Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 72701. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CUP 03-13.00: Conditional Use (Sequoyah United Methodist Church, pp 369) Approved Page 3 LSP 03-38.00: Lot Split (Kulish, pp 565) Approved Page 10 ADM 03-07.00: Administrative Item (University Square, pp 558) Page 12 ADM 03-09.00: Administrative Item (Lowe's C-PZD signage, pp 557/596) Page 17 CUP 03-12.00: Conditional Use (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) Page 23 LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) Page 25 LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development (Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561) Page 34 LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Page 55 Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Bob Estes Alice Church Christian Vaught Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 3 Hoover: Welcome to the May 27th Planning Commission meeting. I guess let's go ahead and call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford being absent. Hoover: We need approval of the minutes from the May 12th meeting, do I have a motion? Bunch: So moved. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch. Allen: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen. Would you call the roll, I mean the question? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the minutes were approved by a vote of eight to zero. CUP 03-13.00: Conditional Use (Sequoyah United Methodist Church, pp 369) was submitted by Milholland Company Engineering & Surveying on behalf of the Sequoyah United Methodist Church for property located at 1910 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 7.64 acres. The request is for a 1080 s.f. District Superintendent Office and an additional 22 parking spaces. Hoover: Thank you. We will start with item number one is a Conditional Use for Sequoyah United Methodist Church submitted by Milholland Company Engineering and Surveying. Dawn, will you please present this? Warrick: Sure. This item is old business on your agenda this evening. The subject property is located at 1910 Old Wire Road. The request is for approval of a 1,080 sq.ft. district superintendent's office. Originally the applicant was also requesting parking in excess of that permitted by code by 22 spaces. That request is no longer necessary due to updated information that has been supplied by the applicant and their representatives since the meeting prior. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on May 12th and at that time the item was tabled in order to allow the church and neighbors to further discuss the impact of the proposed development. Since that time, and included in your information, there is additional documentation from the applicant, from the neighbors, and from the applicant's representative. Since the May 12`h meeting the applicant did have the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and amend the project in several ways. The stall depth on the north side of the new parking area was Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 4 Hoover: Milholland: Hoover: Milholland: reduced by 2' to allow an overhang and to reduce the amount of pavement. It also pulled that area of parking further away from the tree line that is on the north side of the property. That reduction is permitted by our parking lot ordinance so that does not require a waiver. An enlarged tree island was provided to accommodate one large existing tree. The building was relocated to meet the 50' setback requirement. That eliminated a setback reduction request also. Additional information was provided by the church regarding use areas and occupancy. Like I said before, that has eliminated the need for the additional parking, the Conditional Use for additional parking. The applicant also provided a materials sample board which is over here. That information does demonstrate the proposal is to incorporate existing materials and colors into the new structure to provide compatibility with the existing church that already exists on the site. At this time staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions. We have five. 1) Planning Commission determination of compatibility of this project with the exiting development and with surrounding properties. (Color elevations and a material sample board have been submitted for Planning Commission review.) 2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and tree preservation plans shall be reviewed and approved. 3) Installation of a 6' wide sidewalk along Old Wire Road at the location of the Master Street Plan right of way for this minor arterial (45' from centerline). Coordination with Engineering staff for locating this sidewalk at the two existing curb cuts will need to be arranged at the time of development. 4) Installation of trees and shrubs along the front property line between the existing development and the new sidewalk in accordance with § 166.14. (One tree every 30 linear feet and a continuous row of shrubs between any parking areas and the front property line). 5) Installation of a continuous planting of trees and shrubs (to be approved by Planning staff) to provide a screen between the proposed parking and building addition and the adjacent residences (to the north). With that, I will answer any questions or let the applicant make their proposal. Would the applicant come forward? Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineering. Did you have anything to add to Dawn's presentation? I think we signed off on this didn't we Dawn and we concur with all that is requested here by the staff for approval. We did meet with the neighbors and the pastor after the last meeting and actually went out and staked the building for them in the new location, the curb and gutter, and met with them, let them look at it and then they wrote a letter, which you have in Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 5 you have a copy of. I believe you do, you should have it in your packet where the neighbors wrote a letter supporting this project. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use for Sequoyah United Methodist Church? Please come forward, state your name, and be sure to sign in on the sheet at the podium. Hall: In the first place, I could not hear this lady and I was in the second row so I don't know if anybody else heard her or not and I have good hearing. Hoover: Can that mic be turned up? It is up, maybe pull it down some. Hall: There was one, this gentleman here said he met with all the neighbors or the neighbors and he didn't meet with us and we are one door away from Sequoyah Methodist Church. Hoover: Ma'am, what is your name? Hall: My name is Frieda Hall. Hoover: Thank you. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Hall: Are they continuing to ask for it to be commercial, zoned commercial? Hoover: No Ma'am. Hall: Was that in the beginning though was it going to be zoned commercial? Hoover: No. Hall: We didn't know for sure because we had heard some things from other neighbors and we just thought maybe that it was and she didn't speak of that. She said there are going to be some changes and I didn't get to hear that. Hoover: Dawn, would you mind just reviewing those briefly? She couldn't hear when you gave the presentation. Just a brief summary. Hall: Thank you. Hoover: Sure. Warrick: Do you want me to come back up? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 6 Hoover: Yeah, go ahead and do it now if you don't mind. Warrick: This proposal is for a 1,080 sq.ft. superintendent's office building to be added to the Sequoyah United Methodist Church property site. It also will include the addition of approximately 22 parking spaces and the installation of a sidewalk along Old Wire Road, landscaping along Old Wire Road, screening on the north property line and I'm not sure what else I need to address with regard to that. Those are the infrastructure changes that will occur on the site. A new structure will be the biggest change, a 1,000 sq.ft. building will be added to the site with an additional parking area. Hoover: Ok, that is great. Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? I'm sorry, usually we only have one time to talk but since you didn't hear it the first time come on up. Hall: He had mentioned that they had talked to the neighbors. We are a neighbor and we weren't talked to so we wondered why we were left out. We are south of the Sequoyah Methodist Church, we are not north of it. Hoover: Is that all the comment that you had to make? Hall: That is one comment. I do want to be, you know, I would like for them to have talked with us too. We feel like we're you know, as good a neighbor as anyone on the north. Also, our neighbor who is next to us, which she is on the north also, they are on the north also, I mean they are on the south like we are, the others are on the north from Amber Street that I understand were the most upset. We still would not like to have all that extra traffic and do they still need the 22 parking spaces? Hoover: That is what is on this proposal. Hall: Ok, that is what I thought. That would really make more traffic. We already have a tremendous amount of traffic. Old Wire Road is kind of behind the times for the traffic it carries so I would plead with you to please think of that and there are children that walk on that street to the bus and meet the bus and they go over to the Sequoyah Methodist Church. There are some children walking and bicycling and I just hate to see more traffic because of this. I was just wondering if that could be a point for you to consider. I would appreciate it very much. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 7 Commission and the applicant. Commissioners, do we have any discussion? Allen: Madam Chair, is that gentleman with his hand up supposed to speak first or do I proceed? Hoover: Go ahead. We closed it to public comment, I'm sorry. Hall: You didn't see him raise his hand, you were looking over that way so he would like to speak for just a moment. Hoover: Ok, come up Sir. Could you possibly add anything new to what your wife already said? Hall, R.: The name is Hall, Robert E. We own approximately three acres immediately south of Sequoyah Methodist Church. 400 as it states on this map, 412.27 feet adjoins their property. They have not consulted with us one bit over their plans. As it states this property is zoned R-1. That is the way it needs to stay. We did not have any input when they built the church building or when they doubled the size of it by building on an auditorium and a daycare center. They have created a tremendous traffic problem starting at about 6:30 to 7:00 in the morning to about 7:00 to 7:30 in the evening with people bringing their children and picking them up at this daycare. I have lived at 1830 Old Wire Road for 48 years and it is residential and that is the way it needs to stay. They have plenty of property on Mount Sequoyah, they can build an office building any size they want to. I see no reason for them to encroach on our neighborhood anymore than they already have and I suggest that it should stay as it is and zoned in R-1. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Hall. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to speak to this Conditional Use? Seeing none, at this time I will bring it back to the Commission. I would just like to reiterate that this is not a rezoning, this is a Conditional Use to allow them to build a 1,080 sq.ft. district superintendent's office on this property. Would the applicant come back? I guess would you go ahead and respond to some of their concerns if you would? Milholland: Madam Chairman and Planning Commission, my understanding was that we gave a list of adjoining neighbors and I understand the city has a policy of how to notify of meetings. Two weeks ago we had a meeting on this same topic. When I say we met with the neighbors I want to tell the Halls that we did not neglect to talk to them but there were people that came here to the meeting at that time that wanted to discuss with us and it was arranged by the church after we had staked out the parking area that we Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 8 were going to add on the north side of this project. It won't be on the south side, it will be on the north side. Also, the building which is on the opposite side of where the Hall Family Trust property is at. I just want them to know that I am sorry that they weren't here last time to be a part of the discussion that we had and they definitely were not left out on purpose at all, not from our standpoint. We would respectively request of course the continual growth of this church for the church to use this land for the needs that they have. In particular, this project as you all know, is for a district office, a small building with a little over 1,000 sq.ft., and of course additional space as far as parking for that need, which is five spaces and an additional 17 spaces for the church, all of which will be on the north side. When I speak of meeting with the neighbors it was the ones that were here before two weeks ago that wanted to meet and we did meet with them and accommodated them and you have a letter to that effect. If I can answer anymore questions I would be happy to. Hoover Thank you Mel. Commissioner Allen, did you have a question? MOTION: Allen: I have a question and I have a comment. I am very sorry that the Halls were left out of that meeting. I was going to commend the applicant on the efforts to have a meeting with the neighborhood and also the changes that were made. I think they are all positive. I just want to commend the applicant on the efforts to have a meeting with the neighborhood and also the changes that were made. I think they are all positive. The building being moved is less invasive to the existing neighborhood. I think it is all positive, all the changes that have been made. That being said, I would like to move for approval of CUP 03-13.00. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Ostner: I will second. Hoover: I have a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there anymore discussion? Ostner: I do have a question for staff. Two weeks ago we saw this and the parking was a completely different sets of numbers, can you address that issue? Warrick: Those numbers were modified with the information that was supplied by the church after the May 12th Planning Commission meeting. It is included in your packet and I have updated the chart which is on page 1.3. That chart for parking reflects the numbers that were submitted after the May 12th meeting and that indicates that the maximum number of spaces based on 550 seats in the main auditorium at 180 spaces, that is the Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 9 allocation for that based on the parking lot ordinance, and then 6 spaces to meet the needs of the office that is being proposed would total a maximum number of 186 parking spaces with the existing 157 and the additional proposed 22 spaces they are at 179, which is underneath that maximum number. Therefore, the Conditional Use is no longer necessary for excess parking. Ostner: So the count was inaccurate the first time? Warrick: The count was inaccurate previously. Ostner: Ok, the count of how many seats, I see. Warrick: Previously we were looking at the number of seats in the sanctuary space as opposed to the largest auditorium space, which is the way that the ordinance addresses parking for a church is the largest assembly space. That was not the number that we had originally to work from. Ostner: 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 approve CUP 03-13.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you Renee. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 10 LSP 03-38.00: Lot Split (Kulish, pp565) was submitted by Kurt Kulish for property located at 2008 E. Huntsville Road at the corner of E. Huntsville and Dockery Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.54 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts containing 0.27 acres and 0.27 acres. Hoover: Item number two is LSP 03-38.00 for property located at 2008 E. Huntsville Road at the corner of East Huntsville Road at the corner of East Huntsville and Dockery Lane. Jeremy, are you presenting? Pate: I am. Thank you Madam Chair. This project was submitted by Kurt Kulish to split the property into two tracts from its original 0.54 acres. The two tracts would be in equal amounts of 0.27 acres. The existing development has two single-family homes. Surrounding land use is single-family residential and it is zoned R-1 and R-2. The existing water is along Dockery Lane and Hwy. 16 and sewer is along Dockery Lane. If they are not existing, structures must be connected to that sewer prior to the filing of the lot split. The right of way being dedicated along Hwy. 16 as a principal arterial and according to the City of Fayetteville's Master Street Plan, that will be a 55' right of way from centerline. Dockery Lane is classified as a local street and requires 25' of right of way from centerline. A request has been made by the applicant for a lesser dedication of right of way where an existing structure encroaches upon the Huntsville Road right of way. Staff is recommending at this time approval to a lot split subject to the following conditions. An existing structure currently encroaches upon the ROW dedication along Huntsville Road. A lesser ROW dedication will require Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval. Lot split is contingent upon City Council granting approval of a lesser ROW dedication. Conditions two through five are standard conditions of approval and we do have signed conditions. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Kulish: My name is Kurt Kulish and basically I don't really have much to add. I am just seeking to split off the back half of the lot. There are two single- family residences on what will be the remaining lot but they are both existing and I am not seeking to change their use, just to preserve them as they are. Are there any questions? Hoover: Thank you. At this time I will open it to the public. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address LSP 03-38.00 on East Huntsville Road? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of LSP 03-38.00 subject to City Council granting approval of a lesser right of way dedication. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 11 Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second? Ostner: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there anymore discussion? Bunch: I have a question for the applicant just for the record, are the two existing houses currently connected to sewer or are they on septic system? Kulish: They are connected to sewer. Bunch: They are connected? Kulish: Yes. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Ostner: This is self explanatory but so far our paperwork has a typo, it is talking about a lesser right of way along Dockery. Warrick: You should have new information in front of you this evening that was revised. Ostner: Ok, I see it. Warrick: The issue is the right of way along Huntsville. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Shall we call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-38.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 12 ADM 03-07.00: Administrative Item (University Square, pp 558) was submitted by Bob Hill of the Nickle Hill Group for property located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Shiloh Drive, within the boundaries of the Overlay District. The request is to allow four (4) wall signs in the Design Overlay District. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is ADM 03-07.00 for University Square. Dawn, will you present? Warrick: Yes. This is an administrative item. The request is for signage on this property. The University Square large scale is located at the intersection of I-540 and 6th Street, Hwy. 62 West. This project you've seen in a few different variations. There are several existing structures and they are being refurbished. Additional properties are also being combined into this project and the same developer is basically working several different pieces of property in the same area. The University Square project, as I mentioned, is located within the Overlay District. A part of that original large scale contained a stand alone bank building. There is also an old grocery story that has been reused or refurbished and then a strip retail building as well to kind of form a L shape and form the north and west sides of the development. The stand alone bank, which is the subject of this particular request is at the southeast corner of the University Square property. In 1990 signage for the stand alone bank was permitted and installed. This activity occurred prior to the adoption of the city's Design Overlay District, which happened in 1994. The large scale development for University Square was approved by the Planning Commission in April, 2002. At that time the Planning Commission looked at signage and looked at Overlay District requirements as well as commercial design standards. At this point in time the bank, a new bank, a new tenant to the building, proposes to install four wall signs, one on each side of the structure. In the Overlay District one wall sign is permitted on the side of the structure which faces the public right of way. In instances where the structure has frontage on more than one public street two wall signs may be permitted. Staff's recommendation is to of course approve the one wall sign which is permitted by right on the south side of the structure. Staff would also recommend the approval of a second wall sign on the west side of the structure which is facing into the development and is the front door to the bank building. The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether or not this structure is seen as having frontage on a second street or highway right of way. Because of the need to make that determination the applicant has provided some additional information. You should've received a supplemental packet of information containing a site plan for the overall University Square property. Also, you should have in your packet four color elevations for the signage that they are proposing. I think that pretty well covers the request. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 13 Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward and tell us why you are asking for more signs? Taylor: Hello, I am Jim Taylor with First Security Bank. We are in the retail business. The banking business is a retail business and so this building we wanted to identify it from all angles since it is a very prominent building in the shopping center but separate from the shopping center. We wanted there to be identity for our building from of course 6th Street from within the shopping center itself but this building also has visibility from I-540 so we are requesting to allow us to provide signs on the building on the east side because of the prominence of I-540. It is almost like it is in a triangular area where it does have visibility from I-540 also. Hoover: Thank you. At this time is there anyone in the public that would like to address this ADM 03-7.00 extra signage at University Square on First Security? Yes Ma'am. Couch: Hi, I am Nancy Couch with Northwest Arkansas Signs. I realize that the sign ordinance is changing pretty much constantly. I called down and asked if we could have a fourth sign because there were three signs on the building already. I understand putting restrictions on certain shopping centers because they get carried away. I don't think the bank is requesting too much because we aren't taking up 150 sq.ft. that is allowed for a wall sign so I don't think that they are trying to be too pushy here. There is the Dollar Tree right down here and they have three signs. It seems to me like it would be more important to find your bank than the Dollar Tree you know. That is all I have to say. