Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on July 28, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) Page 2 ADM 03-19.00: Administrative Item (CUP 99-25.00) Page 14 ADM 03-20.00: Administrative Item (Martin CU94-15) Page 17 LSD 03-18.00: Large Scale Development (Mitch Massey, pp 363) Page 19 Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Tabled RZN 03-25.00: Rezoning (Freeman, pp 678) Forwarded to City Council Page 35 RZN 03-26.00: Rezoning (McDougall, pp 398) Forwarded to City Council Page 37 Report from Bylaw Review Committee Postponed to next meeting Page 39 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alice Church Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 2 RZN 03-22.00: Rezoning (Pope, pp 136) was submitted by Ronny and Karen Pope for property located at 1750 E Zion Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to rezone the property R -O (Residential Office). Hoover: Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for July 28, 2003. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioners Ostner and Anthes being absent. Hoover: Thank you. The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the July 14, 2003 meeting. Do I hear a motion? Allen: I will move for approval of the minutes. Bunch: Second. Hoover: Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2003 meeting was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Hoover: Next is RZN 03-22.00 for property located at 1750 E. Zion Road. Dawn, do you have the staff report on that? Warrick: Yes. This item was tabled at your last Planning Commission meeting by the applicant and representatives of the seller. This is a rezoning request for two acres located at 1750 E. Zion Road. The subject property currently contains a single-family home containing three bedrooms. The surrounding properties include undeveloped property to the north, a top soil excavation operation to the east, single-family housing to the west and to the south across Zion Road multi -family dwellings. While there is a mixture of land uses located south of Zion Road on the south side the north side has remained primarily residential with a few intermittent uses. The proposal is to utilize the existing structure on the property and convert it to a small professional office with the outward appearance of the structure to remain basically as it is with possible improvements to the driveway and access point onto Zion Road. In order to do that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to R -O, Residential Office. With regard to infrastructure, access to the site is from Zion Road. Zion is designated a collector on the Master Street Plan. The street in this location is not currently constructed to city standards for a collector. There is no curb, gutter or storm drain currently. The ditches on either side are fairly steep. To the north the Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 3 street is overgrown with vegetation. There is water and sewer available to the site in the form of a 12" water line and an 8" sewer line both along Zion Road. The Future Land Use Plan does designate this particular site as residential and the request for zoning to Residential Office is not consistent with that land use plan designating as residential. The zoning review team did inspect this site prior to the last Planning Commission meeting. Comments from members of the zoning review team are included in your packet. Access and traffic were concerns that were voiced by the majority of the members on the team. With regard to specific findings of staff, the finding with regard to the proposed zoning being consistent with the land use planning objectives, principles and policies the finding is: The requested rezoning is not consistent with the adopted General Plan. This area is designated to be residential on the Future Land Use Map. The Residential Office district has in the past been used as a transition zone and is an appropriate transition zone when areas are called out to be residential. However, the subject property is not located in a transitional area between properties that are single-family and either a higher density residential or a commercial type use. With regard to whether the zoning is justified and/or needed the findings are: The proposed zoning is not needed at this time. There are other properties within the general area already zoned or identified on the Future Land Use Map to be developed with office uses. With regard to the finding on whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and connection: The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger in the area. The current condition of Zion Road is not desirable. Site distance, a poorly configured access drive, and the narrow width of Zion Road in this area all affect this site. Any increase in traffic would be detrimental without improvements to the street. With regard to whether or not this proposal would increase population density: The finding is that it would not. Since the last Planning Commission meeting I have supplemented your staff report starting on page 1.18. You have a memo and then some additional materials. Included in those materials are a response from Mr. James McCord who is an attorney representing the applicants. That is found starting on page 1.19. Included in that is a proposed Bill of Assurance for this particular site and I will defer to Mr. McCord and his clients to present that to you. Also included in your packets starting on page 1.22 there are some trip generation calculations for the two acre site. The first is reflecting development of two acres for offices, which would generate approximately 390 vehicle trips per day on an average weekday. The second is for a three employee single -tenant office building, which is the proposal by the applicant, which would generate approximately 11 vehicle trips per day and the third calculation is for one single-family dwelling, which would generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. Following that information are Planning Commission minutes from July 14, 1986. These minutes reflect a request Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 4 for rezoning the subject property from Agricultural to Residential Office, which is the same request that you are hearing at this time. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to deny the rezoning request, which was in support of staff's recommendation for denial at that time. Following that information the last piece that was included are Planning Commission minutes and the staff report for an item that you heard on May 12, 2003, which was a request to rezone property in this general area. It is on the south side of Zion Road at the southwest corner of Zion and Vantage Drive for rezoning three acres from R-2, Residential Medium Density to R -O, Residential Office. Staff was not in favor of that recommendation and the Planning Commission did fail to make a motion on that item. That information was added for you for your consideration this evening. Staff has not changed our recommendation with regard to this particular request. We do feel that it is inappropriate and recommend denial of the Residential Office request at this time. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward? McCord: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jim McCord, I represent Ronny and Karen Pope, the applicants on this requested R -O zoning. We recognize the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed R -O zoning is reasonable. To make the determination of reasonableness requires consideration of all relevant factors and not just the General Land Use Plan or Future Land Use Plan, which are merely guides in making a rezoning decision. What I would like to do in demonstrating why this request is reasonable is to go through first the supplemental materials that have been presented to you and then the memorandum that I've submitted, which I'm sure you've read and I won't go through it in its entirety but I would like to summarize it because I think it makes several important points that demonstrate why this request is reasonable. The first on the traffic issue, staff has provided trip generation calculations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. I find it interesting to note that the projections from that institute are basically the same for the three person accountant's office that is being requested in this rezoning and a single- family residence. If you compare those they are nearly identical. Obviously, if you had a big office it would be higher traffic and an irrelevant projection has been included. The traffic issue I think is a non - issue because the proposed use of the property would not increase traffic. The Fayetteville Police Department itself found that the proposed rezoning would not substantially increase traffic congestion. You have your own police department and the I.T.E. projections demonstrating no increase in traffic if the proposed use and R -O zoning is approved. As far as the earlier decisions by the Planning Commission on this property, that can be distinguished because the applicant proposed to construct a small office building behind the single-family residence that is on the property. In this Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 5 case the applicant does not propose to construct another building. The applicant proposes to use the existing single-family residence as an accountant's office for himself, his staff attorney and his wife, who is the secretary/receptionist for the firm. The requested R -O rezoning at the southwest comer of Vantage and Zion, which was denied in May can also be distinguished because in that case the three acre parcel was zoned R-2. Professional offices are a conditional use in the R-2 district so R -O rezoning was not necessary in that case for the proposed use. The applicant could've requested a Conditional Use so the staff and this Commission determined by no action that the rezoning would not be reasonable I think it is important to note that with the Bill of Assurance offered by the applicant that the character of the neighborhood will not be changed. The outward appearance of the property will remain the same. It will merely be used as a small accounting office and the traffic will not be generated. The character of the neighborhood will not be changed by this rezoning. It is also important to note the surrounding land uses and whether R -O would be reasonable in considering those uses. To the east is a top soil excavation operation, gravel pit, whatever you want to call it. To the south is multi -family apartments. The property is not desirable as a single-family residence. It has remained on the market for sale as a single- family residence unsold for quite some time. It is significant to note, and we just found this out today, that the owner of the single-family residence to the west, John Tuddle has no objection to the proposed R -O zoning with the Bill of Assurance. Regarding the Bill of Assurance, to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to guard against any possible change in use after the applicant purchases the property and converts the house into an accounting operation, the Bill of Assurance will provide 1) Use of the property shall be restricted to a professional office or a single-family dwelling. 2) No additional building shall be constructed on the property. To address the vegetation and visibility obstruction concerns that were made by the Police Department and staff the third point of the Bill of Assurance is the ground vegetation in the yard would be cleared or trimmed to maintained so as not to steer traffic visibility. The Bill of Assurances would be covenants running with the land and would be binding upon future owners. Let me briefly go through the high points and the memorandum I submitted in response to the application. Staff finding one, R -O zoning is not consistent with the City's General Plan, the area is designated residential on the Future Land Use Map. That is true, again, the General Plan and Land Use Map are Planning guidelines. You must look at the facts. What is on the ground now? What is adjacent to this property? It is multi -family apartments to the south, a gravel pit to the east and some R -O further to the west and east. Again, the owner of the single-family residence immediately to the west does not object to the rezoning. Staff finding two, R -O zoning is not justified. For the reasons I've numerated we respectfully submit R -O is justified considering all of Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 6 the relevant situations, the Bill of Assurance, the land use to the south, the land use to the east. The proposed zoning would increase traffic danger, we've addressed that. The Police Department found no increase in traffic. The I.T.E. projections that demonstrate no increase in traffic from a three person accounting office. It is reasonable to expect that a single-family residence with teenagers would actually generate more traffic than the proposed use by a small accounting firm. All of these reasons we