Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 9, 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 03-14.00: Conditional Use (Habitat for Humanity, PP563) Page 4 Approved CUP 03-15.00: Conditional Use (Pediatric Learning Center, PP 251) Withdrawn by Applicant LSD 03-16.00: Large Scale Development (Noble Oaks III, pp405) Page 8 ANX 03-02.00: Annexation (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) Page 11 RZN 03-17.00: Rezoning (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) Page 13 Approved Tabled Tabled ANX 03-03.00: Annexation (James Coger, PP 321) Tabled Page 14 RZN 03-18.00: Rezoning (James Coger, PP 321) Tabled Page 15 RZN 03-19.00: Rezoning (Broyles, PP 599) Forwarded to City Council Page 16 RZN 03-20.00: Rezoning (Broyles, PP 599) Forwarded to City Council Page 20 RZN 03-21.00: Rezoning (Nock, PP 439) Forwarded to City Council Page 21 ANX 02-01.10 Annexation (Harrison, PP 256) Tabled Page 24 Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Bob Estes Loren Shackelford Alice Church Christian Vaught Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 3 Hoover: Welcome to the June 9, 2003 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Hoover: Allen: Bunch: Hoover: Thank you Renee. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of the May 27th meeting? I move for approval of the minutes. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 4 Hoover: Just as a note to the audience item two, CUP 03-15 for the Pediatric Learning Center has been pulled from the agenda. We will not be hearing that tonight if any of you are here for that item number two, which I hope some of these people are not coming in for. Is there anyone else that was here to talk about the Pediatric Learning Center? That has been pulled tonight, that is not on the agenda tonight. You can go home. Dawn, will it be back? Warrick: It has been withdrawn completely by the applicant. CUP 03-14.00: Conditional Use (Habitat for Humanity, PP563) was submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Patsy Brewer for Habitat for Humanity for property located at 232 E 13th Street. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is for approval of a tandem lot. Hoover: Item number one is a Conditional Use for Habitat for Humanity. Is Jeremy or Dawn doing this one? Warrick: I will be doing this one. This request is for a Conditional Use for a tandem lot. The subject property is three platted lots located north of 13th Street and east of Washington Avenue. There is a platted but un - constructed alley to the west of the proposed tandem lot. Willow Street is platted but un -constructed on the east side of the property. A similar Conditional Use to this, also for Habitat for Humanity, was processed and approved by the Planning Commission January 13th this year. The applicant proposes to construct three single-family homes on separate lots and with that is requesting a tandem lot in order to reconfigure these lots so that each of them can be provided access. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use. The reconfiguration of the lots will require administrative approval of a lot line adjustment and that has been applied for and is in the works. I believe that plats for that lot line adjustment were distributed this evening so that you can kind of see what the changes are in the configuration of the lots. Basically they are currently stacked from south to north horizontally and the proposal is to stack them, one remains horizontal at the north end and then the other two are oriented differently so that the narrow ends of the lots actually has street access. Staff, as I mentioned, is recommending approval of this Conditional Use with nine conditions. I am going to read through those. I have got a modification on one of those conditions. 1) The tandem lot will have access to a public street (13th Street) by way of a private drive with a minimum width of 25 feet of equal and uniform width. The tandem lot owner shall be responsible for maintaining said 25 -foot private drive. 2) The private drive shall be paved for a minimum distance of 25 feet from its intersection with 13th Street. 3) No vehicles shall be parked at any time on that portion of a tandem lot utilized as a private drive. 4) All Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 5 three proposed lots shall share a common drive by means of the 25' permanent access easement. This is to reduce the number of curb cuts and conflicts on 13th Street. 5) All lots adjoining 13th Street shall have a minimum 30' building setback on the south to meet the Master Street Plan setback requirements. There is an increased setback on 13th Street because right now the right of way existing is not adequate for our Master Street Plan so there is an additional 5' setback necessary. 6) Tract C shall have 20' setbacks except on that east side which fronts onto South Willow Avenue, which shall have a 25' setback. That is because it is adjacent to a city right of way, although it is undeveloped it is a city right of way on the east. 7) Planning Commission determination of an appropriate means of refuse removal. Staff recommends a screened enclosure for roll out carts. That is a modification to your condition that should read a screened enclosure for roll out carts to be located at the intersection of 13th Street and the access road to be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 8) Each lot shall contain only one single-family structure. 9) A minimum 4 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 6 ft. greenspace shall be constructed at the expense of the developer along 13th Street at the time of development. I will be happy to answer any questions. I believe that the applicant is here. Yes, Ms. Brewer is here. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward please? Brewer: I am Patsy Brewer, I am the executive director of Habitat for Humanity in Fayetteville. Our only thing with signing off on this is that we felt like we heard the word dumpster and these are single-family homes. We have talked with the Planning office and we feel like the families need to take ownership of their home. The whole part of it is rolling that little green cart to the curb every week. The garbage cans will be kept by their homes so we are proposing doing a concrete pad so they are not in the street or in the driveway that will be shared. If it were fenced off it would serve no purpose because the truck has to come in front of it to flip it. That is our only concern, all the other conditions are just fine, which are similar to what we did across the street on the other project. Hoover: Thank you Patsy. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use for Habitat for Humanity? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Estes: Dawn, where is the private drive on this plat that Jeremy provided to us this evening? Warrick: The private drive is through the access easement that runs basically centered on the lot from the south to the north. It intersects 13th Street in the center of the property and it is 25' wide, 12 '/' on both tracts A and B. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 6 Estes: Where are you wanting a screened dumpster enclosure? Warrick: We were looking at, in fact it is called out on the plat as a concrete garbage pad at the southeast corner of that private drive. Estes: What can we do with that that you will approve? Warrick: The Planning Commission has quite a bit of discretion. This is a Conditional Use. In looking back at this, the tandem lot ordinance that requires a screened enclosure for trash disposal of course predates the city's cart pick up service. That is something that we need to adjust to address. Ms. Brewer had a very good point that we do now have trucks that need to be able to access the carts as opposed to an individual going over and picking a bag up out of an enclosure. It would be appropriate for a pad to be located there at the street for the carts to be rolled out to on a weekly basis and staff would be supportive of that type of configuration and condition. Estes: Could we lose the concrete garbage pad so we don't obstruct ingress and egress and eliminate condition number 7? Warrick: I think if you feel it is appropriate absolutely. It would be consistent with what most of the folks on the street are going to be doing so I don't see that as being a departure from what is currently occurring in this neighborhood. Everybody rolls their carts to the street. Estes: Thank you Dawn. Hoover: Dawn, you are saying you believe we can eliminate condition number seven? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Just a matter of housekeeping. Since this is less than an acre it may be something that we don't even need to address here. I was just looking to see if there were utility easements and rights of way, is that something that will be handled administratively, making sure all the utility easements and rights of way are addressed with the lot line reconfiguration and the new access easement? Warrick: Staff will be required to sign off on a reconfiguration of these three lots. It is not creating a new lot. Therefore, it is not a split. It is solely taking three lots that are currently oriented horizontally and changing the configuration on a couple of them. Right of way is something that is not Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 7 required to be dedicated at the time of a lot line adjustment. That is the purpose for the additional setback on the south is not to require the right of way dedication but to provide for a Master Street Plan improvement in the future. Utilities are things that will have to be addressed at the time of building permit to provide adequate access for utilities to service these three lots. Bunch: Ok, thank you. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of CUP 03-14.00 deleting and removing condition of approval number seven and deleting from the May 16, 2003 plat the concrete garbage pad in the lower southeast corner of the 12.5' access easement to tract B. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes, is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there anymore discussion? Anthes: Dawn, I notice on the plan here there is a power pole, water meter, and a phone pedestal that appear to be right as you turn off 13th Street to the access easement. Has the relocation of those items been addressed? Warrick: Not specifically. If any of those items need to be relocated in order to provide access it would be at the developer's expense. The 25' access easement is required in width. The actual drive is not required to be the full 25'. It is possible that they can work around those pedestals and poles in accessing the rear lot. Anthes: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-14.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 8 LSD 03-16.00: Large Scale Development (Noble Oaks III, pp405) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located on the east side of Oakland Avenue, north of Lawson Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.24 acres with 28 dwelling units proposed. (28 bedrooms). Proposed total parking spaces provided are 28. Hoover: Item number two was pulled so we are onto item number three, a Large Scale Development for Noble Oaks submitted by Jorgensen & Associates. Dawn, will you address this? Warrick: Jeremy will do this one. I would just note that in some of your packets item number two was footered with three and vice versa so be sure and check the title on your staff report to make sure you are on Noble Oaks. Pate: Hoover: Hafemann: This is a Large Scale Development for Noble Oaks III. The applicant is proposing a 28 unit one building complex for a total of 28 one bedroom apartments. The required and proposed parking spaces are with 2 ADA spaces and one bike rack. There are currently three single-family homes on the site those will be removed for this proposal. The fire marshal is asking that any fire department connections be free standing away from the building and that this will be sprinkled. Oakland Avenue improvements will be required, the right of way dedicated will be 25' from centerline. Improvements will include 14' from centerline along the entire property frontage to include pavement, curb and gutter, and underground storm drains. Also a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 6' greenspace adjacent to the street. Tree preservation existing is 50.4%, preserved is 23.28%. There is no mitigation required. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development subject to the following conditions. 1) Street improvements shall be made at the developer's expense to Oakland Avenue, 14' from centerline along the entire 225 feet of property frontage to include pavement, curb and gutter, and underground storm drains. 2) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $11,004.00 (28 units @ $393) shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The developer shall install a six foot sidewalk and a minimum of six feet of green space adjacent to Oakland Avenue in accordance with current City standards. Items four and five are standard conditions of approval and we do have signed conditions of approval. Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Good evening Commissioners. I am Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen & Associates. Other than what Jeremy stated I have no formal presentation at this time. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 9 Hoover: At this time I will take public comment for Large Scale Development 03- 16.00, Noble Oaks. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Can we start with a report from Subdivision Committee? Bunch: Most of this was fairly straight forward. One thing was incomplete at the time of Subdivision Committee was Tree & Landscape Department was working with the developer reconfiguring some of the parking and some of the grading to accommodate some tree preservation so at that time we didn't have a totally complete plan as far as the configuration of the parking lot. It was forwarded to the full Planning Commission knowing that it would be rectified. Ostner: I don't have any other report but I was wondering if that had been rectified, the concerns with the trees. Anthes: In similar projects we have looked at recently we have required additional guest parking on the site and I see that we have one car per bedroom here. Can staff describe why we are treating this differently? Warrick: I don't believe the Planning Commission has required additional parking unless it has been a situation that we have been looking at a Conditional Use or a Planned Zoning District. The ordinance requirement is one space per bedroom and they are meeting that requirement. Hoover: I am not familiar with that area, will where guest parking be? Can you have on street parking here? Warrick: I am not sure if Oakland Avenue permits on street parking. Are you more familiar with it? Hafemann: I am also not that familiar with it but there are multiple apartment complexes adjoining this across the street where there are also extra parking spaces. If there ever were a max capacity issue I would assume there would be people able to park across the street. Anthes: Those are the same owners, is that correct? Hafemann: Yes. Williams: I was just going to say my mother lives on Oakland Street, it is a very narrow street with ditches on both sides so excess parking could not be on the street. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 10 Hoover: Anthes: Warrick: Anthes: Hoover: MOTION: Ostner: Hoover: Shackelford: Hoover: roll? Thank you for that in sight. I noticed in the notes from the previous meeting that there were some questions about the height and setback requirements, was that resolved? Yes it was. The type of roof that is being proposed for this structure will comply with the city's height restrictions. There is not a gable end adjacent to another residential property on a side, which would typically require an increased side setback if it was above 20'. In this case it is a hipped roof and the eave line is less than 20' so there is not any additional setback requirement. Thank you Dawn. Is there any other discussion or motions? I will make a motion we approve LSD 03-16.00. I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, is there a second? I will second. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-16.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries nine to zero. Thank you. Thomas: Hoover: Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 11 ANX 03-02.00: Annexation (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Joe Jones, Pastor for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The subject property is in the county and contains approximately 3.93 acres. The request is to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. Hoover: Item number four on the agenda is ANX 03-2.00. Dawn, will you present this? Warrick: This item and the item following it are companion items, an annexation and a rezoning request. I believe that the applicant is looking at tabling these requests. Would you like me to go ahead and do the full presentation and then let them address it or would you prefer to understand what their intention is up front? Hoover: I guess let's see what their intention is. Would the applicant come forward and tell us. Bates: I am Geoff Bates, I am an engineer with Keystone Consultants. Per the request of my clients they would like to table this item tonight until the next Planning Commission meeting. The main reason is we didn't get staff comments until Thursday afternoon or Friday morning and I had no idea that staff might have been opposed to the annexation so we are not really prepared to address it at this time. Hoover: Let me open it up to public comment to see if we've got any neighbors. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this item, ANX 03- 2.00. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. We will need a motion to table. MOTION: Anthes: I move that we table ANX 03-2.00, Shiloh Community Church. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Anthes to table. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: And a second by Commissioner Bunch. Mr. Williams? Williams: Is this an indefinite table or tabled to a definite time? Anthes: If we table it indefinitely the applicant may come back at whatever time they are ready correct? Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 12 Williams: You would have to bring it back up. You would bring it off the table. Bates: We will be ready by the next meeting. Bunch: Can the applicant pull the item from the agenda tonight and then come back at another time without having to state a date? Williams: The problem I see in that is we might have to republish again if it was just pulled because you have to publish rezonings, annexations, and things like that so it would be better to table it if possible. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 03-2.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Thank you. I guess we'll see you next time. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 13 RZN 03-17.00: Rezoning (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Joe Jones, Pastor for property located north of Mr. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The subject property is zoned A-1 and contains approximately 3.93 acres. The request is to rezone property to P-1, Institutional. Hoover: The accompanying item RZN 03-17.00, do we need to go ahead and table this also? Bates: Yes, the same reason, we need a little more time to prepare. Anthes: I move we table RZN 03-17.00, the rezoning of Shiloh Community Church. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: And a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-17.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 14 ANX 03-03.00: Annexation (James Coger, PP 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of James Coger for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The subject property is in the county and contains approximately 18.35 acres. The request is to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. Hoover: Item number six on the agenda is ANX 03-3.00 submitted by Keystone Consultants. Dawn, would you like to present this? Warrick: We are going to replay our last comments. The same applicant's representative is here for this item as well. It is adjoining the site that we just discussed and I believe their intention to table these two items is consistent with their previous requests. Hoover: Bates: Hoover: MOTION: Shackelford: Hoover: Shackelford: Bunch: Hoover: Roll Call: Thomas: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward and make your request? For the record, my client would like to table this one as well until the next Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this ANX 03-3.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Are there any motions? I will make a motion we table ANX 03-3.00 until the next meeting. I have a motion to table ANX 03-3.00 to the next meeting. This is a first, I have never made a motion to table anything in my life. I think since we are all rather speechless since Commissioner Shackelford made a motion to table I will try to second. There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 03-3.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 15 RZN 03-18.00: Rezoning (James Coger, PP 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of James Coger for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is currently zoned A-1 and contains approximatelyl 8.35 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R-1, Low Density Residential. Hoover: Item number seven is RZN 03-18.00 submitted by Keystone Consultants. Bates: We would like to table this also. I apologize for all the confusion. Hoover: That's alright. Do I have a motion? Shackelford: I just did one, I'm done. MOTION: Ostner: So moved. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Ostner to table is there a second? Church: I will second it. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Church to table RZN 03-18.00. Is there any discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-18.