEP district. Ongoing work will include coordination with city planning staff to fully develop these standards and recommendation. Hoover: Item number thirteen, Tim, would you like to tell us what this is? Conklin: Item number thirteen is on the agenda this evening as part of a contractual agreement that the city has contracted with the Downtown Dickson Street Improvement District to look at streetscape and sidewalk enhancements within the DDEP area. As part of that contract it states that they will submit to the Planning Commission by April 15`h their design for streetscape, sidewalk improvements, preliminary design. Today is the 14`h so we are meeting the contractual agreement this evening. Our Chair, Ms. Sharon Hoover, who is president of the Downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project will be making the presentation with the help of Planning staff. This is just one part of the contract. There are additional items that will come before the City and the City Council. I would encourage any of the Commissioners if you have any questions please ask those of Ms. Hoover. Hoover: Thank you Tim. I am going to try to make it really quick. I would like to point out that I am the president of Downtown Dickson this year. I was the Chair of the design committee for several years who compiled this information. We also now have on the Design Committee, which is just coincidence, Alan Ostner is now on our Design Committee which we are thrilled to have and also, Jill Anthes is now the Design Committee Chair. This whole PowerPoint presentation entailed a large group of people including city staff and I will get more into that as we go along. I think everyone has their hand out and I know you are going to hate it if I read it to you. We also have some large maps that go with it so you can see them up close if you like. I will just start out about the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project has a vision, a unified downtown community that is an enlightened, lively environment in which to live, work, and play in a compelling destination for everyone. Our mission is to develop and implement a plan to enhance and promote the best qualities of the downtown Dickson area and surrounding neighborhoods while preserving and extending its present character. I just want to add that when I first moved here this was the first community service group that I gravitated to because I understood that their mission was to tie downtown and Dickson Street together. Fayetteville is one of the most unique cities because the University is within walking distance of the downtown area. That does not happen in many cities and I would like someone to tell me somewhere that that does happen because I keep looking for examples that are similar Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 51 Bunch: Hoover: Shackelford: Hoover: to us so we have a roll model but it is hard. We have a really unique situation of how to tie these together and make the entire community this whole district a walking area and I obviously a big proponent of sidewalks and I walk. That is why I joined the group. Our visions and missions emerge a series of goals, which you can read down here. Establish a comprehensive plan for shaping the infrastructure of downtown Dickson area and create a sense of place and identity to develop and implement a cohesive promotional strategy to enhance the economic growth of the area. We of course want to, we can have nice sidewalks but if we don't have any businesses along there, there is nothing to go to so we want to help enhance that also. Also, as Planners you will appreciate, if someone stops talking. Madam Chair, I have a question of order. Since this is a presentation from an outside organization and you are giving this presentation should you be giving it as Chair of the Planning Commission or in your capacity as DDEP which would be at the lectern? I am giving it in the capacity of DDEP and the only reason I am sitting here is because it is more comfortable if you don't mind. We would like you to stand, it might shorten it a little bit. I will stand. The other goal which I think you would be excited about that we have talked about tonight is mixed use development. That is one of our big challenges here in the downtown area is how to coexist with commercial and residential. We also want to promote historic preservation and adaptive review. Our big point is a pedestrian friendly environment while accommodating vehicular traffic. We also want to promote and encourage broad choices of cultural recreational arts and entertainment alternatives. The first matter of business, what we did as a group there were lots of public meetings, which we will get into this but our Downtown Dickson district boundaries and you will see the map up here with the big redline around there, they are based on natural and built edges. I want to say topography and also development. We linked this together because we felt like this area had similar concerns and visions. You can see on the map that it goes from Maple Street on the north to 6th Street on the south, Arkansas Avenue on the west and College/Archibald Yell on the east. When we first started out the boundaries were a little bit smaller. As the group continued on more development happened. For instance, the Mill District, so we extended the boundary further south. The library came. This is a constantly