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this issue ADM 03-7.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners and to the applicant. Anthes: I have a question for staff. In our packet is included pictures of an ATM, pictures of a monument sign and a map for relocation of an ATM, the reason for inclusion is not included, can you speak to that? Warrick: I will be glad to. We requested that the applicant provide the monument signs, these are the signs that were approved for the development itself. Any of the tenants within the University Square project are permitted to be located on these signs. Of course the agreement would have to be between the developer and the tenants as to location and size. The information with regard to the ATM, these are things that were requested at the Subdivision Committee. This ATM is proposed to be located by the applicant in the location on the site plan, the 8 '/x11 site plan that you have is the updated location for the ATM which is basically in the center Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 14 of the parking area in an island that is facing 66 Street. That is the reason for that. It will be an ATM for the First Security Bank, which is the tenant that we are looking at and then the site plan that you received is to show you the proximity of the bank with regard to the other parts of the development. Anthes: Am I to infer that we have no jurisdiction over the four signs that are on the ATM and that is why that is not part of this request? Warrick: The request is for the building signs and the ATM is not considered a sign. It is basically an accessory stand alone and you are correct. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other Commissioners? Estes: Dawn, I cannot recall an event where we have allowed four signs, one on each side of the building in the Overlay District, have we ever done such a thing? Warrick: I can't recall a specific project where we have done that. We have considered second signs. In fact, I was looking at a project today. We did make that consideration for I believe the Olive Garden and possibly two or three others. When a building does have frontage on two street rights of way that is a provision that the ordinance addresses. In this case, the Dollar Tree, which is on the end cap of one of the buildings within University Square, the Planning Commission did approve a third sign for that because it was felt that there was visibility from the bypass. This particular site has frontage or an access on Shiloh Drive on the east and on 6th Street, Highway 62 on the south. Estes: Staff is recommending approval of one additional wall sign on the west elevation and then if the Commission determines that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway right of way you are recommending an additional sign on either the north or the west? Warrick: That is correct. Estes: If you are recommending a wall sign on the west elevation and then if we find, can you see where I'm headed with that? Warrick: I am. That should read north or the east. Estes: That should read north or east building elevation? Warrick: Yes Sir. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 15 Estes: So you would be recommending a sign on the west elevation and then if we find more than one front facing a street, a sign on either the north or the east building elevation and the applicant would choose. Is that correct? Warrick: Yes. I believe that it is appropriate for this particular building to have a sign on the west because that is the front door to the structure. You are going to need to have some way finding in order for people to get where they need to be to access the front door. The south elevation of the building faces Hwy. 62, it is a main thoroughfare. The question is whether or not it is considered that he other side of the structure, particularly the east side, actually has a front facing an additional street right of way. There is a lot intervening between this structure and Shiloh Drive to the east. Right now it is kind of a decrepit building. It was formerly a gas station convenience store that is unoccupied right now. I feel like that is a corner at a busy intersection and redevelopment will certainly occur in that location. Estes: Our UDO would permit two wall signs then and you are recommending one on the west and the applicant can choose the location of the second one, either on the north or the east, is that correct? Warrick: Actually the second wall sign I believe would be a variance because I don't believe that the building has a front facing a second street right of way. Estes: Ok, thank you. Allen: I presume this shade of blue is a corporate color. I wondered whether or not this was discussed at Subdivision, the color? Bunch: Yes. At Subdivision the original building had red banding and this was a change to blue banding, which does not necessarily match the other existing buildings but there is a common theme of the brick facades and the pilasters and arches and that sort of thing that ties it in architecturally. The feeling at Subdivision Committee was that the color, since it is a stand apart building would not make a significant difference on this particular building and to permit the use of the corporate colors. Church: I guess I would like to hear from the applicant about his taken on the joint identification monument signs that are there. If he has plans to use those in some way. Taylor: Possibly. We have not discussed it with the landlord. I didn't know what the costs associated with them are. With the sign that is allowed on the Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 16 south side of the facade that would take care of pretty much our 6th Street identity. What we are asking for now is signage on the east side of the building where it would be easily identified from I-540. Someone would see the sign, they may not exit right then but they would know where to come back to for First Security Bank because it is the only one that is in that quadrant of town. We feel it is important. It is very visible the way the street curves and the way the building lays with the setbacks on the property just east of us it is very obvious that you would have a line of sight from I-540 to the building and to the signage. Did that answer your question Alice? Church: Yes. Anthes: Madam Chair? Hoover: Yes Commissioner Anthes. MOTION: Anthes: Considering that the applicant has access to additional signage on both the monument sign and four sides of an ATM I move that we pass ADM 03- 7.00 with the approval of one additional wall sign on the west elevation. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Anthes, is there a second? Allen: I will second. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there more discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-7.00 allowing one additional wall sign on the west elevation was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you Renee. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 17 ADM 03-09.00: Administrative Item (Lowe's C-PZD signage, pp 557/596) was submitted by Mark Millis on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Hwy 62W (6`h Street). The request is for clarification of the signage requirement for the Lowe's lot within this PZD as determined by the Planning Commission under commercial design standards guidelines. Hoover: Item number four is ADM 03-09.00 for Lowe's signage. Dawn, will you address this please? Warrick: This is another signage consideration for the Planning Commission. The Commercial Planned Zoning District for Lowe's was approved by the Planning Commission at your most recent meeting, on May 12`h. It has been forwarded to the City Council for consideration and the applicant is requesting an amendment to the way that the project was approved at the Planning Commission level with regard to signage. When you did approve this you approved a monument sign for the Lowe's site. The applicant, at this time, is requesting to replace that monument sign with a pole sign. The request is for a pole sign that meets the ordinance requirements which are 30' tall maximum 75 sq.ft. display surface area setback 40' from the front property line of city right of way. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward and provide us with some explanation of your intent? Millis: Good evening to the Commission. My name is Mark Millis with Lowe's Home Centers. I apologize for having to burden you with this extensive issue again. After the Planning Commission meeting that we discussed at length what type of signage we would move forward with and had some controversy over what a monument sign was as per the ordinance, which now I understand is 6' in height and a monument style sign which was my interpretation until the moment before the vote. When we went through the weeks between the Commission and the City Council meeting we met with staff, spoke with staff and tried to determine whether or not the recommendation from Planning Commission was actually the written law with the PZD or if we could revert back to what the ordinance actually allowed us, which was the 30' and the 75 sq.ft. It was stated that since this was a PZD that we were under the rules and guidelines of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Therefore, at City Council and at the recommendation of staff, they felt that this issue should come back to the Planning Commission for technical assistance so here we are. Since then it is my understanding from the City Attorney that the Council actually has the authority to change a recommendation from the Planning Commission at City Council. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 18 Williams: That would be correct. We would have to redraft the ordinance that was presented to the City Council but just as if the City Council can hear appeals of Preliminary Plats and Large Scale Developments I think that they are not absolutely bound by the recommendations made by the Planning Commission when you recommend a PZD to them. Millis: So again, here we are. What we presented, which was to go back to the ordinance requirement was basically to get us to this meeting. What I want to present to you so that you understand that we want to present a sign that is in conformance with the architectural features of the building but that meets more of a height requirement consistent with a sign that we envisioned. I have several different sign sketches for you to view that I would like to basically get your input on. We are willing to modify our proposal tonight before you so that it does meet more of the intent that the Commission formerly approved. Without anything more here they are. I have intentionally taken out the dimensions of the sign so that we can talk in concept instead of height and square footage but our intention is to meet the ordinance requirements. I know prior to Mr. Estes was talking about granting us the additional square footage for it not to be included in the 75 sq.ft. but we do not feel it is in our best interest to go before the variance board with this. We would like to settle this before the Planning Commission, go to City Council and be done with it. We have time lines to meet and I think the process would be we would have to go to the variance board to obtain approval of any kind of exception to the rule before we get to Council and they could formally adopt the PZD. Williams: I think that is probably correct. Is that what you think too Dawn? Warrick: I think that would be the appropriate course. Hoover: Thank you. We will pass these along here. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this ADM 03-09 about Lowe's signage, anyone in the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Estes: Because my remarks were the genesis of the monument sign I feel that I should comment. There was a full and complete discussion in my opinion regarding the monument sign. We discussed the square footage of the sign, we discussed the additional architectural features. There was some discussion regarding whether there would be two monument signs or one monument sign. There was some discussion about additional square footage on the monument sign. In my opinion our UDO could not be more clear with regard to a monument sign. It reads the sign shall be a maximum of 6' high, 75 sq.ft. in area and setback a minimum of 10' from the property line. During our discussions and my dialogue with the Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 19 applicant's representative we discussed the 75 sq.ft. Staff discussed the 10' setback. We did not specifically discuss the maximum of 6' high. Among all of the duties and responsibilities that we are charged with one of them is not to explain to each and every applicant the meaning of the UDO. They come before us charged with that responsibility and should be made aware by reading the UDO what it provides. This seems to me to be something that we have seen in the past and that is an applicant will make an agreement, will concede to something, will offer something in hopes or anticipation that they will get the votes they need and then after the item is voted up then they want to come back and redo it. It is now I believe coming before the City Council on its second reading. I am offended that this comes back to us. I don't know what could've been clearer at the time. We discussed the square footage, we discussed the setback, we discussed the monument sign, I don't know what happened. I don't know if corporate didn't like it. If corporate didn't like it corporate should've been here when it was discussed. I don't know if the applicant's representative that presented did not have the authority to enter into this agreement, if not, then there should've been an applicant representative here who did have that authority. I would say leave it as is. The City Council can do what they please. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Millis: I would like to respond. On page 48 of the minutes after several pages of discussion of the monument sign, which I do not believe were as clear as you stated, you say "Let's leave it with the 75 sq.ft. and not to exceed 6' in height because the applicant is going to have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals anyway and they can adjust this and do whatever they want to there." I do not think that that is very clear and concise as to what we would end up with once we got to the variance board and again, I would like to settle the matter before the Commission without going to the variance board and having to present an item that is not favorable at this time to the variance board. I think what we have presented is actually, and what I want to speak to you about is that we will meet the 75 sq.ft., including the architectural peak, which is less than what you previously recommended and we will reduce the height of the sign to 20' in addition we will make the sign match the building so that it is architecturally enhanced with split faced block and materials that are consistent with the building. Instead of the Wal-Mart sign, which is not a monument sign, it is a single mono pole sign, no monument style whatsoever. That is my recommendation or my request, 20' in height, I meet the ordinance requirements and I will install a monument style sign. Thank you. Estes: Madam Chair. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 20 Hoover: Estes: Warrick: Ostner: Warrick: Ostner: Warrick: Ostner: Warrick: Ostner: Warrick: Osmer: Warrick: Ostner: Yes Commissioner Estes. I stand corrected, we did discuss the 6' in height, thank you for bringing that to our attention. With regard to a 20' monument sign I don't think I've ever seen one of those things. That would certainly be a safety hazard. I can just imagine how it would block the view. Staff, do we have a 20' monument sign anywhere in Fayetteville, Arkansas? The city has defined monument sign. A monument sign is a sign that is flush with the ground, the base is flush with the ground, and it is no taller than 6' in height. If it is taller than 6' in height we would consider it simply a free standing sign and it would be required to meet the setbacks and size requirements for a free standing sign. In this case if we are looking at a free standing sign that is 20' tall with 75 sq.ft. sign face the required setback would be 40' from the front property line in order to comply with the ordinance. Excuse me, I missed how far the setback is. Itis 40'. It is 40' if it is anything above 6' tall? It is 40' for 75 sq.ft. sign face that is anything above 6' tall, that is correct. Are they offering to site this? I have not seen a site plan. I think we might have a nomenclature issue. This is what we define as a pole sign just because it is not flush with the ground. This is what we define as a monument sign, if it were 6' tall we would call this a monument sign. There is no pole. I am in favor of either of these if they meet our signage issue. This one would have to be under 6' and this one would have to be 40' back from the right of way. They could do the other one also if it were setback 40' from the right of way. They can do a pole sign with no poles if they set it back far enough. It is a free standing sign. It would be free standing since it is taller. I would be in favor of making a motion, it seems moot. My motion would be to. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 21 Williams: For a point of order if you do wish to change the recommendations that you set forth last meeting then you would actually need to do a motion to reconsider according to our rules we are guided by the Roberts Rules of Order and so anyone that voted in favor of the previous motion, I think everybody did could make a motion to reconsider and then you would go back in and change that one recommendation and then you could make it to where you must comply with the sign ordinance and you wouldn't be necessarily approving whether it is a 40' pole sign or a monument sign if they chose to go that way. The first thing you would have to do is a motion to reconsider and that would have to be passed. Hoover: Thank you. Bunch: Either staff or the applicant, can you refresh our memories of what other sign issues there were on this? I seem to recall that the facade of the building had a variance to allow the Lowe's logo with the peak and also can you address issues of a joint identification sign for the total development? Warrick: There is a joint identification sign proposed for the development. With regard to the Lowe's sign on the structure I have looked back through the sign ordinance, I don't believe that that requires a variance because I believe that that falls within the size requirements for a wall sign and like I said, I don't believe that that does require a variance. The joint identification sign the applicant may be able to speak to the proposed use of that. There was one approved for the Planned Zoning District. Millis: Lowe's will not be part of the joint development or shopping center sign that the developer is installing. He is allowed to have 30' in height and 300 sq.ft. and he will use that for all of his smaller shops on his 7 '/2 acre tract. Lowe's will have its own sign that we are discussing here. Bunch: Thank you. Allen: Just as a comment, the only thing about this building that we came up with when we did this a couple of weeks ago that prevented it from being a big box was the triangle up at the top which was indeed the signage so the signage became the architectural feature. It is difficult for me to see that anybody will have difficulty locating Lowe's. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Allen. I would like to just comment on the applicant's questions about how clear we were during our last meeting. Rereading the minutes from that meeting it was very clear the 6' in height, 75 sq.ft. so I don't think that that burden should be on us. I believe that it Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 22 is clear in the ordinance and something that you should be aware of. It was also stated here. I don't see the need for clarification. The other thing I wanted to point out is that if we do have a motion to reconsider and we look at this signage is that our request is to determine a pole sign verses a monument sign, not which one of these 15 reiterations we have so just be considering that. Is there a motion to reconsider? MOTION: Ostner: I don't know what PZD it was but I will make a motion we consider the Lowe's PZD. Hoover: I have a motion to reconsider by Commissioner Ostner. Do we have the number Dawn? Warrick: It is C-PZD 03-2.00. Hoover: Is there a second for the motion to reconsider this PZD? Church: I will second it. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Church, is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to reconsider PZD 03-2.00 failed by a vote of 3-0-5 with Commissioner Anthes, Commissioner Estes, Commissioner Hoover, Commissioner Bunch and Commissioner Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion fails. Hoover: Thank you Renee Thank you Mark. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 23 CUP 03-12.00: Conditional Use (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Assoc., Inc. for property located at 1923 Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for a nursing home / convalescent home in the R-2 zoning district (use unit 4) for the addition of a 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit. Hoover: We will move on to item number five, CUP 03-12.00 for Butterfield Trail Village. Jeremy? Pate: The subject property for the Conditional Use is 1923 E. Joyce Blvd. on the south side of Joyce Blvd. between College Avenue and Old Missouri Road. The site currently includes apartments, duplexes, villa homes and a residential long term facility nursing home. The applicant proposes to expand an existing structure on the property in order to provide an Alzheimer's care unit and associated parking. The project entails an addition containing 22,247 sq ft Alzheimer care unit and increase of 34 total parking spaces. The applicant states "This expansion intends to convert the two bedroom program long term care facility to a one bedroom program facility with no net increase in the number of beds." Several parking spaces will be removed for the proposed addition. Those proposed removed spaces will be replaced and additional parking will be provided in a new 41 parking space lot located south of the new construction. The proposed addition to the Butterfield Trail Village facility is generally compatible with adjacent properties and with other property in the district. This use has existed in this location for several decades. The proximity to transportation systems, medical facilities and other community amenities are desirable and the project is developed in a manner which mitigates the impact of such a use on nearby residential areas. Staff is recommending approval with one condition. That is Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Yates: Hello, I am Kevin Yates with CEI Engineering. This development is going to be a similar look as far as the existing buildings that are there. The use is there currently. All they are going to do is go from a two bed type facility to a one bed facility in this wing. The additional parking was based on a study by the Butterfield Trail people as far as their staff. The projected number of increased staff that they thought they would have in the future and the additional parking they thought they needed at the time. We are doing trees and everything to meet the tree ordinance. I don't have a whole lot other to add than that. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 24 Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this CUP 03-12.00 for Butterfield Trail Village? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Estes: Madam Chair. Hoover: Yes Commissioner Estes. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of CUP 03-12.00. Allen: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there anymore discussion? Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-12.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 25 LSD 03-15.00: Large Scale Development (Butterfield Trail Village, pp 175) was submitted by Kevin Yates of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Butterfield Trail Village for property located at 1923 Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 45.75 acres. The request is for the addition of a new 22,347 square foot Alzheimer's care unit with 34 additional parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Moving on to item number six, the companion item, LSD 03-15.00 for Butterfield Trail Village. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. This proposal is for the expansion of that existing medical facility we just spoke of to include a 22,347 sq.ft. Alzheimer's care unit and the construction of a new parking lot with 41 spaces. Seven spaces are being removed with the expansion with a net gain of 34 spaces. The right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline on Joyce Blvd. The applicant is requesting a lesser dedication which must be approved by the City Council. A letter and exhibit is included in your packet pertaining to that request. Tree preservation, existing is 15.7%, the preservation is 15.35%, mitigation will be 31 trees planted on site. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development subject to eight conditions of approval. 1) Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code. 2) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow for Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities in an R-2 zoning district. 3) The required bicycle parking racks shall be u -shaped as required by ordinance. 4) Fifty-five feet from centerline shall be dedicated along Joyce Boulevard. Items five through eight are standard conditions of approval. Hoover: Can the applicant go ahead and give us a presentation of your Large Scale Development including your elevations? Yates: Kevin Yates with CEI Engineering and I have Steven Jones here with Miller, Boskus Lack Architects. He is the architect on the project. We are fine with all of the issues that you have except for the right of way dedication. The reason being there is they have some really nice trees and a wood fence along that frontage along Joyce. We had marked with some orange flagging and asked that you guys go by and tour this on your agenda session to have a look at if we gave that right of way and the improvements did happen how they would affect those trees and that fence in that area. In the letter I prepared to you I showed you where the principal arterial section does allow for the use of a minor arterial section. Hoover: I am sorry, we are looking for the letter. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 26 Warrick: They were distributed at your places this evening. They should be in front of you as additional information. Hoover: Thank you. Please continue on. Yates: Yes Ma'am. The principal arterial section does make an allowance for when right of way is unattainable the minor arterial four lane section may be used with a 90' right of way verses the 110' required for the principal arterial. What we would like to request is in our consideration for reduction of this right of way requirement is to allow us to dedicate to that fence, which would be 43' approximately from centerline of the existing street and if we could reduce that 10' greenspace between the sidewalk and the back of curb to 7' that would make that function as far as that section allowing that greenspace fencing and trees to remain. It is like 23' wide between the fence and their parking that is on site at this point. It is just those are really nice trees and the people at Butterfield Trail Village would like to keep that look up. I understand that the improvements aren't planned in the near future but if they did happen and the right of way was there they would more than likely be taken out. Hoover: Thank you Kevin. Would you like to go ahead and go through the commercial design guidelines with your elevations? Warrick: This is actually a residential development because it is residential in nature we don't consider this applicable for commercial. Yates: As far as our elevations and looks, if you are aware of the Butterfield Trail Village buildings that are out there now it will be a rock veneer with wood shake shingles. It is a real similar look. In fact, I think they are going to be able to use the same quarry in the rock to get the similar look on the building. Anthes: Whether or not we are considering it I would like to thank Miller, Boskus, Lack for doing such a good job with the packet and including it anyway. Thank you. Hoover: I am going to open it to the public now. Is there anyone that would like to address this LSD 03-15.00 for Butterfield Trail Village? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners and the applicant. Right of way discussion? Estes: I am reluctant to give up the right of way. The reason is if the city needs it back they are going to have to pay for it. We are giving it away today and they are going to have to buy it back at some time in the future. That doesn't make any economic good sense to me. As stewards and as Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 27 servants of the community I think we need to, I know we need to think about that. To give away property of substantial value today anticipating that perhaps at some time in the future there will be a need for it and then we will have to pay for it is not good stewardship on our part and I am just not willing to do that. You know there has been the improvement to the north side of the street, the sidewalk improvement. There are other needs, something has got to be done with Zion. This isn't even on the radar screen but if 30 years or 40 years or 20 years from now it is I don't want somebody getting a hold of me and saying why did you give it away back in May, 2003 and now we're having to pay 5.5 million dollars to get it back. Yates: May I respond? Hoover: Yes please. Yates: I believe you make a good point there as far as your responsibility in looking out for that but I think we gave you an option here to meet the requirement as far as making this function with a minor arterial section and right of way there. That is actually in place as far as the street section right now. I think the trees and the fencing there that falls within the guidelines the Planning Commission likes to go for as far as maintaining those nice mature trees and the greenspaces and everything and that is what we are looking for here. This is a home to all of these folks and if you take those trees away just imagine what it is going to be like with no screening or anything to Joyce Blvd. there being a busy street as it is and I would just like you to take that into consideration. Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back when we ask for it? That seems fair to me. Yates: I really can't answer that. I would like to forward that on to Mr. Honeycutt here with Butterfield Trail Village. Honeycutt: I am Don Honeycutt, I represent the Butterfield Trail Village Board. We were trying to keep our beautiful landscape front there as far as, it has been there for about 17 or 18 years now. Trees are getting to be pretty big. In another five or ten years they will be much bigger. It would be a shame I think to lose the whole front there at any point. If we have room now with this way to get an extra lane I feel like that would be enough property to give that lane and that is what we would be asking for. Estes: If we give it to you tonight will you give it back to us when we ask for it? Honeycutt: What do you mean, the tree line? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 28 Estes: Your ordinance requires right of way dedication 55' from centerline on Joyce and you are asking for what? Honeycutt: 45'. Yates: We are asking to reduce it. Right now currently there is approximately 40' and we are asking to go ahead and give 43' up to the fence which would be 2' shy of the minor arterial section which if the right of way is unattainable you are allowed to use that section verses a principal arterial, which is the 20' reduction in right of way requirement. We would be within 2' and I think we can make that function by giving in that greenspace in that section a little bit. Complementing the fact we have a huge greenspace on the other side of it. Granted that is for separation from traffic but 7' or 10' you know, you still have got pretty good separation there. Estes: If we give it to you tonight when we want it back will you give it to us or are you going to make us pay for it? Honeycutt: I can't make that determination. We have a board meeting tomorrow night that we can bring a proposal like that up with the board. Estes: Mr. Williams is such a thing permissible? Williams: I would doubt that the board could really commit to that at this point in time without a deed to the city. I don't think the City Council would go along with a reduction. It is my understanding the City Council would also have to approve this. Dawn, is that correct if it is a lesser dedication? Warrick: Yes. Williams: What I would like to assure you, and my parents live there as you know so I am well acquainted with Butterfield Trail and it is certainly a nice development, the city is not about to go out and knock down all of those trees. On the other hand I also don't think the city is going to approve a lesser dedication for one of its principal arterials. As you know on the Master Street Plan Joyce is the northern most through way through the city and I don't think that they are going to approve a lesser dedication even than a minor arterial would require for a street that has got tremendous traffic and only going to have more traffic in the future. I think Mr. Estes' point is well taken. On the other hand, I want to assure you that there is nothing in the Capital Improvements Project list that I have seen anywhere in the near future to do anything that would, in fact, endanger those trees. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 29 Honeycutt: As I say, still, I couldn't release that until the Board approved it, the Butterfield Trail Board. I think the offering that we have here would give the additional lane that would be required probably for turning. It would just eliminate the width because the section shows a 20' boulevard down the middle of that section, which I wouldn't see as working there because there are so many drives to turn in and out of you would eliminate that whole boulevard there in a center lane for turning and that is what we need the full length of Joyce is a turning lane so you can get out and get on the other side. The boulevard in the center of that section would not work there I don't believe. I would refer maybe to the Hwy. 265 that went through where a boulevard was proposed there and that didn't go through with the Highway Department. There is where I think we can make up the difference and pull those boundaries in from 55' and still get that additional lane. You see the tree section in the center of that boulevard? Estes: Yes. Honeycutt: What we are in effect doing is eliminating that and making a turn lane down through there and putting the greenspace on the outside of it where our trees are. If I am correct we are going to have to go to the board to get this approved. We were just trying to get some comments from the Planning Commission as far as preserving the landscaping that we have and any comments that you have positive or negative. It looks like we have some negatives but I don't, we're not asking or trying to say that we will do this, because we will be appealing it to the board. That is the way the ordinance reads isn't it? Warrick: Yes. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Ostner: I would agree with Commissioner Estes that I am reluctant to narrow or to lessen our right of way dedication. Part of the point is trying to be consistent with other developments along this street and if we give it to you we've got to give it to them and suddenly we have reduced our area to expand and serve traffic. I understand the reasoning on the lane issue. However, in right of ways we bury all kinds of stuff. We bury storm drains, sewers, water and electric. We might bury nothing but I am inclined to suggest the more trees get planted inward and in 30 years if we have to expand they are already grown. I don't know of a better solution. Honeycutt: We've got some parking that would be interfering with that right now if you look at the plan. There is a whole line of parking right next to the building itself. I don't know how many spaces. It is between the main Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 30 entrance there to Butterfield and the east entrance. There is a service drive that comes in for the parking right there which to get the same amount of landscaping we would be eliminating that whole drive right through there. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Bunch: Regardless of what the dedication of the right of way is or even if the right of way dedication is not reduced, that does not mean that the design parameters that were discussed by the applicant could not be achieved within regardless of whether it was a smaller dedication or larger dedication. It is the same design theme as a reasoning for the smaller dedication could still be used with the larger dedication. Yates: That is true. We just wouldn't have the assurance at this time that those trees would be protected because you might not be here to give guidance in that. If that was your intent now and we gave that right of way someone else 10 years down the road had the authority to come in and build that road they might not realize what your intent was and come through and just take all the trees out. That is where we would be reluctant as far as the additional right of way with the less design scheme. Bunch: I definitely appreciate your concerns because this is the same kind of issue that gave us North College, the removal of trees in the right of way and that sort of thing to create access. There is another part of this. Dawn, you might can help me. Did we get the 30% over and under parking for this type of project? Warrick: That is permitted. Bunch: I noticed that you were speaking of parking in relation to this and you were showing 455 required and even with the additional parking only coming up to 363, is that taking into account the 30% under? Yates: The required that is shown does not take into account the 30% under. We fall into compliance if you take that into account. Bunch: The 30% under would bring you down to about 319? Yates: Yes Sir. Bunch: Ok. Vaught: I would agree with Commissioner Estes also on this right of way issue. In 20 years no matter if we lessen the dedication or not, if we need the land the city will get it and tear down the trees. It is a matter of if we are going Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 31 to pay for it in 20 or 30 years or whether we have it dedicated now. No matter which way we go when we need to expand Joyce we will expand Joyce I think. That is the issue to me. It is not a protection of the trees because no matter which way we go they would be in jeopardy. I would be against lessening the right of way for the same reasons physically for the city having to come up with the money in 20 or 30 years. Bunch: In 20 or 30 years as the applicant discussed, those trees will be quite sizeable and I think unless our tree ordinance changes in that 30 years would be listed as significant trees and there would have to be a replacement for them and there would have to be considerable mitigation so that would definitely be a consideration when all of us are gone as to what happens to those trees within that right of way. Honeycutt: Another comment about that is we have had discussions about the cost of redoing the landscaping that we have done there if that is taken in as right of way who pays for that if we have to go inward to get it. That is another discussion that we have had at Butterfield Trail. Hoover: Dawn, would you address that? Warrick: At this time no additional landscaping would be required beyond what the Large Scale proposes. If any additional landscaping were proposed or desired by the applicant then that would be your option. Honeycutt: If the widening went into effect then we would lose the line of trees and landscaping and we wouldn't have any room really to put anything along where this parking is that is on the east side there. It would be like the north side of the street where we have got parking lot right up to the sidewalk is what it would look like and we are trying to shield Butterfield from its original landscape design by leaving that landscaped area in there. That is really our point that we would like to see. Yates: I would like to repose this question. I think there may have been some misunderstanding. If the street improvements happen in the future and those trees are taken out and the mitigation was required because they are substantial trees, who would pay for that mitigation at that time I think is what Mr. Honeycutt's question was. Warrick: If the trees were part of the city right of way and they were owned by the city and the city removed them then the city would be responsible for any replacement I believe would be the situation in the future. Honeycutt: Replacement on the owner's property? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 32 Warrick: It would most likely be a replacement within the city right of way as it exists after the improvements. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Anthes: I guess I would like to reassure the applicant that no one on this Commission wants to see those trees town down. Honeycutt: I understand that, we are just trying to see if we feel like we can keep them. Anthes: We also appreciate that you came to us with a solution, not just a problem. I appreciate the street section. I hope we put it in a permanent file so when the street is redesigned your firm is hired to do the work and you can do that very section. For the reasons Commissioner Estes stated it is very difficult for us to say now that we will accept a lesser dedication knowing that in the future we will have to pay for it and knowing that in the future we can design to a standard such as you suggested. That said, I believe I would have to concur with the other comments of the Commissioners this evening. Honeycutt: One other question I have, is the full 55' taken all up and down Joyce now? Warrick: All along the front property line of the subject property. Honeycutt: On the north side? Warrick: I don't know if the full 55' exists along the north side. That is a vacant piece of property and when we look at a development on that if it has not been dedicated. There is a portion of that that is undeveloped. Any of the property that has been developed since the Master Street Plan went into affect in 1995 is subject to the right of way dedication requirements. That is when the 55' from centerline was determined. The street sections that we are considering that the applicants provided are actually part of the city's General Plan and our Master Street Plan document. The city has the flexibility to work within those street sections when we are looking at developing new streets and improving or expanding existing streets. When we send those projects out to design or if we design them in house we do have those standards existing. Like I said, the flexibility is there to mitigate situations where you may not have the necessary right of way or there may be improvements such as these that the city desires to maintain if possible within the parameters of the existing right of way. There are possibilities to work around those trees. If we don't have the right of way Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 33 then we don't have anything to work around and we don't really have the options that may be available otherwise. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Is there any other discussion or motions? MOTION: Estes: I move for approval of LSD 03-15.00. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second? Allen: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-15.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 34 LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development (Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561) was submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of James Mathias of Mathias Rentals for property located west of Duncan Avenue and north of 12th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres with 36 units (60 bedrooms) and 66 parking spaces with a 0.466 acre parkland dedication proposed. Hoover: Item number seven on the agenda is LSD 03-13.00 for Duncan Avenue apartments for property located west of Duncan Avenue and north of 12`h Street. Warrick: This property is located west of Duncan and north of 12`h. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately two acres. The applicant is proposing 36 units in three structures, 60 bedrooms total with 66 parking spaces. A 0.466 acre park land dedication is proposed with this project. There is quite a bit of history with this particular project it has been before the Subdivision Committee a couple of times. It has been reviewed by staff several times as well. At the first Subdivision Committee, April 3`a, the applicant proposed 48 units with 80 bedrooms and 87 parking spaces on a total of 2.46 acres. That was a density of 19.5 dwelling units per acre. At that meeting the item was tabled and the applicant met with the neighbors, went back to the drawing board to some degree and came back to the Subdivision Committee on May 15th with a revised project, which is reflected with what you have now. In that revision the applicant removed one structure, reduced the number of units and dedicated almost half an acre of park land to the city for a neighborhood park in this area. After the May 15th Subdivision Committee meeting the Subdivision Committee did forward the project to the full Planning Commission so now we are looking at this project, as I said, with three structures, 36 units, the density has now been reduced to approximately 18 units per acre on the two acres remaining for development with the .466 acre park land being removed. Water exists, a 6" water line exists along Duncan Avenue to serve the proposed development. There is also a 6" sewer line along Duncan Avenue which would serve the proposed development. The applicant will be replacing 650' of the 6" sewer line with an 8" line. All of those existing dwelling units, which are currently tapped into the 6" line will be reconnected to the new line at the developer's expense. I skipped over the parking calculations. The applicant is providing 63 regular parking spaces, 3 ADA spaces and two bicycle racks. The existing site is vacant. Tree canopy on the existing site is 27.24%, the applicant will be preserving 14.05%, the requirement is 20%. Therefore, mitigation is required and the applicant is proposing on site mitigation and the establishment of 16 new trees. 