respectfully submit demonstrate the reasonableness of this request and for that reason we hope that the Planning Commission will grant the rezoning as requested with a Bill of Assurance, which is binding upon this proposed owner and future owners. We would be happy to answer any questions. Hoover: Thank you Mr. McCord. At this time we will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to address RZN 03-22.00, this rezoning on Zion Road? Yes Ma'am, please come to the podium. Please sign in on the sign in sheet. Gilbert: I am Courtney Gilbert, I am an attorney at Davis, Wright, Clark, Butt & Carithers and Jack Butt and I represent the current property owner, Mary Savin in this case and we are here today to request that you approve the rezoning at this point. As you know, the property is currently zoned R -A. Hoover: Excuse me, you represent the owner? Gilbert: We represent the current property owner, yes Ma'am. Hoover: Who is asking for this request? Gilbert: We are not the applicant for the rezoning but the applicant for the rezoning is in contract with the owner to purchase this property. Hoover: I guess I see you more as being part of the applicant and we really would like responses from the general public right now. We will bring it back to the applicant in a minute if you don't mind waiting until then. Gilbert: Ok, ok, sure. I'm sorry about that. Hoover: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this rezoning? Yes Sir. Jones: I am Jamey Jones, I have lived on Zion Road since 1966 in the second piece of property to the west of the property in question. I have already told Ms. Pope my feelings about this. I would not favor any rezoning that might lead to business or commercial use in the future. I would not object Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 7 to a Conditional Use for a small office provided it would revert to the previous zoning if someone else purchased the property. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant. Would you like to come back up now? Thank you. Gilbert: Again, I am Courtney Gilbert, I represent the current property owner, Mary Savin in this case and we are requesting that the Commission approve the rezoning from R -A to R -O in order for Ms. Savin to be afforded reasonable use of her property. As Mr. McCord stated, this land is currently zoned R -A but in actuality the area surrounding the property is actually mixed with several different types of property. There are obviously apartment complexes to the south directly across the street from this property. There is a top soil excavation operation directly adjacent to the property on the east and there is business development on both sides of the property from the east and the west within 3/10 of a mile and within a half mile radius. I think it is also important to note that this property is being requested to be rezoned for a single professional office use, a CPA office. There is a CPA office 3/4 of a mile to the west of this property currently and there is within 4/10 of a mile to the east of this property a veterinary office. It is important to note that these characteristics along with especially the top soil excavation to this property currently make this property an undesirable location for residential use. These characteristics have forced this property to sit on the market for many months. In fact, the property has been on and off the market since 1998. The property has been reduced in value several times and Mr. John Sullivan can speak to you more about those issues in a few minutes. The denial of the rezoning in this case would affectively deny Ms. Savin any reasonable use of her property which as you know, is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law and Ms. Savin should not be denied any reasonable use of her property. As I said, you will hear from Mr. John Sullivan in more detail. He is a real estate broker with the Property Store who currently has this property listed that this property has been listed on and off for many years without any success to several different real estate agencies and several different agents and repeatedly the only seriously interested buyers have been businesses that cannot use this property as it currently is zoned. All of those things considered make it abundantly clear that this property is not desirable any longer for residential location and I think it is also important to note that there is no Conditional Use available for an office of this nature in the R -A zoning district. What is being requested is a small CPA office. The owners of the property are not going to be living in the property and it is going to contain one employee at least that is not a family member. While it is recognized that the rezoning of this property from R -A to R -O is not consistent with the General Plan as it stands now, I Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 8 think it would be beneficial to the city for the Commission to consider whether obviously the General Plan should be used as a guideline, but whether it is beneficial to continue with that General Plan at this point and whether it would in fact be doing more harm than good in letting this property just sit there vacant in an undesirable situation. I think it is important for the Commission to consider whether this property if it is not rezoned, whether ten years down the road it will be more beneficial for the city to have this property as vacant and not tax supporting rather than having a small professional office in it that would be supporting the tax base. For these reasons we are requesting that the rezoning be approved. I would like to turn it over at this point to Mr. John Sullivan to discuss with you the way that this property has been marketed and the length of time this property has been on the market. If you would like I have some documents that might help you with an explanation. Sullivan: First of all I would like to just say thank you to the Commission for tabling this two weeks ago when I came up to you. Again, I am pretty nervous and don't do this regularly. I asked you guys for a couple more weeks when we found out that staff was considering disapproval of this. Just a couple of things let me say as a real estate broker. What you have basically you have heard from both attorneys is true. I have got the listing reports and that is what you've been given. We have had a real difficult time selling Mrs. Savin's property for that reason. Again, it doesn't conform to a single-family residence in any way shape or manner. The home itself inside the home