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 16 RZN 03-19.00: Rezoning (Broyles, PP 599) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles for property located east of Beechwood Avenue and south of 15th Street. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to move the current zoning line to a new configuration with the subject property being rezoned to R-2. Hoover: On to item number eight, RZN 03-19.00 for property located east of Beechwood Avenue and south of 15th. Dawn? Warrick: Items eight and nine are combined. The reason is that they are basically the same overall property. Before I get too far into that staff report though, with reference to the four items that preceded this, as well as these two rezonings as well as the other items in this agenda. Annexations and rezoning applications are significant policy decisions made by the Planning Commission with recommendation to the City Council for final decision. At this point in time the City of Fayetteville is taking a much more critical look at these types of applications than we ever have in the past. It is important that we have adequate information for you to make a recommendation to the City Council and for the City Council to make one of these policy decisions when they are approached with a request to annex or rezone a piece of property. With that in mind, staff has assembled a zoning review team. What this time is designed to do, it is a group of staff members, and it includes representation from the Planning Division, the Engineering Division, the Fire and Police Departments. We have charged ourselves with analyzing requests for annexations and rezonings to provide adequate data and analysis for you with regard to the findings that are required to be made for these types of requests. The City Council adopted an annexation policy in 2001 and that annexation policy is a basis for decisions with regard to those types of actions. We also have in our bylaws for the Planning Commission have specific findings that are required to be made on any of these requests. Issues that staff needs to address include traffic conditions, current and future, based on potential uses; the street system, whether existing infrastructure is adequate or improvements would be necessary; system capacity, water and sewer; response time for emergency services and whether providing services of all types in the area to be annexed or to have the zoning changed, would cause a strain on existing resources. We feel that it is very important to use all of the resources available to us to make these determinations and to provide you with some guidance on these decisions. The city has taken on a very large project with regard to the new waste water treatment plant that is proposed to be on the west side of town. We are in the process of working through a new transportation study for the entire city, a traffic study. Those are the types of things that we are trying to include in our recommendations and findings for you on these types of items. That is just kind of for reference. With regard to the two rezonings that we are Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 17 now talking about on the agenda. The subject property is vacant and located on the south side of 15`h Street between Beechwood Avenue and Razorback Road. The property to the south, east and west is currently undeveloped. There are University of Arkansas sports facilities to the north. The Tyson indoor track complex and Baum baseball stadium. A creek and related floodplain adjoins the property to the southeast. In the fall of 2001, September and October of 2001, the City Council rezoned the subject property to R-2 and C-2 in a configuration which provided residential zoning along Beechwood Avenue on the entire western side of the property and then the eastern side was zoned C-2. At this time the applicant is wishing to reconfigure those requests from 2001. The request now is to stack the zoning so the C-2 property is on the north side of this tract and the R-2 is south of that. The acreages are very similar with regard to the amount of the two districts that are being divvied up in this property. R-2 acreage approved in 2001 was 12.13 acres and the request is for 14.6 acres to be zoned R-2 with the reconfiguration. The C-2 acreage in 2001 was 9.8 acres and the request now is 7.45. There is actually a little reduction in the commercial district and an increase in residential. The General Plan does designate this site as residential. Rezoning the property in the R-2 portion of course is very consistent with that land use plan that is compatible with adjacent land uses also. The C-2 portion of the request is considered to be compatible also due to past policy decisions. In 2001 the City Council did set policy in adopting a commercial zoning designation for a portion of this property. At this time they are requesting a reconfiguration of that. The proposal, as I mentioned, is to reconfigure what has already been approved and the request is justified in order that it allows the development plan to utilize 15`h Street for commercial frontage and provides residential uses south of that area with additional access to the residential uses south of that area with additional access to the residences from Beechwood. The proposed rezoning request will not change the impact of these properties. The amount of commercial and residential proposed is not significantly changed from what was approved in 2001. Based on the approved zoning actions in 2001 the developer did commission a traffic study in order to have a benchmark for bringing forward a development proposal. This traffic study will need to be amended to reflect the new zoning configuration should these requests be approved. Staff is recommending in favor of these rezoning requests and just a note that each of these actions will need to be voted on separately. We talked earlier about the maps. The request for R-2 zoning is reflected on page 8 and 9.16 and 17 and over on pages 20 and 21 those maps best reflect the request for C-2 zoning. Hoover: Thank you Dawn, would the applicant come forward? Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 18 Kelso: Hoover: MOTION: Estes: Hoover: Good evening. My name is Jerry Kelso, I am with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner. I put together a quick little drawing here that kind of shows you what we had before and what we are asking now to try to clarify things to make it a little bit easier. This is what is currently zoned at this time. The highlighted yellow portion is the total property we are talking about. As you can see, here is the zoning line, the dashed line as it currently exists right now. Our proposal is to go to this right here where you have got all the frontage here on 15th Street towards the front and all the R-2 in the back. The reason for the difference in acreages, as you can see, this C-2 zoning had a lot of the unusable area and floodplain and things like that and now all of the R-2 has all of the floodplain. That is why the acreages are all set. The developer still plans on complying with what was agreed to before with the maximum units for this overall property so there will be no more multi -family than what was originally approved. That is the concept. I will entertain any questions you may have. Thank you for the map. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this RZN 03-19.