25' of right of way along Duncan Street, 25' from centerline will be dedicated. That is the requirement for Duncan. It is classified as a historic collector on the Master Street Plan. Duncan Avenue will also be improved a Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 35 minimum of 14' from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drains and a sidewalk along the west side. Those improvements will be installed by the applicant. With the dedication of the .466 acres of park land there is still a requirement to meet the balance of that ordinance requirement and that will be paid with money in lieu, or is proposed to be paid with money in lieu, of $2,266.25 to meet the balance. There have been wetlands delineated on this property. The applicant has processed information to the United States Corp. of Engineers. The Corp. of Engineers has concurred with the wetlands delineation and there is a proposed plan under review for a nationwide 404 permit. I have included a letter in your packet that relates to that particular item. In addition to the park land dedication the applicant has worked to alleviate concerns of the neighbors. They have proposed to install fencing and also to jog that fencing around some existing landscaping to provide some privacy and screening but also to keep the fencing out of existing mature trees on the site. I am trying to think of the other issues I needed to address on this. I think that covers the background pretty well. Staff is recommending approval of this project with several conditions and I will read through those for you. 1) Planning Commission determination of offsite sanitary sewer improvements. Staff is recommending that the existing sanitary sewer line be replaced for approximately 650' with a new 8" PVC line to provide sufficient capacity to serve this development. All existing service lines shall be connected to the new 8" sewer line at the cost of the developer. 2) Dedication of ROW 25' from centerline along Duncan Avenue per MSP requirements for an historic collector street shall be required prior to filing. 3) Duncan Avenue shall be improved by the developer a minimum of 14' from centerline, with curb and gutter, storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk along the west side of Duncan Avenue in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Ordinance. 4) The Board of Adjustment must approve a variance of the required frontage for the project. Lot width minimum for multifamily development is 90 feet (§161.06). The variance request is for +/- 46.49 feet of frontage for the lot which will remain after the parkland is split off to be dedicated to the City. 5) A Lot Line Adjustment to create the 0.466 acre parkland tract shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6) All overhead electric lines less than 12 kv shall be placed underground. 7) An 8 foot privacy fence shall be constructed along the south property line. I do believe that covers everything. There is a letter in your packets with regard to the Corp. of Engineers approval of the wetlands delineation. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward? Bunch, M: Good evening. My name is Mandy Bunch and I am here representing James Mathias this evening. Jim Bryant with Mathias Properties is here Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 36 with us as well if we need any further conference with the owner. I did fax a signed. Warrick: We do have signed conditions of approval. Bunch, M: That's what they are. It's been a while since I've been able to do that so I couldn't remember what they were. Dawn has done an excellent job of explaining to you the steps that we have taken on this project to try to accommodate the neighbors and also to have a project and basically we have ended up with three buildings. We have got a park land dedication, we have either mitigated or preserved 62% of the wetlands that were delineated and we expect concurrence with the Corp. and approval of our 404 permit. We have had a lot of negotiations I guess or a lot of basically just doing what everybody wanted to do on this project. We feel like the developer has definitely taken some steps to meet the neighbors at least half way here. The density that we are looking at now is 18 units per acre, which is far less than the allowed up to 24 units per acre in this zoning. The zoning around the project is currently R-2 all around with Industrial on the west side. There are some single family homes east of Duncan and north of the leg on the side of the property. There is a mobile home park to the north. There is also some single-family homes across the ditch to the south. As Dawn mentioned, we worked to mitigate the direct frontage issues with them with fencing and also dedicating some buffer areas that were requested from the property owners as well. I am going to be quiet now because I know that we have probably got quite a few owners out here. I am here for any questions and hope to answer anything you guys have concerns with. Hoover: Thank you Mandy. Before we start public comment, Matt, would you mind you put out a lovely summary here of what is going on with this project and I don't think anyone has talked about the drainage, this last paragraph. Would you tell us about the drainage concerns for this neighborhood? Casey: There were numerous drainage concerns voiced at the original Subdivision Committee and Mandy Bunch and I both looked at the complaints after that, well before and after, but I requested that she provide additional calculations from what was originally submitted for what was going under Duncan Street just south of this project. That seemed to be what the majority of the complaints were centered on. Looking at the calculations that were provided the culvert under Duncan is currently sized to handle the 10 year storm event. That is what we require with any new development. Any new subdivision you have coming through has the storm sewer design for the ten year flood. The detention ponds however are designed to handle up to the hundred -year and reduce the peak flow to Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 37 meet the existing conditions. We don't feel that any off site improvements should be required for this development because it currently meets the standards that are in our City of Fayetteville drainage criteria manual. Hoover: You have in your recommendation in the last sentence, the recommendation, that the City of Fayetteville Transportation Division do some repair work on the existing ditch that runs along Duncan? Casey: Yes, the ditch that parallels Duncan at this culvert that I just was talking about has some erosion where it comes off an existing curb and gutter section and drops into a grass line ditch. It looks like there has been some erosion. It is kind of under cutting the road. We will be forwarding a request to our Transportation Division to perform some maintenance on this area which will, should stabilize the road as well as the ditch that is carrying the flows. Hoover: Thank you. I appreciate that. Now I will open this up to public comment. Just know with public comment you get to speak once only. Be sure to sign in at the podium and if you try to make your comments kind of concise so we don't go on too long and you might, as a favor to us, state what your main issues are about the project good or bad and try to stay on topic if you would. We would appreciate it. Is there a member of the audience that would like to speak to us on this Large Scale Development for Duncan Avenue Apartments? Woody: Hi there. I am Mitch Woody. I live two doors down from this project and also own the property adjacent to it on the south side. I am a former real estate broker and now am a fleet manager at JB Hunt. I like to see apartments being built because it provides housing for those who need it. The problem I have with this project, and the only real main problem is the water drainage. I don't believe that this detention pond the way it is shown on this plat is going to be sufficient to handle all of that runoff. I am not talking about the park space on the east side but the detention pond is only about 1/10 of the remaining property. If you turn all of this drainage, let's say this absorbing soil into asphalt you know, I don't believe that this detention pond is going to be able to handle it. I know Matt was saying about how they believe that it is going to handle the 100 - year flood. Well, I don't think it will handle a two year flood because you know, if you turn water absorbing soil into asphalt and pavement you know it is just not going to have any place for this water to run off to. I am not a hydrologist or an engineer but I know that this water is going to have to have some place to go to and once this detention pond is full what good will it do? I see detention ponds all over the county that are full of water and I know that if it rains that water is just going to run right out of the detention pond and flow into the creek or wherever else it is going to Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 38 go. That is my main issue. I am not concerned if we have 18 units per acre or 50 units per acre. That is what developing land is all about. Mainly I really believe somebody should really take a closer look at this detention pond because in my view they should eliminate this building on the south side of the property and have a detention pond across the entire south side of that land. The way it is drawn here I just don't see it happening. You are turning I think the detention pond is a great idea if it is going to be effective. The way it is shown here being 1/10 the size of the remaining property I don't see it but that is all I have to say about it. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Would you be sure to sign in? Woody: Sure. Hoover: Do we have any other member of the audience that would like to speak on this Large Scale Development? Would you come forward? Woody: Also, it would be nice if they could run a bus route down through Duncan Street. Thank you. Peterson: My name is Wanda Peterson. I live at 1325 Ellis. This is down from this proposed development. I have experienced flooding for every since we have lived there and we have lived there for 45 years. I see these ten year floods and five year floods and any other flood that decides to come down the creek like the last string we had. It didn't quite go over the bank but it was running pretty full for a couple of days. I have pictures here if you all would like to see them of some of the past floods that I have had and some of the problems that we have had. Hoover: Would you identify what creek that is or where that is? Peterson: It is town branch. It is the creek that runs from, it is called town branch but there are two different creeks in town that are called town branch. This is the west town branch that runs from the trestle and the underpass at the conjunction of the railroad and the creek where it comes through the small trestle. I have a picture that might better explain. This was taken by my mother. This was their garden. This is where it tums there at Anderson Place where that trailer park was. It shows the creek comes through that smaller tunnel there and is spring fed. In fact, my mother carried water from that when she was a young girl to her house that is up from where that garden spot is. I live on Ellis downstream from this property and like I say, we've had plenty of problems. The largest most intimidating flood we've had was about 17 years ago. It came up all the way. I live on three terraces all the way to the first terrace. It came up to Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 39 the second plank on our well house. When we built on to the back of the house which we did we made sure it was a foot above where we knew the water had come in our experience. I am just saying that what we have here is indicative of what may be a lot worse. We've dealt with it. In fact, one of those trees in those pictures my husband, we planted in our backyard. He measured it yesterday, it is an American elm that is 73' tall and it is probably one of the most beautiful elm trees in Fayetteville. It doesn't show that height in that picture because that was taken in 1973. These are just the kind of things I want you all to be aware of. There is also, I have also experienced wetlands where I grew up on Hill Street, just around the corner and up the street from where I live now. There is an acre and a third there at that place and I would say a good half to a full acre is wetlands off of Hill Street, just behind Hill Street. The creek doesn't touch that property but the wetlands do. Do you have any questions? Hoover: Thank you Mrs. Peterson. Creel: Hi, I am Jennifer Creel. Basically I have two essential concerns. One is the drainage, which is tremendous. This water shed has to take care of a lot of water coming down through Town Branch. The wetland that will be partially paved, the wetland and the creek and the watershed have a symbiotic relationship. That swale is designed to absorb water, which concrete doesn't do. I have some pictures right above, right underneath 6th Street of the I think it is either a 22' or 24' culvert. These are recent pictures just this spring before the rains. The amount of drainage became apparent. We tried to plan a creek cleanup for May 17`h. We had just a little bit over 2" of rain and the creek was dangerously high. It wasn't quite over the banks but the yards were flooded. I feel concerned that the wetlands are being paved over. I feel like there should be 100% conservation on the wetland. My second concern, which I just learned, I guess in residential they are not required to provide elevations and show what the buildings are going to look like? Hoover: That is correct. Creel: They can go into a neighborhood where the houses are architecturally diverse and build some vinyl boxes, is that my understanding, is that correct? Hoover: There are no requirements for design guidelines on multi -family right now. We would like to have an ordinance someday but not currently. Creel: It is all single-family homes in that area. It is zoned R-2 and there are trailer parks and I have appreciated the contact that I've had with James Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 40 and Mandy and the park land dedication. I feel concerned about the wetland and I feel concerned that the apartments will not be in keeping with the neighborhood. I understand that that is an impossibility since there is no ordinance but I think that that might need to be considered. Thanks for listening. Hoover: Thank you. Smith: My name is Dianne Smith and at one of the meetings I brought up that the property has lead when it was torn down and I would like for the city, before any building is done because all the construction material is still on that property not cleared off. I would like the city to make sure people get out there and test the property. My husband brought up after I brought that up at the meeting, something that I wasn't aware of, my father in law, somebody asked me at that meeting and it was not from the person who Mr. Mathias brought up how I knew this. My father in law owned those two houses previously before the other owner. That was not put in the meeting and there were people there that heard him ask me how I knew. He put tile in it and the ceiling had lead stuff in it so I knew that. My husband also brought up the man that owned the property previously sprayed vehicles in it. Those homes were built in the 1950's. My father in law also put tile in it that had asbestos tile in it and he also used marine paint. The construction stuff, if you go by the property, is sitting in heaps on the property right now. Before any construction is started would you please get in touch with whoever it is and have that property tested and see if the ground needs to be checked for the children's safety, for the neighborhood's safety. I think that is very important. I felt like if I took somebody there, I shouldn't do it and I did not want to trespass on the property. I did not think that it would be right. I live on the corner of Duncan and 12`h. Those people at 11`h are going to be pulling out right in front of my house. I don't mind that. This corner is at a 90° angle. People go around that and I think it is at what 10 miles per hour. They do not go that way. They come down off of the Hill Street to use it as a right of way off of 6th Street to get through to 15th Street and they come like you wouldn't believe to go to Razorback games, to baseball games, to get right of way. They do not go the mileage. We have bus kids going there. I know there are sidewalks. We have police chasing cars. We have had two wrecks this last weekend. People running into our yards trying to get away from police, baseball games, football games. I don't know if there is anyway to put a stop sign in down there but we have old people trying to walk, kids trying to play and we are talking about cars going as fast as they can. We are going to have people pulling out, I don't know, it is a very short distance from that corner. These cars are going to be pulling out of that housing, these apartments, not very many feet from that corner. My house is right on the corner and it is going to be pulling out directly in Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 41 front of my house. These cars come at a 90° angle out of that corner. You are going to have severe wrecks on that corner and you are probably going to have people getting hit by cars. You need to take that into consideration. There are several wrecks. That is why they lowered the speed limit on this corner. Please take that into consideration. This is a neighborhood. When we put these housing additions in or apartment additions let's make neighborhoods better in Fayetteville. If this is going to be students a lot of them are going to be walking to the University and even if it is going to be a student housing addition they are going to be walking, they are going to have children. Let's make this a better place for them to live. Let's make it a community they are going to live in whatever type of community it is. Let's make it a better place for them to live. If you are going to ok it, whatever is done, if you are not going to ok it, whatever is put there let's make this community a better community, not a worse one. If we are going to make the south Fayetteville a better place to live, let's make it better. Let's look at it and make it better. I will say this about Mr. Mathias, he has tried to make it better. He has tried to go in and help. Go down there and look at this corner. Look what we are fighting too. We are trying to save our community. Just look at this corner. Thank you. Hoover: Do we have any other member of the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development? McPeak: Good evening, my name is Marcia McPeak and I live at 1433 S. Duncan about a block and a half south of the proposed development. My only concern is I am reiterating this lady's point. I have to say that the traffic down our road is horrendous. As she pointed out, we had a police chase with a motorcycle, two of them. One crashed in front of your house directly across the street from where the proposed development is. I do appreciate Mr. Mathias' concessions and I know it is not up to him to put up a stop sign or a light. I do live directly south of a trailer park and I think it would be great for the kids to have a park so they are going to be tracing up and down that road. I live right kitty corner to a head start. It doesn't matter. People don't follow the speed limits so I am just wondering is there like a four way stop we can put in, a light, anything? I just fear that instead of cops and police cars and motorcycles it is going to be ambulances up our road. It is a very short road. That is really my main concern. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Marcia. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to speak on this Large Scale Development? Takad: Hello, my name is Steve Takad, I live at 1215 S. Ellis Avenue, which is I don't know, maybe a block. It is down Hill Street but not necessarily on Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 42 Duncan. I do live in the community and we have a pretty quiet community, it is pretty nice. My two issues would just be increased population density, which I don't know exactly how you guys feel about increased population density but everybody feels differently I'm sure. Let me think about the other one. The increased population density will increase traffic problems. Construction will cause many other problems on the road. Basically, we are all trying to save our community here. I am just asking you to please say no. It is hard though, I am kind of nervous. Just say no. It would be nice if some developers don't make money I guess you know sometimes it is ok for developers to lose money, it is ok. Hoover: Thank you Steve. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this development? Smith: My name is Larry Smith and I live at 1114 S. Duncan. Basically, I grew up here and lived in the area all of my life and from Hill Street all the way down to 1 1th Street and over to Duncan and all the way down to 12th Street that's 99.9% one family housing. There is a trailer park there and most of those trailers are owned by the people who live in the park. They have really cleaned it up. The concerns I have with this property, they talked about the water and about the retaining pond, I know right now there is some litigation in Arkansas about detention ponds designed by engineers that are not working. In fact, there are a few law suits that are going. I am kind of like Mitch, I don't think that five year or two year or whatever, we just had a rain recently right before we had this cleanup, you can see from the pictures, it was by the bridge on Duncan Street. You get your gutters full and they run quick. They get a 3" rain, it is not a question of if it is going to flood out and go down to other people's houses. It is going to be when. I would bet you my years paycheck it is going to happen in the next four or five years once it is built because I've seen what it did on Duncan. My neighbor loses half of his yard when it rains and he has done all kinds of things up there. Of course, that water comes from the University and there is nothing we can do about it. We need a bigger retaining pond or need to do something because the water that holds back there, when I was a kid we would go back there and get swamp rabbits, in August it would be damp. When you put concrete over there it is going to runoff, nothing is going to hold it. That is my big concern. Number two is the road. 11th Street and there are a couple of other streets down here that are getting in really, really bad shape. 1 1th was because of the plumbing and the water blew up the road. Even on the corner of Ellis you can see all kinds of yellow chalk marks where the city has been down saying this is no good, this is no good. I understand it takes money to do the roads. There is more traffic, I guess we are going to get to the point where it is going to be the last straw for the camel. Those were my two Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 43 concerns were the roads and the traffic. To me, I have to agree, he has worked with us. He has done an excellent job and that is all I have to say. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Smith. Is there any other member of the audience? Hawkins: Hi, my name is Loren Hawkins and I live at 1101 S. Duncan. I have been saying that this is a difficult situation and indeed that these issues are difficult and yet maybe it is real simple. Every inch of wetland that is paved has drastic consequences for a broad band of not just this neighborhood, but beyond this neighborhood, down 15th Street. You have heard of flooding that floods the creek. It is not small flooding. It is huge pieces of concrete, parts of granite tombstones have come down this creek into these people's backyards. This land that is wetlands that is proposed to be built on is where a great deal of this water has been able to slowly leach into the ground. I don't think there is a whole lot of ground there because there is underground water in there. This branch that comes up from underneath Carlson Terrace is where Town Branch supposedly starts. The main portion of the creek is not on this property but that water is certainly there. The crawdad holes, you can get water there in August and July. I know this area is zoned and apparently that is what the developer saw when he saw the land. He apparently did not see that this is primarily single-family housing. To replace two houses with three apartment warehouses, 66 parking spaces, it seems unsolutionable. Our vision for 2020 is number five is to revitalize south Fayetteville. Let's not degrade south Fayetteville now just to try to revise it later. The increased traffic, this is basically a working class neighborhood. Folks that haven't spoken up every time the sewer water flies or the streets are crumpled. We are not asking for the brick pavers and street improvements that other areas have. These are folks that just want to make a decent life that they can. It is a single-family neighborhood. I realize that we are not yet in the place to rework our zoning. Is that this is a matter of well if a developer can develop this month they better go ahead and do it because next month we might have the board in place to look at these zoning laws? I think that to increase the traffic on the street, to increase the weight on the schools, which are closing in the neighborhood, is extremely unconsciousable. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Shepherd: Is there someone else before I hope I can sort of summarize? I am Aubrey Shepherd and I will write that down before I forget to do it. I want to say that the good side of the development for me is that I have been to just about every house I could find someone answering the door over the last many months and I've got to know my neighbors a lot better. I have heard some of the same things these people talk about and many, many more. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 44 These are the guys who made it to the meeting. Some people can't come to meetings. We have a lot of shut ins or semi -shut ins or people who are taking care of relatives. One spouse is on oxygen and so forth with some of the older people and most of the younger people have a bunch of kids or not a bunch. Jennifer has three and there are several others with that many. We are a very diverse neighborhood. We are very proud of our neighborhood. Jennifer in particular has spent, she and her husband have spent a great deal of effort remodeling their home which was a home that was on the map in 1908. It was moved in the 1930's from one side of what is now 11`h Street over to what amounts to two houses down South Duncan and it was enlarged after that and they have remodeled it and have cedar siding now they are putting on and it is quite a wonderful place. We are hoping that all of us can do that. Loren and I have improved ours to the tune of about $10,000 in the last year. We had to start with foundation because ours sits on wetland. It is a wetland prairie. Some of the experts described it previously before it was a farm, a mounded damp or moist soil prairie. The land along each side of the creek much of it is. It has the crawdads people talk about are the Ozark burrowing crawdads. Some of you guys have heard a lot about this from Wilson Spring and other areas. Ours is on the watershed of the West Fork of the White River as opposed to the Illinois River. It is very much the same kind of land. Some of the people who have looked at it have certainly agreed to that. This is just a small parcel. As people are already fearing here, the Corp. of Engineers doesn't pay all that much attention to these small parcels and we certainly believe it is important that the city begin to include watershed regulation into it's planning. I know you guys are not the ones making those regulations. These are things to talk about with the people who vote on the Council maybe. We hope before you guys are all off of this body you will have some stronger regulations to manage, hold water sheds and I look forward to that time coming. I think a lot of people would agree. I did watch your show this morning it was rerun of the agenda session. You were on the bus and the guy sat in the back of the bus and filmed it. I couldn't hear all of your comments but I did take yours into account Sharon tonight that we try not to be as long winded as we were at the Subdivision Committee meetings. Hoover: Thank you. Shepherd: Some of the things we do need to say because I don't think everybody on the Commission has probably had a chance to read all the minutes from the previous two meetings. We apologize when we are saying some of these things over and over. This is the particular parcel, this is looking upstream at the two acres to be developed. I will describe and then pass these along briefly. This is Tom Foti of the Arkansas Heritage Department when he came to look at this prairie. He is an expert on Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 45 prairies. He is showing me some of the typical prairie vegetation that they use when they delineate a wetland prairie in particular. Tom was up here that weekend visiting the prairies that the state manages up in Northwest Arkansas and so he took the time and made the effort to come up and visit and walk it all with me and got his feet a little muddy doing it. It shows a different angle. This is adjacent to Mitch Woody's house and you can see the beautiful space where the water runs off and this would be where the water drains from the property in question. It is not currently picking up much water from that prairie land that is to be developed because it naturally holds it's own water at this time. In the future with this development we know that a detention pond or a retention pond, I'm sure Mandy will design it so well that it will do its job I would expect 99% of the time. The concern is when a massive flood occurs, when a lot of rain occurs in a few short hours. These ponds are known to fail. The reason they fail is not the down breaks, the reason they fail is they fill up and now that land upstream from the pond has been paved it is running rapidly down stream. As you can imagine, there is very little that runs off from a natural prairie. It cleanses the water as it leaves there. Here is one of a guy you just looked at, Larry Smith, and he was standing next to the part of the large picture you saw of the railroad a while ago. This is the tunnel through which Town Branch leaves the campus area. It is just south of 6`h Street and it goes under the railroad. That larger picture you saw the other large railroad tunnel up high and of course it has been filled in. Here is a picture of the creek in the winter, Town Branch itself. Of course it's much different from Wanda's picture of the really large flooding. It is quite beautiful each season that you get out there. That is nice. I guess this is also Mitch's. I took these in the morning by the way, that is why they have got spots on the lense. I apologize for that but that shows that this is a little meandering creek leaving that property and it does help hold it's own water. It doesn't rush off there so much. Here is the recent flood. This is the one that caused Jennifer to cancel the creek clean up which she worked very hard to organize. She arranged free food and those sorts of things. That is rescheduled for June 7th. We will say it again, rain or shine, but if it is this much water near flood stage then we probably won't want to do that. Thank you Mitch. I don't mean to torment you with too many pictures. Here is another if you have got that camera focused of the flooding. This is at the 11`h Street bridge just upstream from where this development would empty it's water into the creek. This is looking the other way. It does go under there but there is a waterfall above it. In my eight years living in the area I have seen a water fall over that bridge. This is not a low water bridge. It is several feet above the stream bed but it looks like one in a big rain. This is downstream from Mitch Woody's house. This is part of the drainage when it was up coming off near this development property. Here is some land back there that would be right on the edge of the development. You can see the mature trees and I think Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 46 these may be just off the development and maybe they are safe we hope. This is our home looking at it from the developer's side. Let's see if there is something else worth. I know I have got too many here. I think this one is significant that if you look, this is upstream where the culvert is in Mitch's yard or adjacent to his yard but then if you look downstream here is the real threat of the flooding here. Here is the most threatened home in the bunch. This is Sullens' house and if you can see the creek is running directly toward his house and it does have a concrete runway near the top to guide it but then it looks natural down further and it goes so close to the house that it is higher than the house. The risk is there that they would actually get rushed out should the detention pond fail. People have emphasized the point. Hoover: Aubrey, can you just go ahead and pass those photos around? Shepherd: Once I noticed that the chairman was looking at the pictures I just tried to exploit that fact. I will just send the pile around and give you something to do before you kick me out of here. You will have to appreciate the time of these guys for those of who haven't been in the same meetings we have. Three or four of the different commissioners have attended meetings and listened to us before and this is our shortest night. I promise it is going to be. I saw you checking your pistol to see if you had my name on one of those. Let's sum up what the neighbors have talked about. Traffic on a residential street that often moves much faster than is safe, particularly when children are present; People who live nearby know that this street is at times overwhelmed because it is one fast car after the other. That is one concern. The water lines that frequently break, we talked about that a lot at previous meetings. It is in the minutes as Dawn pointed out before. These guys house has been repeatedly attacked by the broken water lines. It goes probably 75' in the air and goes way over 100' before it hits the ground again. It happens their house is between the ground and the sky in that case. They've gotten window damage and all sorts of things as a result of that. The water line we are still concerned about whether that is going to be mentioned anytime in the future. We are grateful for the work on the sewer that is planned and that is a wonderful thing. We appreciate Mr. Mathias and Mandy for working out some of those details because they may be the most reasonable team of engineer and developer in town and we are glad we are dealing with them. Flooding along Town Branch already occurs downstream and so forth. This has been talked about. Houses near the path you can see that in a couple of those photos. This two acre plot up for development is the only part of this massive watershed that includes Campbell's Soup. The west side of S. Duncan from 15`h to 12th where it enters the small culvert and all the way to the railroad track behind Campbell's Soup. Some of the water comes off Rochier Hill and comes down through there. By the way in the back of Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 47 that large photo you got to look at earlier is what was the Rochier mansion back in the early part of the century. Now there is Rochier nursing home p there and it is timbered and you can't see it as well. This part right now does not have a flooding problem, it is not contributing. I have been there a bunch of times to check this so I could say it and believe it myself that there is very little runoff as this stands as a wetland. The wetland experts tell us that we don't think we need engineering to deal with these drainage problems. No, we don't need any engineering because floods have to be prevented can only be prevented upstream where they are at a cause. You can't really get rid of a flooding problem, you can only move it some place else. If the water falls it is going somewhere. Some of the neighbors, and a lot of them say the same things Wanda says. They didn't all come to talk about it here but they have all talked about it to me that they are concerned that this kind of thing can result in bigger floods on the stream. If we know that a meandering stream with trees and rocks, not a concrete base with trees and rocks on the edges, tree roots, boulders scatted in the stream bed, these things all moderate the speed of runoff. They slow it down, it helps to process the cleansing the water to get rid of some of the things that come off the streets. 66 Street is the main source of water for this. This creek comes off of Razorback Road over here. The main campus over here, most of the University's athletic facilities are in the center of the Town Branch drainage before it crosses Center Street. All of that water around there comes down. Over at the baseball field there is another branch of Town Branch, one of the several actually if you count them all around, and that is the only one that has a settling basin or a holding basin for the water. You may have been by the baseball field lately and noticed there is a goose, her mate and five young geese who suddenly appeared on that pond. Those ponds can be nice and that one seems to be fine. If there is a mosquito problem down there it doesn't bother anybody unless you're at the ballgame late at night and so far the Razorbacks don't get to play late in the summer. Mitch forgot something. Mitch wanted to make sure that when he said let's enlarge the detention pond that you understood that he was asking that the developer remove building number three which comes within just a few feet of the actual delineated wetland as delineated by EGIS and a delineation which was accepted by the Corp. of Engineers. He was going to say that he believed that this could work, the pond could work if that building were removed and the parking that goes with it in order to allow the opportunity for at least part of the ground to still function as wetland out there. You wouldn't need that much bigger of a detention pond, you would need to keep the soil that is there to do the absorbing. We were talking about the University is a source of this water primarily, the 6th Street area and on the main Town Branch. That is why there is a flooding problem already. This won't be the fault of this development but each additional paving that is warranted will have an effect. This is going to be cumulative because Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 48 some of you are aware already that land is being bought between 11`h Street and 6th Street and a pretty large development is planned in that area. I think the engineers have seen some of their preliminary plans for it but I don't believe that the Planning Commission per say will see it for a while. I don't know if it will be a week or a month or several months before it's all brought in but that would be a large package. Did you ever tell them about it Matt? Hoover: Excuse me, Aubrey would you keep on topic on this project? Shepherd: This is part of the project. This is one of the reasons it is so incredibly important that we not approve small parcels here and there without addressing the full watershed. This watershed is extremely large and it is going to get a lot larger, or it is going to get a lot wider and deeper downstream, if more of the wetland between this project and 6`h Street is filled by the upcoming developers. What we are asking, this is for everybody, not just for this project. We need to have our newly installed long term planning department looking ahead as far as possible and say this neighborhood needs a plan that we can tell the developer when he says I'm buying this down here and am going to build so and so. We can so don't buy that, it is going to be wetland. Don't get on this block because the neighbors are mean or something, I don't know. At least you can tell him the technical things and I hope you will have that opportunity in a few years and that the Council will get behind it. The Corp. of Engineers tells you up front that your city could do more to protect wetlands. It is not up to just what we do. We do what we have the authority to do and we give a lot of permits things that personally they would say but they are not going to stall all development. We don't expect to stall all development here. We just want to take a little off the edge of every one of them so that they all contribute to protecting the environment as a whole picture they don't become a very obstructive pattern as we have seen in a few areas. I have taken up more time than I promised not to haven't I? Basically because of this University situation there is an extra burden placed on these developers coming down stream particularly in our basin that they have to sort of make up by holding the water and keeping it out of the main creek and cleansing the water by letting it sit on the moist soil as long as possible and soak in gradually. If they don't do that I don't believe the University is going to go back and build a detention pond where the practice football field is and another one down by Walton arena. There are several areas that a lot of water rushes down in a hurry and if it could be slowed down it would help this problem. I suspect their projects are on board to build more as rapidly as possible. Until the regulations are applied more evenly to state agencies then the city has a difficult time and I am asking for the cooperation of developers in doing this. I think Mr. Mathias has shown some of that already. As Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 49 Mitch says, that one other building would be the thing he believes would make a difference and I think a lot of people in our association agree with him. I am not going to say everything I said before but I would invite you to look at Aubunique.com, the website that our association has contributed to that has pictures and stories with people directly and indirectly and further information about this. A lot of these people are talking about the overall picture, not just these little things that we have talked about here, some of these details. We do want to be part of the bigger picture and make the situation better and I think we need to get everybody on board to do that whether it is the developer or a person renting an apartment or a trailer or buying a home, or somebody like some of these guys who have been here for decades and have grown up here. I appreciate it very much. Let me ask one question, who else wants to speak on this project? Hoover: Aubrey, I think I will ask that if you don't mind. Shepherd: Thank you very much for your patience. Hoover: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to speak to this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, we are going to bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Can we have the applicant address several of these issues that the neighbors have brought up? Bunch, M: Ok. I think I am going to start with the shorter ones. Regarding the intersection of 11`h and Duncan. Our driveway is approximately 150' south of that location. As they spoke, the intersection has already a sign for 10 miles per hour and I think we all realize we can't design our street system for motorcycle chases. Basically, if you look at the number of units that we have we're looking at 239 cars per day based on ITE generation rates. As far as we knew it was a local street to begin with, which that 239 cars is only 6% of that. This area actually operates, as Planning has stated, as a historic collector. It is one of the few straight through routes from 6th Street to 15th Street in Fayetteville, which contributes to the amount of the traffic they get on that street. As far as the building locations or appearance, the developer has talked with the neighbors about this and plans to use a building that is similar but not the same to Mr. Lindsey's units. It is somewhat similar to that. It does have some siding, it does have columns, which he has talked to them about using different materials for those columns. Also note that the closest building to Duncan Avenue is 350' west of the street. It is not as if this building is going to be looming 50' from an existing home. I want to address the drainage, which seems to be the subject of most discussion. Matt touched on the issue that we looked at the culvert under Duncan Street, which is in Mitch's property. The ditch is in his property. Just that area is 50 acres of this basin that attributes to that. This site is only 5% of Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 50 Estes: that area. There is absolutely no way that this 2.46 acre site can solve these drainage issues. The drainage issues that we're discussing are things that Aubrey has touched on with the University draining directly to Town Branch Creek, there not being any significant detention up stream and the homes, some of the homes, the pictures that you have seen are actually located within the floodplain and possibly at floodway elevations. There is absolutely no way that this development can fix that. What we have done is gone in and oversized the detention pond. We have also incorporated the existing wetlands area and the preservation of the existing wetlands within this detention pond so those soils that we are hearing are so pervious and will hold the water are actually what is in the detention pond. Again, the pond is over detaining up to 12% of the drainage basin that goes through the pond. Again, I want to reiterate these people do have problems. There is a real regional problem here and it is something that there is absolutely no way that this development can fix. It is also no reason in my estimation to turn this development down because this development has over detained and has more than met the requirements that the city has posed. I am here to answer any questions. Again, I want to state that this developer, a lot of these issues go right back to density too. I know that all of the neighbors would prefer to see two buildings on this site but we are already down to 18 units per acre. We have already gone down from four buildings to three, which by the zoning it can have 24 units per acre. We're well below that. I think the drainage issues, I agree and we've said this through every meeting that we've gone through with the neighbors is that we agree there is a drainage problem but there is absolutely no way. Going back to one