changing thing and we will probably look again at the boundaries to make sure that we have included everything that has similar interests in our area. Also, when we first started out we didn't extend the boundary line to the other side of the Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 52 street. Now on College we have got both sides of the street we are looking at. A little history about the Downtown Dickson group, in 1996 this emerged as a group out of the Chamber of Commerce. It was the Community Development Committee's goal to protect and promote the unique identity of the historic heart of Fayetteville. I want to say that the two main people that I know from the history were Bootsie Ackerman and Jim Foster were at the Chamber and they were the ones that really pushed this through and got it going. The Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project was then formed. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. In 1997 we hired a full time director and that is when everything really started going, when we got someone full time in addition to all of the volunteers. In the summer of 1997 we hired the University of Arkansas Community Design Center to look at Dickson Street and how we could improve it as the first street of priority. I would say that was pretty much the consensus from the whole Downtown Dickson Enhancement group at the time because we felt that Dickson Street had some unsafe areas. There was a lot of back in parking, a lot of curb cuts, there were a lot of sidewalks that were a little dangerous that were missing pieces so our focus was Dickson and also it is the highest activity use and so that is why we selected Dickson. When we hired the CDC they also helped us with putting on a lot of public workshops so that we could get input from all of the citizens in the area and businesses, residents in the area. We had over 300 people participate in the design process and at least 2,000 hours of volunteer time was invested. The CDC came up with a great conceptual plan for street improvements, I want to say for sidewalk improvements, but also street improvements because we had as you notice right now on Dickson Street we don't have many crosswalks. They are just kind of striped so nobody stops for you. The big issue here is safety because it is not really as safe as it can be and once you see the improvements you will really realize that. They ended up, and you can see by this rendering, they developed a conceptual plan which was just great because then we were able to take that conceptual plan, look for funding and then hire professionals to actually do the engineering and that is how it has got started today. In 2001 the Design Committee started looking at starting a master plan for all of the sidewalks in the downtown area to extend it past Dickson Street in the rest of the walks of the area. This one slide shows the rendering from the design professional. Actually it is kind of interesting because you can see the one from the CDC and then the next one is actually the one from the professional of what is going to be done. Just as a side line, the Planning Department has already completed the construction of what Dickson Street is going to look like when it is finished with the concrete and brick edging and the tree wells although we don't have our lights in there yet. The Design Committee took the information that we got from the public meetings at that time during Dickson Street and with the charge of the Planning Department, they wanted us to assist them in doing a Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 53 master sidewalk plan, which is also coming to the Planning Commission. We asked the Planning Department to do a master sidewalk plan for the city. As the Design Committee we were offering to help do it for our area to get it going so we can get our sidewalks up there in priority. The first step that we did at this point is we looked at our boundaries and extended the boundaries slightly and the first thing we did after we determined the boundary was to determine what streets are priority and what levels of improvement we need to make and we had to come up with some criteria for that. What is on the slide right now is just to show you why we are so adamant about improving our sidewalks in the district. As you can see, lots of them you cannot maneuver and especially if you were really handicapped it would be difficult and we still have a lot of large curb cuts and insufficient lighting. As you can see, we made a list of our sidewalk improvement criteria. Our first issue is safety. Is it ADA compliant? Does it have adequate lighting and that is our baseline sidewalk that we think we should have in the district because we want to encourage pedestrian activity. What is the first thing you do? You have to make it safe. That just seems like a natural. The next issue of looking at the sidewalk and how to make a recommendation for level improvement is the activity level and use. What is the sidewalk's current use and future activity level? Often that is an evolving issue because with the library project coming on that came on after we started this process that we found that we wanted to change the level of activity because of that project. There also have been some other ones. The Mill District, we extended sidewalks down to there. The third option on criteria as we looked at safety first and