you heard three bedrooms. Actually, when you go in the door it is an open area that you could call a living room. It has three separate hall ways with three separate rooms with three separate baths going down them. It actually is in pretty nice shape for use as an office facility as well and was built and designed that way. The biggest thing that I see is again our biggest setback is that gravel pit or whatever we want to call it to the east. I keep hearing that the north side of this road has been residential yet there is 20 plus acres when you are looking out the front door of this home and look to the east of it you look down on this gravel pit. That is the best word for it. When we were out there last Tuesday on the property, this isn't just being excavated, it is being placed there. There is new gravel on the property adjacent to the east side. There were folks in red outfits if you know what I mean. Literally, half a dozen of them on the property working with the gravel. I don't know where it is going or coming or that sort of thing but this is definitely, it has been there and it is not going away. It is not going to be used unless it is for something other than single-family residential property. We tried leasing the property out over the years for the owner. The owner, by the way, is retired to California. She is in her late 70's. She can't come back. She is not in good health and she won't be back here. In our applications for rentals, the last person that was in there was a person who didn't put a sign Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 9 up and was using it for their offices for a mortgage company. They didn't have folks go there and meet but that is what they used it for. They wanted to buy the property for that use but when they couldn't they moved. Our rental applicants since were for Arkansas Dance Academy, Christy's Daycare, Sunbelt Business Brokers. This property and its use is just not conforming to single-family residential. A lot of folks could say well she could make apartments out of this two acres of something. Every argument that I see that talks about the problem with traffic on the road would only be worse. I see buyers here that truly want the property, are willing to use it in a use that conforms really to the neighbors. The neighbors are saying gee, if they are going to use it for that we have no problem and I also see that any other use of this property if it was torn down and turned into apartments would create a worse situation for that area and I think that is about the only other option on this property other than a single-family home. We just ask again that you consider the request. Again, the owner of the property would ask you to do that as well as the buyers. Thank you. Are there any questions I can answer for you? Hoover: Commissioners? Questions? Bunch: Is one of the reasons that the property is not selling possibly that it is over priced? How is the price of that property in relation to the surrounding property? It looks like it started right at $300,000 and dropped to $275,000 for a two acre lot with a house on it. Sullivan: It is down to $250,000. Yes Sir, the home was built in 1994, two plus acres in Fayetteville at that area close to Lake Fayetteville, it is in the high two thousands in square foot, it is not an old home. No Sir, I think again if I were to take homes in a residential R-1 neighborhood around Lake Fayetteville of the same size and thing I don't think we would have a problem at all getting that price. I think the problem exists because of the road and the gravel pit next door. We can't find folks that want to live there and raise a family there. Bunch: Thank you. Estes: Dawn, I have a question. Under R -A a Conditional Use, Use Unit 2 is a city wide use by Conditional Use Permit and then under R -O, which this applicant seeks to obtain this evening, a Conditional Use, Use Unit 2 is city wide uses by Conditional Use Permit. What is the reasoning that this applicant could not request a Conditional Use under the R -A zoning designation? Warrick: Use Unit 2, city wide uses by Conditional Use Permit are those uses that require Conditional Use approval in any zoning district. For instance, a Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 10 Estes: Warrick: bed and breakfast or an antique shop. There are other specific uses that can be requested under various zoning districts depending on how they are listed, if they are included in that section, which allows for approval or use based on approval by appeal to the Planning Commission. Under the Residential Agricultural district there are uses that can be requested by Conditional Use are cultural and recreational facilities, commercial recreation large site, home occupations or wireless communication facilities. Under the Residential Office district of course this use would not require a Conditional Use. It would be a use by right as a small professional office. Is there any way to get the applicant what they are requesting by a Conditional Use in an R -A? I have thought about that and there is not a Conditional Use route in order to achieve this end. I think that the only mechanism, well there are two, would be the vehicle that the applicant has proposed this evening which is the Bill of Assurance on the Residential Office zoning or a Planned Zoning District. We did previously have a Conditional Use application that probably would've been appropriate for this type of application. It was referred to as limited commercial uses within a residential district. For instance, there is mentioned in the information that you probably have in front of you about a veterinarian office or a veterinarian clinic within this general area on the south side of Zion Road. That use was established through the limited neighborhood commercial Conditional Use. When the Planning Commission forwarded and the City Council adopted the Planned Zoning District ordinance in December of last year that did repeal the Conditional Use for limited neighborhood commercial uses within a residential district. It replaced that with the Planned Zoning District process. Estes: Thank you, I think. Bunch: Following the same line of reasoning that Commissioner Estes opened, did the applicant work with city staff with a PZD to be able to give a better description of how the property would be used rather than a limited Bill of Assurances with the rezoning? Warrick: We did not pursue a Planned Zoning District on this. I did meet prior to the applicant submitting their request with them and discussed the