of the comments that if this detention pond fails, which this detention pond shouldn't fail, it is designed using all the standard principals that are used in the Engineering field today I don't know any other way to do it. I am supposing the city doesn't either since we pretty much have an approved drainage plan. There is just absolutely no way that even if this pond does fail that it will increase the problems of the neighbors that they've got right now just based on the sheer percentages of our property to the overall drainage basin. As far as I know there is absolutely no detention on the entire Pinnacle Foods site which is probably 20 plus acres. If they do a new project they will have to detain and that will do nothing but help. The guidelines that the city has established will do nothing but help this problem in the future but we can't solve this problem now with this project. I am here for any questions. the property is zoned R-2 and we can't change that. The density that is permitted is 24 units per acre and this project is 18 units per acre, approximately 25% less than permitted. We can't do anything about the zoning. The density is less than what this applicant would be permitted under the ordinance. Then we go to the drainage issue. This drainage Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 51 Casey: basin is in a floodway and it is in a floodplain. Matthew, could you help us out a little bit? Our ordinance says that post development flows cannot exceed predevelopment flows. What that means is that this project cannot result in more drainage than exists before the development is put in place and with that we come with a detention pond. We've had some questions regarding the capacity of the detention pond and whether the detention pond will fail and if so, when it will fail or how it will fail. Can you tell us Matthew how the calculations are done to determine the size, the depth of the detention pond and are we looking at, what are we providing for? This is made more complex because this drainage basin is in a floodway and it is in a floodplain and we know we have wetlands. Can you talk to us about that? I guess first of all could you confirm or deny that the post development flows cannot exceed the predevelopment flows, is that the case? That is correct. The current policy in the City of Fayetteville is that detention should be provided on all development. It seems to be there is some misunderstanding on what the purpose of a detention pond is. It is not to hold back every bit of water that comes through the site. It is to limit the flow to match a certain amount. In our case we are requiring that they limit it to what is coming off the site now and they have actually decreased the amount of flow that is leaving the site. That is the purpose of the detention pond. Just for clarification, the channel that this site flows into is not designated as a floodplain and a floodway. The creek downstream is and that seems to be what most of the pictures and the complaints were about. We are talking about improvements to the channel It is not on our floodplain maps. That is correct is it not Mandy? Bunch, M: Right, the ditch is not. Some of the pictures were at the culvert though. Casey: The culvert she is talking about is where we had said that we are going to make the recommendation that our Transportation Division do some maintenance to eliminate some of the erosion that is currently happening. That is at the Duncan Street culvert. Bunch: Matt, can you show us on that aerial photograph? I think that would help a lot if you pointed there. Casey: What would you like to see? Bunch: Which part of the creek where the detention pond flows into the drainage area and also where the floodway and floodplain are? Bunch, M: This is Town Branch creek, that is where the floodplain and floodway are located. The project detention pond is in this location, it will actually Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 52 drain to the existing ditches in this location. Mitch who is here spoke, he owns two properties here and this ditch comes through it. You can see this is Pinnacle Foods, it starts in this area, it all drains through this ditch, comes through here and actually turns at a bend in Mitch's property which is why he has some erosion on his property. The ditch after it turns in this location crosses under Duncan Street. This is the location that we were analyzing the possibility of doing off site drainage improvements. That is what Matt is talking about. Estes: Some of the photographs we saw were to the east of Duncan Street and they were in the floodway or floodplain, is that correct? Bunch, M: We have seen pictures several times of this structure and also down here. I know that at least one of these homes is in the floodplain without doing any certified surveys. The majority of the drainage problems that we are talking about are downstream. Bunch: I'm sorry to interrupt your line of questioning Commissioner Estes. Estes: I'm done Commissioner Bunch. Hoover: Are there any other comments or questions? Ostner: I would like to commend the neighborhood for getting together and really sticking with this. I am on the Subdivision Committee and you all have all come to lots of meetings and sat through it as long as I have. I understand you all feel frustrated but as Mr. Estes pointed out we are really looking at a very small thing tonight by zoning to have the right to develop by the State of Arkansas. We are not judging whether they should build or not. You all have the right to build on your property and so do they. I would recommend you all doing some things that you could do something, that you could be more empowered in these areas. Change the zoning. Get together. Last summer we down zoned an area of downtown. You all can do that. It is a huge task. You have got to get together, you have got to come to the city, you've got to work for months. Try to downzone your neighborhood. Get a historic district. You have more controls. You might even get control over how things look. That takes a lot of work too. On the traffic, the city is putting together a plan to try to be able to build traffic calming methods. I live downtown and I am on a cut through. There are people going 60 miles per hour on my 20 mile per hour street and it is terrible. Traffic calming methods, people think of a stop sign, that is not really a traffic calming method. Those things are slowly in the works. Those possibilities to calm traffic. I am just, you all are suffering people building in the floodplain. It is not your fault that someone built those houses on the creek. To solve drainage solutions in neighborhoods Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 53 Hoover: Allen: Bunch: Hoover: MOTION: they try to build the pipe lower that goes somewhere else. You are the somewhere else. There is nothing lower and there is nowhere else for it to go. There are some big predicaments and if you got a neighborhood association to work with larger institutions like the city or the Corp. or whatever, I think a lot of these things could be solved because they are big issues that involve a lot of acreage upstream. I want to thank you all for working hard on this but we can only do a little bit. If Mandy's detention pond were here entire site and no apartments were built it would still flood. It wouldn't solve everything because there is a huge problem up stream. I want to thank you all and I want to comment you all and keep you all working after this issue is done. Are there any other comments or motions? I just wanted to echo Commissioner Ostner's thoughts. I know that recently your neighborhood association has been brought to the coalition of Fayetteville neighborhoods through your organization and regardless of the outcome of this vote this evening I think positive things will happen in your neighborhood as a result of that. This is kind of a catch 22 with what the University has done upstream. There are definitely some upstream issues that need to be rectified. However, one of the methods that we have within our power as this Commission to help with these problems is through the development process and the redevelopment process. As properties are purchased and they change their scope and change their method then drainage regulations come into play and so some of the upstream problems here, I am not saying that this is going to be the major solution but redevelopment on the upstream side, each one of those as it reduces the flow is going to have a positive impact. I wish the University would do their share of it. Another thing that your neighborhood association can do is you can get together and see what other avenues that you have to address the drainage that comes in not just down Town Creek but in each of these little feeder streams that go into it. Again, one of the places where there is money to help alleviate some of these problems is through a redevelopment process. Even though this is a small parcel it is a positive step towards that. There may be some density issues. It may not be popular. In order to have the capital to turn around these drainage problems it takes somebody that is making money off their land to be able to do it. The individual home owner often times does not have that within their power. Do we have a motion? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 54 Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-13.00. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, is there a second? Vaught: Second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Bunch: Could we ask the City Attorney to give us what grounds development can be denied? Do you have a quick list of that? Williams: You face this issue before obviously. A Large Scale Development must meet the requirements of our ordinances, which include the drainage ordinances. I ask you normally to rely upon the staff's expertise in deciding whether or not they have complied with our ordinances. The one other item that you can consider is whether or not the development would compound or create a dangerous traffic situation. Of course you have heard some comments tonight about traffic. That would be the only other thing apart from whether or not they have complied with all of the development ordinances, agreed to pay the park fee and things like that, any infrastructure improvements that were required. According to the report I read, they have complied with those developmental ordinance requirements. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Will you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-13.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 55 LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Hoover: On to item number eight, LSD 02-29.10 for Sequoyah Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks for the property at Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue. Warrick: This is a Large Scale Development for multi -family dwellings. The property contains approximately 2.06 acres, 39 dwelling units are proposed with 48 bedrooms. The property is located between Olive and Fletcher south of Spring Street. The applicant proposes to construct seven buildings as I said containing 39 dwelling units consisting of one and two bedroom town homes for a total of 48 bedrooms. Included with the development are proposed improvements to Olive Avenue and construction of a connection to Walnut via Center Street. Also, the construction of 56 parking spaces on site. Surrounding development and land use, primarily single-family homes and duplexes with R-2 zoning to the north and south. The subject property is zoned R-2 as well. To the east is R-1 zoning and to the west is vacant zoned Industrial, I-2. The applicant, as I mentioned is proposing 39 dwelling units on 2.06 acres. The density is approximately 19.2 units per acre in the R-2 zoning district 24 units per acre are permitted. Water and sewer are available to the site along Olive Avenue. No additional right of way for this project is necessary. Olive currently contains more than the standard right of way for this type of street. There is a 60' right of way existing. There is 30' of right of way existing for Center Street and 60' for Fletcher. Olive Avenue is proposed to be extended to Center Street along the west side of the subject property. With that Center Street will be extended within existing right of way to connect to Walnut. That would be to the east. The applicant will also be widening portions of Olive Street, which are currently narrower than 20' in width. Olive varies between 18' and 20'. Access is proposed by Olive Avenue, which is currently as I mentioned, between 18' and 20' in width. It is paved up approximately to the development where there is a gravel section. The applicant will be extending Olive Street the full width adjacent to the subject property. No Master Street Plans are being affected by this particular development. With regard to tree preservation the existing site is 100% covered in canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 21.25% which meets the requirement of 20% in this zoning district. The original proposal by this applicant went through the Large Scale review process was heard by staff and at the Subdivision Committee level. Staff at that time, at the time that it reached the Subdivision Committee, recommended the connection in the Center Street right of way to connect Olive to Walnut. At the April 28`h Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 56 Planning Commission meeting the Commission reviewed a concept plat. The reason that that was brought forward was in order to provide some direction to the applicant with regard to street connections and off site improvements that may be necessary. The Planning Commission on April 28` voted to require the extension of Center Street east to Olive. There is a typo in your report, that should read east instead of west. The construction of Olive Avenue along the entire western boundary of this project. The applicant is requesting that the city participate in a cost share for the construction of Center Street from the centerline of Olive to Walnut Street. There is a letter attached that addresses that issue. At the May 15th Subdivision Committee meeting the Committee forwarded the Large Scale to the full Planning Commission subject to staff comments. We have had significant public comment on this particular project to include issues of density, traffic, parking, street improvements, sidewalks. You were provided one additional comment from a neighbor this evening. We also included minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting with this information for you. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development with several conditions and one additional condition that is not listed in your staff report that I need to add is the improvement of Olive to a 20' width north of the development to Spring Street. As I mentioned that is to make it a uniform 20' where in certain situations it is not quite wide enough right now to meet that 20' minimum. Conditions that staff is recommending include 1) Applicant shall improve Olive Street its full width adjacent to the proposed project with curb and gutter on each side. Sidewalks are to be constructed on the east side only in accordance with City standards. 2) Applicant shall provide a connection within existing street ROW for Center Street between Olive and Walnut Streets to include a 20' paved section. 3) Approval shall be subject to the vacation of a 15 foot existing utility easement, which runs north/ south through the property. 4) A utility easement shall be granted a minimum of 10 feet on each side of all water and sewer lines to provide for maintenance of the line. 5) All buildings will be required to meet setbacks based on height. 6) Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, away from adjacent residential properties. There is a park fee in lieu of land dedication for this particular project in the amount of $15,327 which is $393 per unit for the 39 units proposed. Other conditions are listed in your report and are standard conditions for all Large Scale Developments. Just kind of in reference to the previous project and other Large Scales that we have seen. The question generally comes up as to what issues you as a Planning Commission have the ability to address for a Large Scale Development, in particular a residential Large Scale Development. Issues that you really can't address relate to density. The density has to do with the zoning district that is applied to the project, the uses that are permitted within that district are allowed by right as long as the development proposal meets the city's design and development criteria. Design standards, as you pointed out with the last project, the city Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 57 does not have residential design standards. The uses, as I mentioned under zoning, the uses that are permitted on a particular piece of property go with the zoning that is applied to that property. Issues that you can and should address would include connectivity, the Master Street Plan and right of way dedications, one of the things that is required with a Large Scale Development is that it comply with the Master Street Plan and that any right of way necessary to meet the Master Street Plan standards is dedicated with that project. Grading and drainage, we talked a lot about that in the last item and compliance with the city's grading and drainage criteria is an issue that you are here to ensure. Utility extensions, any applicant with a Large Scale Development is required to provide utilities and to extend utilities to the project site. Parking, the number of parking spaces, the configuration and cross access are things that you can look at. Landscaping and screening where it is required by ordinance, tree preservation, which is a specific ordinance requirement, and the park land dedication or money in lieu ordinance requirements are things that the Planning Commission has control over. With that, I will answer any questions. Hoover: Dawn, on page 8.1 it looks like there is a typo. When you have down here the direction to the west the land use is vacant and it says I-2, is that supposed to be R-2? Warrick: 1 believe that is R-2, it is vacant. It is R-2. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation now? House: Yes. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I am Greg House speaking for the applicant, House's Development Company. I thought I would give Mandy a bit of a break here. She is having to do double duty here this evening. After listening to Dawn's report I thought what I might begin with is to state that we are in agreement with all of the conditions that have been recommended by the Planning staff. However, in our presentation in a letter that I mailed to you all on May 6`h and I brought up an issue that I want to bring up again and that is we can approach this application with options. The first option is ask for no variances or waivers of any kind, meets the UDO standard, the International Fire Code, and the Large Scale Development ordinance in its entirety. That is to allow us to construct Olive Street in front of our property and on out to Spring as a residential street to meet the traffic load that our development and the existing neighborhood would create. I point that out in paragraph one, or item one, of that letter. I am bringing that up so that the Planning Commission can see that there is a way to approve this project without having to grant a single variance. However, as the Planning staff has asked and has continually brought forth and as your Commission recommended in our last meeting, the issue of connectivity has come up Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 58 and the Planning staff wants us to connect to Walnut. That we don't object to however, we have submitted in our submittals that we think it is only fair that we pay the rational nexus portion of that. I guess I understand that that is actually part of your charge this evening to recommend that or not. That comes from something I just received from staff at about 1:30 this afternoon. That is pursuant to City Council Resolution 9496 city participation in street extension cost. In their report that is continued on page 8.2 the top part of that page, that paragraph says the city may participate in the construction of streets either adjacent to the development or on a street leading to a development if the need leading to such a development if the need for such improvement is not totally caused by the development in question. City staff has told us, I don't see it in writing here, that they agree that the burden that we create is only 43% of the total burden that the new portion of Center Street would bear. The next sentence of that ordinance goes on to say the appropriateness of any such cost sharing between the owner and developer and the city shall be determined by the Planning Commission based on city ordinances governing the cost sharing of streets. That is new to me. This is a constantly evolving process. I think that is something that Dawn may have left out that you are charged with this evening is to discuss that, especially in light of our last meeting. Warrick: You have a memo on page 8.9. House: The issues of drainage, the Master Street Plan, trees and green space and the right amount of right of way, I believe we have covered all of those and we have shown that we can meet all of those requirements and I will let Mandy elaborate further on those in a minute. I do want to mention that all of those requirements for approval of the development again can be met by dead ending in essence Olive with a hammer head turn around. I bring this up because what I am concerned about, and I heard this earlier this evening with another gentleman that was before your Commission, is that we take this on up to the City Council level, talk about cost sharing and then for some reason it gets denied and I am back to the drawing board again starting all over with the project. I just want to point out that we have continually submitted this as a two part application and I think that you may want to consider that so that all the issues can be brought forward regarding our application. I am available for questions as you go through the discussion. Thank you. Hoover: Mandy, do you have anymore to add to that? Bunch, M: Just very briefly. I just want to clarify some of the traffic issues. Based on our previous Planning Commission meeting things were brought up that streets did not appear to be at certain levels, etc. so I just want to kind of nail that out there. Staff, we have had several meetings on that level Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 59 and what the numbers that you are looking at today basically even include, previously we were talking about local streets and we were talking about 4,000 vehicles per day and everybody was in agreement that the streets as they exist and as they would be constructed with the waivers would not accommodate 4,000 vehicles per day. All of the calculations have been adjusted to look at Olive from Spring to the site frontage as a residential street. Which, regarding option number one, Greg's discussing lends to a total if you look at our entire traffic with the new generation numbers on a per unit basis, 420 total cars on Olive, which is within the realm of 300 to 500 vehicles per day that is allotted or assigned to the design service volume for a residential street in the Master Street Plan. Option number two which we are discussing with connectivity, the same cost share percentage has been calculated based on using Center as constructed with 20' in width asphalt with the waivers as a residential street and not as a local street. Either option being addressed can meet the city requirements. We have worked hard to address several issues with the property owners that live adjacent to this property and I know everyone is still not happy and I'm sure they want to talk about it. I want to stop and we are here for questions if you guys need anything. Hoover: Thank you Mandy. Before we go to public comment Dawn, would you just clarify the connectivity issue because I thought that that had already been decided. Warrick: The Planning Commission did vote on April 28th to have a connection to use the existing Center Street right of way to connect Olive to Walnut. That is what you sent back to your developer with regard to your determination on connectivity and requested that the Large Scale that came forward show that connection. The developers brought that forward and they do show that connection with this Large Scale Development. However, they are still requesting that options be made available. Staff is recommending the connection. We have been recommending the connection consistently since Subdivision Committee and we feel that it is appropriate to make that connection in this particular location. The grade of the Center Street right of way that we are considering is not excessive. It can be traveled, it can be walked, it can be driven currently. Utilizing that area we feel is an appropriate way to connect this particular project and to provide two means of access for the development as well as the existing houses on Olive Street. Hoover: Thank you. Now I would like to open it up to public comment. I just want to remind you to keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant. You might start out organizing what your issues are up front so we can keep track easily. Davison: Good evening, my name is Sharon Davison, I do live in Fayetteville. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 60 Actually I lived at 48 Olive 25 years ago right to where this man is trying to put in this development. I don't like being here, I'm missing my son's baseball game. When I run out the door to try to catch the end of it I do hope I don't hear that you all have made a bunch of excuses at the end and approved this when I can give you and you have a lot of reasons why not to approve it at this time. Number one is the very main reason that is given by you. Might I say, who needs the extra hired help? I believe Ms. Dawn did a wonderful pitch job for Mr. House and that in itself, shows my concern. Again, staff Hoover: Ms. Davison, I would appreciate you not attacking personal attacks, would you just stick to the project? Davison: It was a pitch thank you. I know a pitch when I hear one. Hoover: That is not necessary. Davison: That is what our city staff is doing by continually approving things that are not good for the citizens of the city and then they know that you will say we believe you brought this to us. I believe that most people did hear that. If you are familiar with this area and this situation you will know why I feel this way. First of all let's get to the main issue of the R-2 zoning. You have a reason tonight, and those of you that are new to the Commission, I would like that you check with the Council record of the past over year with this R-2 zoning problem, inappropriate R-2 zoning smack dab in the middle of 100% tree coverage. Have you seen those trees? 100% coverage. He is going to take 4 out of 5 of those trees out. I hope you can see that little part. We don't even have to talk about the yards that are given up, the people's drives, all of those things. Back to inappropriate R-2 zoning. We have discussed this in depth with our Council. We were promised by our Council a year ago to address this issue but they have been too busy dealing with things than to really address it. They did tell us. We have been told as a neighborhood and as individuals that that is an inappropriate area for R-2 zoning. Slope, grade, neighborhood, issues. It is supposed to be fixed so let's keep that in mind when you come to the end of this night and approve for no other good reason than his right because of R-2 zoning. That is very much in question in this particular area so I ask you all to consider that. Ok, we will run through a few things that are real legitimate reasons even whatever your opinions of the development for this particular property, for this particular project. Apartments, it is too dense. I also heard Ms. Warrick say the neighborhood is primarily single-family homes with some duplexes. His project will change the entire dynamics of the area. I live there. I could've brought my slide off pictures that we had for the wonderful intersection where Mr. Schmitt of Hometown Development wanted to put his apartments because it does happen. When we talk about Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 61 road access think about winter. We are talking about almost 6 months of the year that Spring Street is almost unusable and Center Street is almost unusable. Just consider that, he is only talking about half a year that his project will be reached. You realize everyone will go down to Dickson, everyone will go down to Lafayette. I would like you to see the corner of Fletcher and Lafayette these days. Ok, so do we build the streets to make it safer? We can't put as many parking spaces on a property because we have to maximize our room density so we demand, and he makes demands doesn't he. He is sure telling you about how much he is going to pay to the penny of his part for the street. Excuse me, what do we as citizens, tax payers pay for our part for his indulgence? Thank you, he is not a man trying to build himself a home for his family. He is a man trying to make money at other's expense. Our infrastructure is not here to meet his needs. I would like to understand why we put in a sewer tax, we are all waiting, it is all coming yet damn, we need a quarter of a million dollars for a lift station over there on Wedington. He talks about fire access. Excuse me, may I ask city staff, are we still on a hiring freeze? Hoover: Ms. Davison, will you please stay on one topic? Davison: It is, it is relative because he is bringing up all these things that he is meeting code. At this time we can't handle any of this. It is amazing. I would like to know how much money, and I think people that are listening to this when developer's say they are paying their share, their part, I think people need to really look at the numbers and understand what their part is and what you are expected to give up. So, you have the right to put these projects off for a year. If everyone begs put him off this is why. Everything about it is wrong. Trust me, you do have, as our attorney has told you tonight, you can disapprove this right now because I beg to differ if staff says he will not create a dangerous traffic situation. Does his buildings get built before the roads get built? I am not sure I understand our order in a lot of this. So, here it is. You have a choice. He wants to do this, you don't have to let him. Why can we not let our infrastructure catch up? Why can we not check and see that this particular area your City Council has said is inappropriate for R-2 zoning and that they will address it? They said they would. Of course, where is it in writing? I would like you to remember that it is 100% canopy lot. I would like you to think about all the people that are going to have to give up space, yards, etc. to make it meet requirements. We can always meet requirements. Who is paying it on this end? I am sorry, it does get me upset and I try to still be polite but I would like to ask you to consider when again, you have the out here. You don't have to look at a group of upset neighborhoods, people and say our hands are tied. I know your hands aren't tied. I hope you discover that before you vote on this for this gentleman tonight because you have every right to either deny it or delay it and you have major reasons to do that. One of them specifically is dangerous traffic Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 62 situations. I have a child in school there. The bus can't even come up the hill to us. He has to go down to the bus because of this area in winter. There are not sidewalks. You heard him, he is not going to do one inch more than you make him. Please help us do the right thing tonight. I will stop. Hoover: Thank you Ms. Davison. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to speak to this Large Scale Development? Chadick: My name is Susan Chadick and I live at the corner of Olive and Spring Street. I just have to say that I cannot embrace this Large Scale Development. It is too big a change to the tradition of the residential neighborhood on the mountain. That tradition being single-family and duplexes. What this kind of development will do is impact the mountain and then there will be a chain reaction of changes and I am not so sure those are going to be predominantly good changes so that concerns me. All along you have heard me express concern about the parking issue. I am just still convinced that it is ludicrous to have 48 bedrooms with 56 on site parking when the rent for those bedrooms or those units are going to be between 4700 and $900. I just feel they are going to be more than one car per bedroom. Again, we have just got 56 on site parking places. We can approach this with options. We have gone to Mr. House and asked for a reduction in the number of units so that there could be more on site parking and so that we would eliminate some of the traffic. I realize he has done well in proposing a minimal in the density guidelines but I would like to see less. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Ms. Chadick. Is there any other member of the audience? Bryan: I am Holly Bryan, 107 N. Olive. Again, I would like to go on record as saying that I am totally against this Large Scale Development. I believe that it is truly incompatible with the single-family homes in this area and just as a side, several neighbors a year or so ago were seeking out the option of how to downzone and we were told by City Planning to wait until the hillside study was done, gather the data, and here we sit again waiting so that we can. In the family we have a large chunk that we want down zoned. There are several issues that you can stop this or delay this. Again, I have been pushing the safety and the traffic issues. The parking on site 56 spaces on site, I don't feel that is reasonable. Please keep in mind there will be no parking in the development itself in the lanes. Those will all be fire lanes so only the spots that are marked parking will be just 56 cars. There will be no parking on the street, in the cul-de-sac that is also a fire lane. I believe that maybe Mr. House has allowed for 4 or 6 spaces on the street but then there is a good chance what has happened in the 200 block of Olive with no parking on both sides. We could seek that out so then there would be no on street parking. As far as the Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 63 dangerous traffic situation, I do believe last Thursday you all mentioned how dangerous it can be when you came out and viewed the developmental site. I happened to look out my window as you all were departing from the development site and noticed that it was quite challenging for you to get that 16 passenger van turned around in the street. I think there were two or three people out directing the person driving how to back out of the driveway to get out back onto Spring Street. I don't see that by even widening Olive to 20' you are still, we are in the same predicament with the dangerous traffic situation which will also be compounded when you have a 20' wide Center Street. I really, we want to work and figure out a solution that will be acceptable to all of us. With the cost share on Center Street, I believe precedence has been already set with another Large Scale Development west of town where the developer paid 100% of his street. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it was west of town, I don't know if it was a Lindsey property or one out off, well, it is on the west of town. I stay down here downtown. I know that developer did pay 100% so I think it is ludicrous for the cost share that Mr. House proposes. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Bryant: My name is Lois Bryant, I live at the corner of Center and Walnut and I will speak for your connectivity issue. As far as Center Street and that being a right of way, there is no one in the City Administration that can tell me when Center Street was built, when the right of way was established, and if it was on private property when the street was built or what goes on with that. One thing too, in the winter we have a world of a time trying to get the city just to come out and salt Center Street and Spring Street so we can get down the hill and get to work. The best we ever get out of them is "Well, that is kind of dangerous for us to bring our trucks down there." Well, we have to drive down it. My dad and I during the winter months we salt and sand the corner of Center Street and Willow so we can make that corner so when we are coming down the hill we don't end up in the people down the street, in their yard. No consideration has been given to my dad about his property, none whatsoever. No one has spoke with us. Your supposed right of way that nobody is going to tell me when it existed or when it started, yes, it sits right smack dab in the middle of our property. You are generating a financial issue for us if the right of way goes through then the next thing on the list is we will get a letter from the city that tells us we don't have the standard setback which generates a bill for us to move the house back. Why should we have to move our house back for 50 spaces or enough cars to come down through for a couple hundred cars? Why should we be generating at the rate housing construction is now a $40,000 to $60,000 bill to convenience a few people. Granted, this will convenience a few people because that would give people who own those empty lots there access to their property by Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 64 way of someone else paying for it but that is a detriment to us. One other thing that I will be to the point at because yes Center Street is only 19', 21' to the curbs and sidewalks, one other thing that I would ask that you look at is according to our deed and title we own lot 18, according to the deed Center Street sits on the outside of our property and our property line. This deed was set up, the original purpose was for the previous owner and this deed was done in 1936. Estes: Ms. Bryant, may I see your abstract and I will give it right back to you? Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Mandy, would you like to address some of those issues? Bunch, M: The density issue I am sure that we will have further discussion about. I am not sure quite how to address that other than what we have already stated. The parking, we have provided as many parking stalls as we possibly can to meet all of the other city requirements. There are no other opportunities on site, which is why the additional parking was placed offsite on the street for visitors because of the concerns. The width of Olive not being adequate to turn around is very evident and I think that is something that the staff has considered with their recommendation to extend Center Street so that there is more than one way in and out for emergency and other traffic to access all the properties there, not just the one in question tonight. Also, with Ms. Bryant, part of the problem with Planning is a really good thing but part of the problem with planning is sometimes things are brought into consideration that aren't taken to the end. We have not had the opportunity and basically where we are tonight is does the Planning Commission approve this project based on all the requirements and the conditions that have been placed on it at this point in time. Once this is approved if it is maybe approved, we have to go into the exploratory phase. We have to do all the deed research on the right of way. We have to make sure that right of way is there. We have to look at a detailed design of the street to make sure that things are not taken out and things are not made into a situation worse than they were before. Again, that is part of the problem with us having to plan this issue without the details known at this point. We will have to address all of the adjacent property owner concerns when the street is constructed. I don't really have any other thing to add to that. I think that there will be questions that come out of your discussions. Hoover: Thank you Mandy. I have a question for staff. Dawn, can you comment on where the hillside study is or what the prediction is for that? Warrick: I don't know if I can give you a time frame. I know that it has been Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 65 initiated. Some data bases have been created. Some of the neighbors did do quite a bit of work to initiate a land use study for some of the target areas that were identified for the hillside review. This is stemming from a resolution that the City Council passed asking staff and the Planning Commission to review those properties within the city that are currently zoned for multi -family development that have a slope of 15% or greater. That is the subject that is being addressed. Our Long Range Planning Division is looking at that and we are having to work with existing resources within the Planning Division as well as within our GIS Division in order to get the appropriate mapping and database work put together in order to bring something back to you. Unfortunately, I can't give you a time frame but I can say that that is still an ongoing project. Hoover: Then would you address on the right of way, we are not asking them to move their house? Warrick: No. Hoover: What are the consequences to the Bryant's property? Warrick: The existing structure sits where it has forever and the existing right of way is where it has been since the subdivision was platted. The street was never built. Therefore, it is right of way that exists as lines on paper. The house is certainly within a 25' setback from that right of way line and my assumption is that the house was built prior to 1970 when our current regulations went into affect requiring a 25' setback. That house is considered to be an existing legal, non -conforming structure. It will certainly remain as it is and can remain as it is and be repaired and maintained in that location without any requirements being placed on it to be removed or otherwise adjusted in any way. We treat it as an existing nonconformity and the city would not go in and require that the structure be relocated because the street was extended. In this situation the right of way location is not changing and that doesn't change any of the existing conditions except for the fact that there would be pavement within the right of way and a street connection up to Olive. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners? Bunch: Can we have Engineering or possibly the applicant give us an overview on the proposed grades of Center Street and of Olive Street for the newly constructed and how those grades compare to city standards? Bunch, M: Basically Center Street can be constructed even at a slope less than 15% based on the city's GIS information. If a city street has to go over 15% it has to be concrete. Currently on our plans on Olive we have a small portion past the site driveway that is 20% and that is something that we are Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 66 going to work to reduce but otherwise we will have to construct that in conformance with city requirements based on my discussions with staff after we submitted. That would have to go to concrete unless we could reduce that slope to 15% or less. Did that answer your question? Bunch: This is for Planning staff. Is there any difference between the 100 block and the 200 block of Olive as far as street width and allowed parking? I know we have had various comments. There has been considerable comment about the parking in the 200 block and also the 100 block and I noticed that both of them at different times of the year have people parking on the street. Is that allowed on a 20' street and is there any difference between the 100 and 200 block as far as regulations are concerned? Warrick: My understanding is that the neighbors have worked with our Transportation Division to limit or restrict parking on Olive north of Spring Street in that block. I am not real familiar with the situations but my understanding is that there are some no parking signs in that section of Olive Street. Bunch: Ok, what about the 100 block should this development be built would that be a similar situation? Are we creating a different standard for one group of people on one block and another standard for a group of people on a block to the south? Warrick: I am sure if the same issue were addressed and there were apartments on the block south of Spring Street our Transportation Division could look at that the same that they did the block north of Spring Street and determine where it might be appropriate to place no parking signs based on the traffic condition and safety concerns. Bunch: Thank you. Warrick: Without the development being in place I don't know that there is an issue. The residents do park on the street. They seem to either stagger or park on one side so that there is still a thru lane for traffic to pass. Bunch: And for emergency vehicles? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Ok. Allen: I know that these buildings are town homes, I wondered if any of them would be for sale? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 67 House: Allen: Hoover: Williams: Hoover: Allen: Estes: Warrick: Estes: Hoover: Estes: Williams: Most likely, yes. It depends on how the numbers come out and whatever we end up with costs and offsite improvements. Based on the neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns and safety concerns that I have I suggest that this development be put on hold until the hillside ordinance study is completed. That is an interesting discussion item. That was your motion to table? That is a discussion item, that's not a motion yet, I'm assuming that's not a motion yet is that correct? No, that is just my opinion. Dawn, the parking concerns me. How did we calculate the required number of parking spaces that is the standard 48 and the 3 ADA with the 56? One space per bedroom is the requirement by ordinance. ADA spaces are required one every 25 spaces within a parking area and then bicycle racks are required one per every 25 parking spaces. Ok, thank you. Commissioner Estes, were you done? Is there any response to Nancy's comments about perhaps waiting for the hillside ordinance? I would like to hear our City Attorney's opine and comment. When the issue was brought before the City Council there was in the original resolution actual contained a moratorium on development while the Planning Commission and the Planning staff looked at the possible rezonings of R-2 land that was on 15% slopes and especially they were looking at Mount Sequoyah because this was around about the time that the other development on Fletcher Street had been before you turned down and also before the City Council and was turned down there because of traffic safety issues. The City Council decided not to grant a moratorium. They removed the language from the resolution that would have had a moratorium on development while this was being studied. They intentionally did that from some comments from the City Council because they did not want to stop particular development and at that point it was known that Mr. House was looking at attempting to develop his property. I think the City Council went on record basically as saying that they wanted to have the hillside density studied but they did not want to stop Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 68 development at that point in time until the study was completed. Of course that was quite a while ago and hopefully the study will be moving forward. I know they have had one person in the Planning Department that was doing this was Shelli Rushing and as you know she left to assume another planning job in a sister city so I think that probably has slowed down this process a little bit and now I think we are closer to getting back up to full staff again. I don't know if we are even there yet. Warrick: It is actually more a matter of the GIS Division being able to accommodate our mapping needs. They are very overwhelmed with mapping requirements from City Council and other divisions as well and they are trying to get the information. We do need to get more staffing placed on this project but it is one of those items that is in our work program as a priority for this calendar year. Williams: I would be a little bit reluctant to put all potential developments on hold, all multi -family developments in 15% land on hold. The City Council potentially could do that and probably could do that without incurring substantial risks although there would be some risk for developers who are saying well you're denying me my development and going after the City for inverse condemnation. I think that would have to be a City Council decision. I don't think the Planning Commission itself should try to make such a decision. I think there would be some danger to the city if you decided to try to do that unilaterally and just say well we are not going to approve the development, we are going to put it on hold until the City Council has acted. There is nothing to prove that the City Council is going to take any action on rezoning. They are going to have a study done and then they will look at the study and decide what they want to do. They might decide to do nothing. We don't know what they are going to do. Since we also can't give you a definite time period when that can be done at this point in time we are in a little bit of a dangerous ground to stop consideration of a Large Scale Development that meets the other requirements of the ordinance, if you would determine that this meets the requirements of the ordinance. Just to wait for a study when we don't know when it is going to be done nor do we know what the results shall be. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Williams. Are there any other questions about that concern? Vaught: I do have a question on the cost share agreement and this might be for the City Attorney as well. It is my understanding that if we approve this here it still has to go before the City Council for the cost share section. Does it go for the whole thing or just the cost share portion of the ordinance? Williams: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong Dawn, it's just the cost Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 69 share that you all can make a recommendation but the ultimate decision is up to the City Council on whether or not they want to participate in that. Is that the way you understand it? Warrick: I agree. The development approval is in the hands of the Planning Commission, or consideration is in the hands of the Planning Commission. Any cost share, any allocation of city funds requires the City Council to act on that. Typically the process is that the project is forwarded to the Street Committee of the City Council. They make a recommendation to the full City Council with regard to entering into a cost share on a particular project. The Planning Commission is asked to in this particular case determine if it is appropriate that a cost share be considered. Again, you don't have the ability, nor does staff have the ability to allocate funds. Estes: Dawn, one concern that I had when we saw this in an advisory capacity and which we discussed was the determination of whether Olive is a local street or a collector street, did we ever make that determination? Warrick: We have treated Olive as a residential street because of the section and the amount of traffic that it carries. A residential street is designed to carry between 300 and 500 vehicles per day and is typically a narrower street. Estes: What is the city standard for a residential street? Warrick: A residential street is a 24' street with curb and gutter, storm drain, sidewalks on one side. Olive doesn't meet that requirement. Estes: We're recommending, or staff is recommending, Center Street between Olive and Walnut be a 20' street? Warrick: In this particular situation we are trying to work within existing conditions. The right of way existing is 30', which is a narrow right of way for a residential street a 40' right of way is really necessary in order to meet the city's standards. Working within the existing conditions we're trying to get the amount of street that is consistent with many of the surrounding streets and that will provide a two way access to this development. No it will not be a standard street. It will meet the grade requirements, it will meet the width necessary in order to provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. Estes: What are we recommending for Olive? Warrick: For Olive Street, which is in a 60' right of way it has a width that varies between 18' and 20'. Our recommendation is that the developer provide a consistent 20' uniform street width from the development north to Spring Street. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 70 Estes: Somewhere I got the notion that a standard residential street was 28'. Warrick: A local street is 28'. Estes: Ok, a local street is 28' and a residential street is 24'. The reason that we are recommending that Olive be 20' and that Center be 20' is because we don't have the right of way, is that correct? Warrick: On Olive Street the right of way does exist. If Olive Street north of this development to Spring were widened out to either residential or local street standards the steep driveways that currently access the structures on Olive Street would be made more steep. I think that there would be more of an issue in dealing with existing conditions and trying to work around the infrastructure and improvements that people have made to that street. Estes: What troubles me is that we have a piece of property that is R-2, if we follow the ordinance and if we look at the applicant's compliance with the ordinance we fall into on that basis alone that the Large Scale Development is appropriate. Yet, if we look at it in a practical pragmatic sort of way it just doesn't seem like it is appropriate, it is just not appropriate. That is the quandary that I have. If you make a list of each of the ordinances and the applicant's compliance with each of the ordinances you pretty much have to check off all but about maybe one or two of them but then if you look pragmatically at what we're doing it sure isn't the best place to put this project but that is what we are being asked to do. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Bunch: I have a question for legal staff'. Could you elaborate a little bit on creating a substandard street? I understand retrofitting Olive from the development north to Spring Street that that is a preexisting condition and basically any work that would be done there would be more of a maintenance issue. What sort of legal issues are we looking at creating a substandard street on Center? Williams: I don't think that we are creating a dangerous legal position for ourselves. It might be a policy issue that certainly the City Council should look at. Why would we not follow our own street standards that we require other developers to do. From a legal point of view you know we are protected from our own negligence by sovereign immunity so I think at worst someone could bring a cause and say that we were negligent in building a street that is too narrow. Of course you look throughout this area of Mount Sequoyah you will see lots of 20' and more narrow streets with no sidewalk and no curb and gutter. Basically once you get up on the mountain to Fletcher and Rogers, Oklahoma Way, Lighton Trail, that is Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 71 Estes: the way all of these streets are built and that is the way they were developed in the past before we had street standards. It is not out of tune with the regular neighborhood even though it does not match our current street standards. Of course normally it is the city's policy that it is going to follow all of the ordinances that it requires other people to follow when it does developments. Mr. Williams, I have a question regarding city resolution 9496. It is in our materials at the bottom of page 8.2 and the top of 8.3. In the third full paragraph about half way down it says "The developer's share shall be that cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the development. In no event shall the developer be responsible for less than the cost of a standard 31' local street." What does that mean? Plain reading of that to me means that the developer is responsible for 100% of the cost of the street until it goes to 31 plus something. Williams: I think that refers to, and of course 31' used to be what a local street standard was and that was reduced after this resolution was made. What that means is when a collector on the Master Street Plan would go through a developer's development and the city would determine that it needed to go ahead and have a collector built, the developer's cost would have to be the full cost for the 31' street and then the city would pick up at that point the extra 5' cost to make it a 36' wide collector. I think that is what that is referring to as opposed to this particular situation where this street is not actually even abutting Mr. House's land. Anthes: I guess I am a little concerned that someone with the city staff was disingenuous with the neighborhood in telling them to wait for a hillside study in order to take action. That was eluded to and I hope that is not what happened. Also, when I first went to this site after knowing that this Commission required connectivity I approached a drive through from the south part of Center and am very familiar with where Ms. Bryant's house sits. It is concerning me that we're looking at taking that street down it looks like it would go within 5' of the exterior wall of your home. That is not necessarily the nicest thing to do to somebody, long term residents of the neighborhood as I know you have been. My question of staff is if we are requiring connectivity as part of this project, and I know Mr. House is not being required to build the street west of Walnut Street, but assuming that that connection would then happen as a result of this loop happening, what provision is made within our design to alleviate the impact of running a street within that close of an existing property? What happens? Warrick: I am going to ask our engineer to address that. Casey: I'm not sure that I can fully answer that. We will have to look at the grades and the cross sections in the area where there have been Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 72 improvements made. I believe there is a stone wall that runs east and west along the Bryant property and other landscaping and improvements. We might refer to Mr. Williams to see what the responsibility of the city is if improvements are made, private improvements are made within city right of way. Is the city required to replace those? Would that be at our expense or would that be something that the owner would have to take care of? Williams: I would think if it is within a city right of way it actually is city property even if someone else has placed it there. Occasionally someone will inadvertently place something within the right of way and usually it is not actually within the street itself and then often times we will see that we will make an exception and reduce the amount of setback so that it will not be within the right of way. If it was actually within the street area I don't know what the city could do. That has been supposedly property dedicated to the city and it is city property at that point in time until it would be vacated. If it was vacated then it would go back to the abutting property owners on both sides of what the dedicated street was. Until that happens it is city property and a city easement and a public easement to use that property and if someone would build something across it, it would be subject to be taken down I think with no compensation. Anthes: I beg the indulgence of the applicant because I realize this is off your site. I just have some questions about this procedure. I understand that Mr. Estes was looking at your deed and that your home was built somewhere around 1936 you were saying and we were saying that the street plats were done in the 1970's, is that correct? Warrick: No, current city regulations with regard to setbacks and zoning were adopted in 1970. This portion of the city I'm guessing that this area of the subdivision was created and adopted by the city in the 1920's, maybe the early 1930's. Anthes: Per her comments about that no one has been able to show the Bryant's the exact right of way on a map, is that the case? Warrick: I have not had an opportunity to speak with the Bryants. I will be glad to sit down in the office and show our plat maps if that is necessary. I have not had that opportunity, I have not been asked the question. Hoover: Mandy, do you know the dimension from the right of way to their structure approximately? I know we saw a marker out there when we went on tour. Bunch, M: From all accounts I have heard it is 5' to 10' and just looking at it, it looks like that too. It is close. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 73 Ostner: Is that to the road bed or from the right of way? Five to ten feet from house to curb or from house to right of way? Bunch, M: I believe it is from the right of way. The right of way is 30', the street would be 20' centered within that. The reason Matt answered you the way he did is because of the grading in that area. It is kind of hard to say where the limits of construction would actually fall. Hoover: How much do you think that would be from the curb to the structure about? Bunch, M: Well it is 20' with no curbs so probably 15'. It is hard to guess at this point. Bunch: Matt, is there a water line within this same area and would that create a different offset to where it couldn't be centered because the City of Fayetteville's water line, what part of Center Street does that line up with? Casey: It generally runs along the north portion of the right of way. The roadway can be constructed over that line. Bunch: Ok, so the water line is not a reason to make the street not be centered on the right of way? Casey: That is correct. Hoover: Are there other comments? Do we have a motion? Can I call for a motion a second time? I will call for a motion a third time. Williams: Let me advise the Planning Commission that there must be a motion. If you, I think your habit has been if there is not a motion it is denied. Then you would be denying a Large Scale Development with no reasons given. Please, you might want to deny it but give your reasons that you are denying it. Do not just sit mute and no one say anything because I guarantee you we lose if we deny this with no reasons given. Somebody needs to make a motion yes or no. Vaught: I have a question for staff I guess. The idea of finishing out Center is something you are recommending, would you recommend the project without that connection? Warrick: We brought this to the Planning Commission as a Concept Plat. The Planning Commission voted to connect. Staff is recommending the connection. The city has a policy of connectivity. We feel that it is important to have street connections and not to provide additional dead- Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 74 ends for conflicts in the future. Yes, staff is recommending the connection. I believe that it is important to be consistent with the Concept Plat that the Planning Commission heard in April recommending that Center Street be connected. Vaught: I think I agree with Commissioner Estes again on the fact that you look at this on density and so many issues that they are falling within the code. There are a few things that are a little more objective in our standard. I just don't know if we have the basis to turn it down. I guess that is what I would like to hear. Hoover: If we could get Mr Williams to reiterate on what reasons can we turn down a Large Scale Development like this? Williams: If it is not meeting the requirements of our developmental ordinances, whether or not they are agreeing to do the infrastructure as required by our ordinances, whether it is creating or compounding a dangerous traffic situation, whether it has adequate water and sewage access. I think those are about the only things you can look at. If I could, let me answer Commissioner Vaught's question about connectivity and what was done before. There was a Concept Plat and it was asked of the Planning Commission about whether or not they favored connectivity down to Walnut Street. There are winners and losers in every decision you make. Of course the losers if you said no would be the people who lived on Olive Street who would then have all of this traffic run by their street. The losers if you said yes would be the Bryants who would then have half of this traffic run right by their house within 5' to 10' of their house. Keep in mind that Olive right now is a dead end street. In fact, I think that it would be extended to some extent but it already runs in this direction a bit of the way. The Planning Commission in April voted for connectivity. That wasn't a unanimous vote but I think there are only two people descended from that particular vote. Just as the City Council is not completely bound by what it did in passing the resolution, it is always the most recent resolution that controls, you are not absolutely bound on that decision. Nobody is, even if you voted for it. Even though there has been a lot of work done by staff and by Mr. House and his engineer based upon your decision that you made back on April 28`s. The other option would be to decide that the theory of connectivity that is supported in our 2020 Plan as correctly stated by our Planning staff is not an absolute requirement in every case, especially when he doesn't own the land down to Walnut Street. All his land that he owns is east of Olive Street so you are asking him to make a connection away from his property, not even adjoining his property. That is just another thing to consider. You considered it in April though, not all of you because not all of you were on it. That was a hard decision then and it is still a hard decision now. That is my only other comment on that. You are not absolutely bound on that Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 75 even though you made that decision just a month ago. Vaught: I have an additional question for staff. I noticed that there was a traffic study in our material that was done by an outside engineer. Have you guys done a traffic study and what is your take on the traffic situation I guess, your recommendation? Warrick: The traffic study was commissioned by the developer. It is included for your review. That traffic study indicates that either of the two options that the developer is considering, either a hammer head on Olive without the connection or the connection would provide a reasonable traffic flow for this development. I will let the developer's engineer address anything additional. Vaught: Is it staff's opinion that it does not create an excessively dangerous traffic situation? MOTION: Allen: Based on lacking neighborhood compatibility and traffic concerns and safety concerns I move for denial of LSD 02-29.10. Hoover: I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Estes: I voted no when this was before us before and I hope my reasons are stated in the motion and based on that I am going to second the motion. Hoover: Thank you. There is a second by Commissioner Estes. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny LSD 02-29.10 failed by a vote of 2-0-6 with Commissioners Church, Ostner, Vaught, Hoover, Anthes, and Bunch. Thomas: The motion fails two to six. Hoover: Thank you, so then do we need to do another motion? Williams: Yes. Nothing has been approved at this point. Hoover: Thank you. Seeing that, do I have a motion? Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 76 MOTION: Ostner: Hoover: Ostner: Williams: Ostner: Hoover: Vaught: Hoover: Anthes: Ostner: Hoover: Vaught: Hoover: Estes: I agree this is a complicated issue. I cannot find the reason to vote against it though I have a lot of opinions. I believe with the case before us that the developer has satisfied our requirements. I would like to make a motion to approve LSD 02-29.10. Subject to the conditions with the addition of number seven that improvement of Olive Street to a 20' width north to Spring? Yes. Does that include your recommendation of the appropriateness of a cost share to the City Council? It does. Is there a second? I will second. Is there any more discussion? A clarification. This is based on all of staff's recommendation so also the connection within the existing street right of way for Center Street as part of this motion? Yes. That is number two. If anyone is interested, as was eluded to earlier, someone always loses. It is an unfortunate situation and I think we can mitigate it as best we can by making the street as narrow as we can for it to still safely operate. Commissioner Vaught, did you include condition number two also? Yes, based on staff's recommendation I think that that is the appropriate thing to do. They have obviously studied it and looked at it. Ok. Is there anymore discussion? I will vote against the motion and I would like to explain my reasons why. I voted no on the issue of connectivity because I was not in favor of connectivity because of the hardship that results to existing land owners. Without connectivity it is my opinion that the project then creates or compounds a dangerous traffic situation and that is my reasoning for voting no on this motion. Planning Commission May 27, 2003 Page 77 Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Bunch: I will reluctantly support the motion. This is very similar to the preceding item on our agenda. We have an unpopular issue but our rules and regulations have failed to legislate good taste, which is not our job. Requirements have been met and I feel that legally I feel that personally I am bound to vote in favor of it because I have worked with this all the way through and they have met the requirements and the problems with the requirements so I will reluctantly support it. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-29.10 was approved by a vote of 6-0-2 with Commissioners Allen and Estes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries six to two. Hoover: Thank you. Dawn, is there any other business? Warrick: No Ma'am, that is all. Hoover: We are adjourned. Thank you. Meeting Adjourned: 9:32 p.m.