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. I would move for approval of RZN 03-19. I have a motion by Commissioner Estes Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: Ostner: Warrick: Anthes: And a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? I have a question for staff. When we are talking about justifying the C-2 when the 2020 Plan talks about residential, I didn't quite follow that except we rezoned it in the past so it must be commercial. With this particular request staff felt that a policy decision had been made by the City Council with regard to the zoning action that was taken in 2001. At that time there was considerable discussion about having a mixed use area and providing accessories and amenities to the residential properties that would be developed in this case south of the commercial. A question for staff. This rezoning would in no way inhibit the applicant from coming back with a PZD in this area would it? Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 19 Warrick: No it would not. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll all the motion to forward RZN 03-19 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 20 RZN 03-20.00: Rezoning (Broyles, PP 599) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles for property located east of Beechwood Avenue and south of 15th Street. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to move the current zoning line to a new configuration with the subject property being rezoned to C-2. Hoover: On to item number nine, RZN 03-20, the companion item. Dawn, do you want to address this? Warrick: I don't really have anything in addition. I tried to address them both together. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Hoover: Ok. Does the applicant have anything to add to this one? Kelso: The same as the last one. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this RZN 03-20? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. MOTION: Estes: To complete the applicant's zoning configuration, I would move for approval of RZN 03-20.00 forwarding it to the City Council for their consideration as with the rezoning request RZN 03-19. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Shackelford: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any more discussion? Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-20.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 21 RZN 03-21.00: Rezoning (Nock, PP 439) was submitted by John Nock for property located at 4023 Wedington Drive. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.98 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Hoover: Item number ten is RZN 03-21.00 submitted by John Nock for property at 4023 Wedington Drive. Dawn? Warrick: The subject property is located on the west side of Rupple Road south of Wedington Drive. The property contains just under two acres and currently has a single-family home on the site. The property to the north is vacant and is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Surrounding properties include a single-family home to the east, multi -family dwellings to the west, and a vacant tract to the south, which is proposed to be the location of fire station #7. The applicant does not have immediate development plans or proposals for the subject property. The rezoning at this time is being requested in order for the property to be divided so the southern portion can be sold to the city for fire station #7. In looking at that, the applicant and their representatives have identified an issue with this property remaining A-1 and the property to the south being developed as a fire station with the property being zoned C-1 for neighborhood commercial uses. Right now working south off of Wedington Drive you have a C-1 tract which is in the node of commercial and identified on the General Plan and then you have this A-1 property. The southern portion of it is proposed to be developed for a fire station. That leaves a remnant tract that we are considering right now, the 1.98 acres for rezoning to C-1, which would be consistent with extending the commercial node into this area at the intersection of Wedington and Rupple. That might be a little bit easier to reference using the maps on page 10.10, that has pretty good representation. You can see the C-1 tract at the corner of Rupple and Wedington and then the subject property. Further south of the subject property, south of the site that hopefully will be developed for the fire station, is property that is zoned for multi -family dwellings. This property kind of becomes a transition. The General Plan designates this site as residential. As I mentioned, it is a remnant, it is an in between tract. The fire station site will create a definite boundary between the commercial zoning to the north and the multi -family zoning to the south. With that, we believe that it is justified and needed in order to maintain uniform zoning and in order for this property to remain useful. The development of the fire station on the southern edge will change the character of the property and it will also provide a natural barrier between different land uses and activity levels. The proposed zoning will allow for development of neighborhood commercial uses, retail, restaurant, offices and similar uses will be permitted. Access from the site is from Wedington Drive and on Rupple Road, which will satisfy the demands of this type development. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 22 Rupple Road is currently under construction. It is identified on the Master Street Plan and this leg of Rupple Road is being constructed and should be completed later this summer to serve the Boys and Girls Club, which is south and east of this site. Staff is in favor of this request and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Hoover: Thank you Dawn, would the applicant come forward? Are you the applicant? Earnest: No Ma'am, I'm not. I am Hugh Earnest, I am the Chief Administrative Officer, if I may beg the indulgence of the Commission Madam Chair. I really came to listen to this today but Mr. Nock is not here and I know that it is your policy probably that the applicant needs to be here for this. I would simply beg your indulgence and ask you to go ahead and consider this. This is the end of a process where Mr. Nock has worked with us. We had originally moved fairly aggressively, according to some, to condemn property further west from this from Mr. Hayden Mcllroy and this was a compromise situation that we worked out between Mr. Nock, Mr. Mcllroy and ourselves. Mr. Nock has insisted that the rezoning occur before he enables us to close on the property. For that particular reason I would ask you to move on this tonight. I regret that Mr. Nock is not here. I read very carefully Mrs. Warrick's staff report and it is excellent and would hope that you would go ahead and consider this tonight. Hoover: Thank you. Do any commissioners have a problem hearing this rezoning request? Then we will continue on. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this RZN 03-21? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: Just a question of clarification. On our drawings on page 10.10 is the shaded in area just the property that is in question for this request? Does it include or not include the part of the property in which the fire station is proposed to be sited? Warrick: The shaded in area is only the area subject to this request. The proposed fire station property is south of that. It is not included in this request. Bunch: Would there be any lot line adjustments or anything required for that? Warrick: he property will need to be split. A lot split will need to be processed. Bunch: What zoning district is required for a fire station? Warrick: The current zoning on the property is A-1 and that is a use by right in A-1, a fire station can be developed there. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 23 Bunch: Estes: Warrick: Estes: Warrick: Estes: Hoover: MOTION: Ostner: Hoover: Shackelford: Hoover: Roll Call: Thomas: Ok, thank you. Dawn, why is this not considered spot zoning? Because it can be a consistent commercial node at this intersection. It can adjoin the C-1 property to the north and become part of that consistent uniform zoning on the west side of Rupple Road. If this were leap frogging south of the fire station site I think it would be considered a spot zoning. However, it is incorporated into this commercial area at that intersection of the larger street. Staff felt that it was appropriate here. Even though we are going from C-1 south to C-2 and not from C-2 to C- 1? It is actually going from C-1 to C-1. The corner is zoned C-1 currently. Ok, I'm sorry, I see that. Are there any other comments? I live nearby a fire station. I wish businesses were there instead of me. No one sleeps there. I will make a motion to forward RZN 03-21 to the City Council. I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, is there a second? I will second. And a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, will you call the roll Renee? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-21.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 24 ANX 02-01.10 Annexation (Harrison, PP 256) was submitted by Monroe Harrison for the Petitioners for property located south of Rom's Orchard Road and east and west of Lancaster Lane. The property is in the county and contains approximately 22.05 acres. The request is to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. Hoover: Item number eleven on the agenda is ANX 02-01.10 submitted by Monroe Harrison. Dawn? Warrick: This is an annexation request for a grouping of properties on the east side of town. I have spoken with one of the individuals involved in the annexation earlier today. They have indicated to me that they may wish to table this item to discuss it further with staff. I will be glad to go through my staff report if you choose to hear from the applicant that would be fine with me as well. I believe they do have representation here. Hoover: Let's have the applicant come forward. Barton: Ladies and gentlemen, Monroe Harrison is out of town. My name is Lionel Barton, I am one of the applicants in this request to come into the city. Half of my property is already in the city. The way I got involved in this is this group of people, all but three of us, submitted an annexation request last year. I got a letter that either they sent out or the city sent out and I called Monroe and told him I will be glad to help you any way I can. I am in the city and I will help you all get in the city. It turns out that the eastern half of my property is not in the city. My five acres is in two different forties. This goes back to the late 70's and early 80's. Some of you people may be old enough to remember when the city took in a half mile on the east side of town in the Old Wire Road area. An election had to be held, both groups had to approve it. I went down to vote and Truman Yancey was the election commissioner. He had driven that area and determined that the southwestern 160 KV line was the half section line. Anybody on the west side of that could vote. What he didn't take into account is that line jogged west to miss Wade Fischer's four poultry houses. When I went down to vote they did not let me vote. I complained to the city, threatened to take them to court to get the election thrown out. The lady I talked with, I didn't realize at the time but she was just saying anything that I wanted to hear to get me out of her office. I can say that because I know none of you were involved in that. She said you can either come in or stay out, either one you want. I said well I'll come in. That was the end of that. I have been in the city I thought all these years, all five acres until this annexation request came up. Mine was key because that is what they were getting was contiguous to the city. Ok, we're turned down. Monroe and I went in and visited with staff. They said well you can resubmit and get more people to join. Obviously, I came into the deal and we picked up two other people. We talked to the county and they Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 25 were willing to not require us to start over. We could use an amended petition so we didn't have to pay the new fee. The city agreed that we wouldn't have to pay the new fee for the city but the County Attorney determined that we did need to readvertise so paid $300 for the advertisement. These other people were out the other time some $1,600. Obviously, if we would've known that staff was going to recommend against this we thought we were jumping through all the hoops, doing everything that's required and I've spent $300, these other people last year spent some $1,600 and now I understand that staff is recommending that we not come into the city. I don't know what the recourse is. I know we can't get our money back. The Springdale News is not going to give me my $300 back. This is the second time I have tried to get all of my property into the City. I have even talked, the people at the county told me well it depends on where you sleep and it comes right through my house, the city line. The lady said well which side do you sleep on? I said well the bedrooms are on the outer city side but if I am in the doghouse with my wife and sleeping on the couch then I'm sleeping in the city. We've got some very nebulous requirements here on some of this sort of stuff. I am here to plead to you tonight, Monroe Harrison is out of town. He is the one that initiated this. I thought I was already all in the city, I'm only half I guess. If this is going to be turned down we would like to see if we could be tabled so we could talk further with staff and see if we could do whatever it takes to get in because all the money we've already spent. I don't know what your thought is. I understood one of the reasons that they would not approve this is that there would be an island of people that were not in the city that we would go around some of these people. Can I answer any other questions for you? Hoover: Let me see if there is any public comment and then we will go onto the next step here. Is there any person in the public that would like to address this ANX 02-01.10? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Can we have discussion about tabling or a motion to table this? Dawn, would you like to comment about this perhaps? Warrick: Mr. Barton is absolutely correct. They have gone through a lot to get to this point. I don't believe staff has ever indicated that we would be in favor of or opposed to this because until recently we didn't' have all the materials necessary to adequately review and analyze the request. They have gone through the procedures to obtain an Order Of Annexation through the county, which is required prior to an annexation request from the city. They originally started last year with a different configuration and have added additional properties in order to of course gain adjacency to the city limits and to include a couple of additional neighbors. There are some issues with regard to this particular request that staff feels strongly about because this request, should it be approved, would create an Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 26 island of a couple or three different property owners that would remain outside the city limits with this area of the city surrounding them basically creating another donut hole. The city adopted an annexation policy that discourages this type of annexation practice because it does make it difficult to provide services adequately because there are always questions, like Mr. Barton had previously whether he is in or whether he is out. When you surround somebody it makes it even more of an issue and the provision of services can become complicated. We also have concerns with regard to provision of fire protection in this area. There are not adequate water lines to provide fire flow to protect any of the structures within the proposed annexation area. There is not a development proposal. The applicants would like to come into the city limits in order to obtain city services. One of the city services is fire protection without a contract. Right now they do have the option of electing to pay a contract either for Fayetteville or Goshen fire service. It would not be possible for us to adequately serve these areas for fire with the existing infrastructure that is in place. With no development proposal there is no telling when the city would have the opportunity to come in and improve this area. That would be at the city's expense to provide the infrastructure necessary to fight fires and provide adequate water service here. Fire response time to this area right now is approximately six minutes. That is a little too long. The Fire Chief indicates that four minutes is an appropriate response time. The streets that access this area, if we were looking at a development proposal there would be requirements for improvements to the streets. However, the streets that are there right now serve the existing homes that are there and the impact would not be changed without any proposed future development. Of course, bringing them into the city limits we do have configurations of houses that are located off of private drives and it is county property and they have developed and they have got larger lots with single-family homes primarily. Some of the property has been placed into the regional land trust and preserved. We are not looking at an area that has got eminent development potential. The property owners are solely looking to annex into the city limits. The issues that staff feels are important to address and to consider with this request are the adequacy of the infrastructure, streets and water in particular, and the creation of a new island with regard to the annexation configuration. Hoover: If they were able to get the neighbors to participate that are in the donut hole they still would be lacking in the infrastructure and we wouldn't be able to provide the fire service so they still would not. Warrick: It would still be complicated and difficult to recommend in favor. I know certainly if there were changed circumstances we would definitely look at it again and the zoning review team would look at this and address the various issues. We still have to consider the fact that the configuration of Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 27 this annexation proposal is a peninsula. Islands and peninsulas are both things that the Council has deemed undesirable with regard to annexations. It is not that we haven't done it in the past, it is that we are trying to become more efficient in the way that we annex property into the city and to address these things a little bit more comprehensively. We would certainly have to look at those types of things as a new proposal came forward. Pre -annexation agreements are things that other municipalities have employed mechanism to allow people to approach a municipality for annexation purposes to give a certain period of time for them to form an improvement district or otherwise find a way to provide the necessary infrastructure to serve their area and different things like that are certainly things we can approach and discuss with the applicant if they wish. Hoover: What is the procedure for annexation when someone comes into the office? What are the steps that it goes through? Warrick: We review the application. There are certainly requirements for submittal. Those requirements include approval from the county as far as an Order of Annexation from the County Judge and then there is an application, general information, a legal description is submitted and adjoining property owner information is submitted. Staff reviews that and then we submit all of that information to the zoning review team so that we can collectively look at the property and discuss it and then staff drafts a recommendation to you. Hoover: So really the customer doesn't know how it is going until the annexation review team reviews it. Warrick: We will never know for sure what the various comments from those individual departments and divisions will be until we have an opportunity to discuss it. We do try to troubleshoot as best we can, we encourage all applicants for annexations and rezonings to discuss with staff what their proposal is before they even go to the county in the instance of an annexation so that we can provide them with an annexation policy and with other types, the general land use plan, and other types of documentation before it gets to the point that it comes back to us. One of the unique things to this particular request is that the city adopted an annexation policy in the middle of it. It was initiated back in 2002 I guess and by the time that it came to staff in a new configuration we had adopted an annexation policy. Some of the things that are specific in the annexation policy are pertinent to this particular request, especially the boundaries, bringing in an entire neighborhood, having reasonable boundaries that follow natural corridors and avoiding peninsulas or islands are items. The city had not adopted a policy before, we knew that they Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 28 were not necessarily the best configuration for annexation, but we did not have a policy in place to apply. Hoover: Thank you. Now I understand. Barton: It seems to me that there should've been something in place that could've alerted us that staff was not going to recommend this to the Planning Commission before we spent the money. There was an original request. For example, I would think that these applicants should've been told before they went to the county that you are not contiguous with the city so it will not be approved. Then they would've known that my property was not all in the city. The second time around it seems that we could've been told that if there is an island that is not brought in it will not be approved so you don't need to spend your money. We spent the money up front and now we find out that the city has changed what they want to do and that it is not going to be approved. I don't think that's right that we spent the money ahead of time and then find out that it was not going to be recommended and I suppose that you all aren't going to approve