various methods that they have about making a request in this particular instance. At that time I had not done research on the site and reviewed the site specific information and other conditions. The mechanism of a Planned Zoning District basically predicts that there will be development and it is processing, in this instance it would be a Large Scale Development Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 11 combined with a zoning request. Because development is really not being proposed, they are not proposing to add any structures or extend the existing structure, I didn't recommend a Planned Zoning District. That is not to say that one could not be applied in this particular instance but that wasn't the route that the applicant chose to take because there was not a development per say going on. They were not proposing to build anything new or make alterations to the existing structure. Bunch: Thank you. Estes: Dawn, a Conditional Use does not run with the land but attaches to the fee simple owner, is that correct? Warrick: It can be made a condition that it would attach to the fee simple owner but typically a Conditional Use would run with the land. For instance, if this applicant were to have a Conditional Use on a particular property and those conditions applied by the Planning Commission allowed for a professional office with three professionals, x number of parking spaces, if this applicant were no longer using it then a new applicant could as long as those conditions were being met. Estes: The applicant's proposed Bill of Assurance provides that the use of the property be restricted to professional office and then provides that the Bill of Assurance would run with the land and be binding on all future owners so we are accomplishing by the Bill of Assurance what we would be accomplishing by a Conditional Use are we not? Warrick: Yes Sir we are. Estes: Ok. Hoover: Are there other comments or motions? MOTION: Estes: I am going to move for approval of RZN 03-22.00 and the reasons are three. The I.T.E. traffic generation that has been provided to us shows traffic generation like or similar to a Residential Agricultural. Number two is of course this property is directly to the west of a dirt pit which pragmatically makes its use as a residence difficult. Three, the Bill of Assurance seeks to accomplish what we would otherwise accomplish with a Conditional Use request which under the present configuration of our U.D.O. is just not possible. Hoover: I have a motion for approval, is there a second? Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 12 Shackelford: Hoover: Vaught: Warrick: Vaught: Warrick: Hoover: Bunch: Warrick: McCord: Bunch: McCord: Bunch: McCord: Bunch: I will second. A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there more discussion? Under the new code the lower district that allows a professional office is RMF -6 is that correct? Yes. What is an RMF -6? What situations would it be used in? Residential Multi -family six units per acre. It is a zoning district that allows for multi -family dwellings including apaiturent buildings and by Conditional Use it does provide for professional offices and a few other types of uses. It is basically a lower density apartment or multi -family unit. It does not restrict the type of residential configuration so as I mentioned, they could have apartments. However, what we've seen in the new applications of RMF -6 is typically a duplex or triplex type setup. Thank you. Is there any more discussion Commissioners? Yes. Staff, could you help us interpret the Bill of Assurances under Residential Office permitted uses? Would that limit the use to only Use Unit 8 and Use Unit 25 or would it also include Use Unit 12? I did not draft the Bill of Assurance and I think that that clarification would need to come from the applicant's representative. I would be glad to add Use Unit 25, we have no problem if you want to limit it to Use Unit 25. You are saying in your Bill of Assurance that you are limiting it to two Use Units, Use Unit 8 and Use Unit 25? We would limit it to use Unit 25, which is Professional Offices. I think it said single family dwellings in Use Unit 8. That is fine. I see your point now, I apologize. We would limit it to Professional Offices or single-family residential. What would be the mechanism for having the Bill of Assurance reflect what was just stated? Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 13 McCord: We are offering to modify it right now. Williams: As you are aware, I don't know if Mr. McCord is, we have drafted a form Bill of Assurance that we would prefer that you use and when you suggest that I think the Planning Depaitment has a copy and can provide that to you. That would have to be presented to the City Council also because the rezoning has to go up there. I think if you just make yourself known here then I wouldn't worry too much about the formality of it at this point. Hoover: Should we amend the motion to reflect? Estes: When I made the motion I attempted to articulate the three reasons for the motion. One of those was the Bill of Assurance. That was not formally part of the motion. I will make that a formal part of the motion at this time that the motion is dependent upon the applicant providing the Bill of Assurance as offered by the applicant's representative Mr. McCord. Hoover: Is that reference Use Unit 25 and 8? Estes: Yes, as stated by the applicant's representative Mr. McCord. Hoover: Does the second agree? Shackelford: Yes, I will concur with that. Hoover: Are we all clear on what we're voting on? Are there any questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-22.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 14 ADM 03-19 00• Administrative Item (CUP 99-25.00) was submitted by Donald and Beverly Donner for property located at 2405 N. Old Wire Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 (Residential Single Family -4) and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to amend CUP 99-25.00 for the requirement for sidewalk construction along Township Street and Old Wire Road due to site constraints and allow for a cash -in -lieu fee to be deposited with the City of Fayetteville for future construction of said sidewalk. Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is ADM 03-19.00 in reference to CUP 99- 25.00 submitted by Don and Beverly Donner for property located at 2405 N. Old Wire Road. Dawn or Jeremy? Jeremy, you might speak up. That mic doesn't seem very loud tonight. Pate: I will do so, thank you. This administrative item is to basically in 2002 the Planning Commission granted approval for a Conditional Use. We spoke about the limited neighborhood commercial use earlier for a law office. That has been repealed with the PZD in December, 2002. The subject property is located at the northwest comer of Old Wire Road and Township. It is a busy signalized intersection of two streets designated on the city's Master Street Plan. I have included the staff report from that original approval for the Conditional Use and the request is to amend condition number five which reads "Sidewalk construction in accordance with city standards shall include the installation of a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along both Township and Old Wire Road." The applicant has met with city staff on numerous locations to evaluate the location of the required sidewalks. Due to topographical constraints and ADA requirements for accessibility sidewalk construction in this particular area has been determined to be important as it is potentially heavily utilized by pedestrians to cross Old Wire Road in route to and from Gulley Park. At this time the Sidewalk Administrator is in agreement with the applicant's request and recommends that sidewalk construction for this location be delayed until such time as the intersection for Old Wire Road and Township Street is approved. The applicant has agreed to contribute a fee in lieu of construction of sidewalks in the amount of $3.00 per square foot of sidewalk that would normally have been required. The City of Fayetteville at the time of street improvements would be responsible for sidewalks in that location. Staff is recommending approval of the administrative item and the applicant's request to contribute the cash in lieu fee for the sidewalk construction with the following conditions. 1) The applicant shall contribute the fee as determined by the Sidewalk Administrator in the amount of $3.00 per square foot for a 6' sidewalk for the length of the property frontage due prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2) The applicant shall build sidewalks through the proposed driveways pursuant to the requirements as set forth in §171.13, Sidewalk and Driveway Specifications. 3) All conditions of the approved Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 15 shall remain applicable with the exception of those noted herein. Included in your packets are the determination of the $3.00 per square foot on page 2.3 and how that is determined by the UDC and the reasoning in item E there which is also highlighted about terrain being a potential constraint. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant here? I will ask if there is any member of the public that would like to address this ADM 03-19.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Bunch: A point of clarification, are we talking about sidewalks along both Township and Old Wire or just Township? Pate: Along both Township and Old Wire. Bunch: Both frontages since it is a corner lot? Pate: Yes Sir. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of ADM 03-19.00. Bunch: Second. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes and a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there any more discussion? Shackelford: One more question for clarification of staff. We are talking about a fee in lieu of $3.00 per square foot, is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Shackelford: On page 2.6 of our packet there is a letter from Mr. Donner to the city and in condition number one he said that he was informed that the fee would be $18 per square foot, what is the difference there please? Pate: The $18 per square foot most likely is referring to the linear foot requirements for a 6' sidewalk. Shackelford: Ok, thank you very much. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-19.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 16 Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 17 ADM 03-20 00• Administrative Item (Martin CU94-15) was submitted by Robert Martin for property located at 610 Overcrest Street. The property is zoned RSF-4 (Residential Single Family -4) and contains approximately eleven acres. The request is to amend Condition of Approval #2 for a lesser amount of right-of-way dedication than approved by Planning Commission for CU 94-15.00 that allowed creation of a tandem lot. Hoover: Item number three is ADM 03-20.00 submitted by Robert Martin for property located at 610 Overcrest Street. Jeremy? Pate: This administrative item is also a request to amend a condition of a previously approved project. In 1994 the Planning Commission granted approval for a Conditional Use for a tandem lot for the subject property on Overcrest Street. The request was approved to allow for a second single- family dwelling on the approximately eleven acre site. The approval was subject to two conditions of approval and that staff report is also included in your packet. Number two reads "Granting of 25' of public right of way from the west end of Overcrest Street along the north property line for a distance of 350'. The applicant has submitted a separate application for a property line adjustment and in order to proceed with that application we have to make sure that all requests and conditions are met in any prior project on this property. The request here is the condition as stated above and approved by the Planning Commission be amended to state the intended agreement between city staff and the applicant immediately prior to the Planning Commission meeting. There is an attached applicant letter stating his intent. A lesser right of way dedication in the amount of 175' was mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city staff. Available city planning records indicate the staff report was never changed to reflect this lesser right of way agreement. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request to amend condition of approval number two and approved Conditional Use to reflect the agreed upon dedication of right of way in the amount of 175' with the following conditions. 1) At the time of future development on the subject property staff shall review the proposal and may require additional approvals to ensure ordinance requirements for adequate lot access, frontage, and policies of connectivity and Master Street Plan are met. 2) All conditions of the approved Conditional Use shall remain applicable with the exception of those noted herein. Hoover: Thanks Jeremy. Is the applicant here for this administrative item? Do you have anything to add? Martin: I don't think so unless you have questions for me. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the public that would like to comment Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 18 Bunch: Pate: Bunch: on this ADM 03-20.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Are there any questions? Just for the record can we show which 175' is which? We are looking at a 350' stretch and it is not documented which 175' is being altered. The 175' should be along the north property line directly west of Overcrest Street. Is that north property line 350' long? Are we talking about the first 175' west? Pate: Yes Sir. The property line is actually longer than 350' in length, that was just the requirement in the Planning staff report at the time. Hoover: Are there any other questions or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve ADM 03-20.00. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Allen: I will second. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 03-20.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 19 LSD 03-18.00: Large Scale Development (Mitch Massey, pp 363) was submitted by Brett Watts of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mitchell Massey for property located in Lot 6, Pine Valley S/D Ph. V. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre (R-2, Medium Density Residential) and contains approximately 1.90 acres. The request is to build a two story 4-plex with 3 bedrooms each for a total of 12 bedrooms. Hoover: Item number four on the agenda is a Large Scale Development submitted by Brett Watts of Engineering Design Associates for lot six Pine Valley. Pate: The original Final Plat for the Pine Valley Phase V was approved on April 22, 2002 with a stated intent for five lots to be developed with duplexes and lot six, the subject property tonight, to be developed with a four plex. At that time concern from neighboring residents that the four plex would be out of character with the predominantly duplex developed neighborhood was discussed by the Planning Commission and that is included in your minutes. The Final Plat was approved by the Planning Commission on April 22nd. The proposal is to build a two story four plex with three bedrooms each for a total of twelve bedrooms on the 1.9 acres of lot six in the Pine Valley subdivision Phase V. A four car detached garage is proposed to meet the requirements of the covenants for Pine Valley Phase V for one garage per unit. Those covenants are also in your packet along with the required number of parking spaces for a total of 12 bedrooms. The property is over one acre and was specifically required with a note on the Final Plat to go through the Large Scale Development process. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting of July 17th included frontage requirements, dumpster location, tree preservation requirements and neighborhood concerns. The total bedrooms again are twelve and the applicant has met the 12 spaces required with one ADA space. Seven of those spaces would be surface parking and four in the attached garage. Land use and zoning surrounding is primarily residential single-family and duplex homes with industrial warehouse and book storage to the east. Water and sewer is available along Wildwood Drive and the right of way for 50' total. Street improvements proposed include in the development is a 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along Wildwood Drive. Tree preservation existing is 8.95%, they are preserving the entire 8.95% so no mitigation is required. Staff's recommendation at this time is approval of the Large Scale Development subject to the following ten conditions. 1) A variance shall be granted by the Board of Adjustment for a lack of frontage to meet the bulk and area requirements in an RMF -24 zoning district prior to final approval. A minimum of 90 feet of lot width for three or more residential dwellings is required in the RMF -24 zoning district. 2) Residential driveways shall have a maximum width of 24 feet, measured at the right-of-way line. 3) All trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with access not visible from the street. The dumpster location shall not encroach upon the access drive. 4) Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 20 No work shall be performed within the floodplain without a formal Floodplain Development permit issued by the City Floodplain Administrator. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 7) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500 for the Pine Valley Final Plat was paid on April 05, 2001. No additional parks fees are due at this time. 8) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4' wide sidewalk 6 feet from the curb along Wildwood Drive. 9) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 10) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: Grading and drainage permits; Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; Project Disk with all final revisions; Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant present? Shackelford: Before we proceed I need to recuse myself from this vote based on a business relationship with the applicant. Hoover: Thank you. Do you have a presentation? Watts: I really don't have anything to add to what Jeremy has already said but I can answer any questions that you all might have. Hoover: Thank you. Right now I will open it up to public comment, this Large Scale Development, if you will be sure to state your name and sign in when you come to the podium. Collier: Good evening, my name is Kelly Collier, my wife and I live and own a duplex at 2964 Marigold Drive in Pine Valley subdivision. I, myself and others are here tonight representing the Property Owners Association for the subdivision. We have several issues that we would like to bring up for the Council tonight that we have great concern over. The first of which is Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 21 traffic. We have brought pictures if you would like to see them of some of what the typical subdivision looks like during summer session. We have a large traffic problem with cars parking out on the street. The streets become crowded with vehicles and particularly in this part of the subdivision, this is the main entry to the subdivision and there are several near accidents that occur right where the property in question is being presented. When the fall and spring sessions come in the problem actually gets worse. The four plex plan suggests only enough parking for the tenants that are going to be using those four plexes. One