activity level and then connectivity. We want to make sure that we connect to parking lots so that they are into destination places so we look at that. The next item is scale. Is the sidewalk user friendly? Does it have union scale or not? Lastly, aesthetic enjoyment. We want t to be beautiful but really our primary importance here is to make it safe. When you make it safe you are accomplishing a lot in the area. After we established this material we formed a matrix. What we did was over the course of a year and a half was the Design Committee walked our priority streets, which you can see on the map. We surveyed the existing conditions, if there were sidewalks, if there was lighting, if there was underground utilities or not. Some of our streets don't have any sidewalks at all on them in our district. Then we made recommendations for the level of improvement based on this criteria that I just went over. Our conclusion was then the product that ended up out of this is this map with the proposed sidewalk improvements and the different levels that we recommend. The level of improvements, which you will see with these sections through the streets on the next slide. We have a level eight, which is what we are considering Dickson Street, which is fully outfitted. It has a brick edge, it has lights, trees, street furniture and underground utilities and we are encouraging a 12' wide walk. We are considering that Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 54 most of these level A sidewalks are in very high activity areas. A level B street is a little bit narrower sidewalk with a brick edge, maybe not street furniture or brick planters but it has a brick edge, lights and trees. As you go down a level C would mean we have lights and trees to continue on our theme. Level D is lights and trees but with a smaller sidewalk. Some areas of our district it is hard to get any sidewalk in much less 6' might be hard. Level E is just sidewalks and accessible. We feel that our level E is the minimum requirement we need to have in our district so we can encourage pedestrian activity. The level F is what we don't want to try to do which is no sidewalk at all. The Design Committee continues to be the voice of the District stakeholders and the community taking the lead and shaping our city's built environment. We are committed to implementing the long term vision for streetscape improvements throughout the district. In addition, we are here to assist the city to facilitate public input and to provide leadership and advocacy of the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project's vision and goals. I also want to say that now that Dickson Street is starting to get constructed and we are almost done with that our next streets that we are focusing is Block and College Avenue. Julie Bland from our Long Range Planning Department has started with a design here on how to improve College Avenue, which we are saying needs to be a level A improvements. It will be interesting as we go block by block because some of the streets don't have enough room to really put much sidewalk on at all. What comes out of that will be interesting to see. Even though this looks so simple this whole thing took lots of hours and lots of people involved. I want to thank the city staff, something that has really been working wonderfully is that we have been working with city staff. They have done all of these great maps for us that have helped solidify what we have been trying to put in words. Jill Anthes did a great job of putting this PowerPoint together, pulling it all together. Also, the City of Fayetteville for asking for a master street plan because this is definitely what our group is about and we certainly want to help in any way we can to further connectivity of sidewalks. The end. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Item 14 is appointment of the Subdivision Committee. Don Bunch has agreed to be chair. Alan Ostner has agreed to be on Subdivision Committee, these two have agreed for one year. Alice Church has agreed for six months and I believe Nancy Allen agreed to be alternate as needed. I thank you very much for doing those chores. Subdivision is really important, as we all can see, and I think everybody needs to be on it at least once. Do we have any other items of business? Conklin: I would like to remind the Commission and the public on April 22nd we are hosting a Wetlands Floodplain Workshop. The Corp. of Engineers Planning Commission April 14, 2003 Page 55 will be up here from Little Rock. We also plan to go out like we did last year and look at the protected and mitigated wetlands. Just RSVP with the City Planning office. That will be at Genesis down off of School Street from 9:00 to 12:30. Hoover: What wetland are we looking at? Conklin- We are going to be looking at the wetlands out at the CMN Development again. Last year it was very educational just looking at plant material, wildlife, going out in the field with the Corp. of Engineers and Environmental Specialists just to get more familiar with regard to what wetlands look like, what type of plants grow in wetlands, what kind of animal plant life you typically find out there. Instead of talking about it in the conference room it is really getting out there and seeing these issues. Hoover: That sounds great. If you haven't attended one of these seminars it is very educational. Meeting adjourned.