it. Thank you. Bunch: A motion to table would keep this project alive and some of the money could be recouped. One of my other concerns in looking at this is the responsibility of the tax payers of the City of Fayetteville to bring a piece in that has substandard roads and that sort of thing and then providing access to services such as police, fire protection and also ambulance service, even though that is not the City of Fayetteville. The drawings that I see don't depict roads, don't depict rights of way, don't depict easements, we see no utilities on here. This is, I bring this up so if this is tabled, just a word to the wise for the applicant since they said that there were some things they were not told, I would like to bring some of these things up now as a jargon you might say of the interest of the taxpayers of the City of Fayetteville. It would be in our best interest as tax payers to have an improvement district here rather than having it come in as an undeveloped piece of property and then have the tax payers pay for the development. Normally when we bring in undeveloped property there is usually a development plan with it that includes streets rights of way, fire plugs, waterlines, all these sorts of things that the developer usually does. In this case the land is already developed and there are people already living there but it looks to me as there needs to be an improvement district to bring this up to not necessarily the letter of the law for Fayetteville standards but at least to a reasonable level, rather than place the burden on the taxpayers of the City of Fayetteville to improve all of this. That is another consideration. I don't know, these things might have already been done. It is hard to tell from the drawing we have to show us what exists. Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 29 Barton: Bunch: Barton: Hoover: Ostner: Hoover: Warrick: MOTION: Shackelford: All I know about streets is the original owner of all of that property out there was Riley Skillern who is now deceased. He sold all the land for the Savanna Estates and all of that. He deeded to the county a street right of way on the back side of my property. It is 50' wide and it goes all the way down to Old Wire Road. I would assume that when the city took that half mile in that they became owners of that 50' strip. I live on Old Wire Road so I am not a part of those streets that are not developed yet. These other people certainly live on Lancaster Lane. The other street that has not been developed has been petitioned to the county and has been named Harrison Drive on the south side of my property. I didn't even know it until this came up but it has already been named Harrison Drive. The reason I'm bringing these comments up is apparently there have been some miscommunications and some misunderstandings and these are things that we look at. If indeed there are these easements and rights of way they need to be on the documents that are part of the submittal package. I wish Mr. Harrison could be here tonight. He is the one responsible for this. He dealt with a man that draws plans and his son is a lawyer and he drew up the legal part of it. I was just the one that is contiguous to the city that was helping them get in and the one that is out $300. Are there other comments or motions? It is ironic and it is unfortunate that this is happening because this is the opposite of sprawl. This is our city growing with low impact development and low density but without city services we would be doing the taxpayers a disservice. That is the irony is that the developers pay their way but there is no development, they already live there. Procedurally I don't know if it is in the applicant's interest to table it or not. You might ask staff that since the actual applicant isn't here, Mr. Harrison. I would certainly leave that up to the Commission. Staff would be happy to table this and review this with Mr. Harrison or any of the other applicants and bring it back to you at the next meeting or following meeting. I don't have any problem whatsoever in doing that. I struggle taking action on this without Mr. Harrison being here. If you look at our agenda tonight we have three annexations that were recommended for denial. I think we see a shift in our procedure, at least our standards that we are reviewing these. I hate to take some quick Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 30 action and not give these folks the opportunity to at least speak their peach and try to convince us otherwise. I am going to make a motion that we table ANX 02-1.1.00. Estes: Two in one night and I will second. Shackelford: I'm never doing it again so don't get used to it. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Estes. Is there anymore discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 02-1.10 was tabled by a vote of nine to zero. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: Thank you. It has been tabled now so you have some more opportunity. Thank you. We have I know at least one other item on the agenda. We need to set up a committee to review our bylaws that have not been reviewed since 1999. I was hoping that our senior members of our Commission who are not on Subdivision Committee would volunteer to be on this bylaw review committee. Does that sound agreeable? Estes: Tell us who those are. Hoover: Commissioner Estes, Commissioner Shackelford and Commissioner Allen. Is that agreeable? I am delighted. Is there any other business Dawn? Warrick: I just have two announcements. The first is that the City Council adopted the Unified Development Code, which is our codified Unified Development Ordinance, now called the UDC. It was adopted June 3`d and it is affective July 4th . Hoover: Not until July 4th should we bring those books with us. Warrick: Technically that is correct but the information is substantially the same. I would note that there are some changes in the names on our residential zoning districts so you might want to study up on that because you will be seeing us refer to things as RSF-4 instead of R-1 and there is a little bit of a learning curve that we as staff are going to be going through and those of you that have been referring to the zoning districts the way you have for many years, that is some terminology that has changed. We are very proud that that has finally been adopted and it is on the website and available. It is something that we encourage you to go ahead and use. If Planning Commission June 9, 2003 Page 31 you have questions as to what the changes have been, a lot of the changes just have to do with nomenclature and numbering but we will certainly try to make note of that in our reports so that we gradually work our way into utilizing this new document. The other announcement I have is Planning Commissioner training that was rescheduled from February when it was snowed out is scheduled for July 9th in Hot Springs. For either of our new Commissioners if you are interested in participating in that it is a one day training session workshop in Hot Springs and there is a lot of demand for hotel rooms in Hot Springs during that week, apparently they have a lot of events going on, so I need for anyone who is proposing to attend and needs a hotel room to contact Renee as soon as possible. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Is there any other business? We are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 6:40 p.m.