thing that we see in the subdivision a lot is not only do the tenants of the duplexes park in the street, we also have friends and family and what not that park on the street as well, which creates more traffic flow problems. We believe that the plans are inadequate in this nature right now, that only accounts for twelve spaces and we believe that with extra people coming into this neighborhood and into this four plex they are not going to have anywhere to park and plus we are going to be adding more parking along the street near that busy intersection. We believe that they should at least count for one guest per tenant which would be a total of 24 spaces plus one handicapped stall. The traffic flow is just part of this but there is also anther great concern that we want to bring up. Recently we have had a fire in the subdivision and we had I think four or five ladder trucks try to maneuver their way back to the back half of the subdivision. With extra traffic in this part of the subdivision and extra parking along the streets and, not to mention, a fire truck being able to access the steep drive that is going down to this four plex this might be a great concern for the fire department. That is it for me tonight. There are others I think that have the same comments. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development? Jensen: I am Sue Jensen, I also live in the same neighborhood. As Mr. Collier has mentioned, the neighborhood association is very unhappy in a number of ways as we have pointed out to you in the Subdivision Committee meeting. This is going to be the only building of its kind in our area. If you will take a look at the way our subdivision is set up we have only about two empty lots in it, there is no way that Pine Valley can be expanded into anything else. We are one and a couple of two story duplexes, double car garages on virtually everything. The street parking is in terrible shape. People obviously are supposed to be parking in garages and driveways that is not done. What you are looking at is a unit that has absolutely no relationship to this existing 72 units that are already there and have been there for over ten years. We are looking at having to deal, because the city isn't going to pick up garbage, we are looking at dumpsters. If you will look through your packet very carefully there has also been a very specific series having to do with lighting for the parking Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 22 lot. We have street lights. If it goes the way it is we are looking at a great big building, a paved parking lot, a four car garage that is completely unattached, it will be the only one there, and then we are going to look like a mini -mart. We are not pleased with this, we would like you to reconsider. We realize that the purchaser wants to do something with it. We would understand two duplexes. In fact, looking over the notes from the April meeting and looking at previous plat plans, that was what had been offered. It was our understanding that this is what was going to be done. Certainly no promises were made but that was what the neighborhood had asked for. We feel that it is reasonable. Otherwise we are going to have one particular sore thumb that sticks out. There is no way that a four plex is going to be made to look like it has any relationship to our entire neighborhood. Mr. Collier has spoken to you about the fire truck problem if you will take a look at the grade and the very sharp curve that goes from Pine Valley and turns into Wildwood. That is obviously the people that put the roads together were anticipating that the 90° corner would slow traffic down, it does not. The driveway that is coming off that is in very short distance from that. There is no way that a fire truck could get down to save people's lives. It would be an iffy proposition that the rescue squad could make it. I think that also needs to be taken into consideration and we would like you to really dwell on this before we end up with something that is so completely different and is also dangerous. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development? Campbell: Access is the essence of real estate. Do I understand that the development there at the intersection of Shiloh and Porter Road has been held up pending a study of that intersection? Estes: Would the applicant state his name please? May we have your name? Campbell: I am a little bit vague on that. Estes: Could you give us your name so I can write down who you are? Campbell: My name is Sam Campbell, I reside at 1881 N. Pine Valley. Hoover: Could we have staff respond to that question? Warrick: The property at the intersection of Porter Road and Mt. Comfort and Shiloh where everything comes together, there was an annexation proposal at that intersection earlier this year. The property was annexed into the city limits. The proposed rezoning for that property is on the table at Council level pending the city's transportation study that is underway at Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 23 this time. Campbell: So the question arises how can you develop property where the traffic from which will exit at this problem location until you solve the problem. If Shiloh is a substandard collector street that empties into a substandard arterial if a truck parks on Shiloh serving those enterprises on the east side and west side of Shiloh you are down to one lane already. Going to a higher density of traffic only makes it a greater problem. I can understand the man wants to get his acreage occupied and get some income from it but just the safety considerations raise so many questions. I think those questions need to be answered before further difficulties are created. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Mr. Campbell. Is there any other member of the audience? Irwin: Hello, my name is Jim Irwin and I live in the back of the subdivision, 2974 Glen Meadow and that curve happens to be the main route for me to head back home. During the fall and spring semesters when multiple people, it seems like most of the college students rent in that first neighborhood along that street there. A lot of them park in that curve and stuff like that and there have been times when I have had to actually go the secondary route into the back of the neighborhood because I couldn't get through with my car through that curve to get home. My concern is that one being the extra parking and not having adequate parking at the four plex already designed would be a concern and that basically being that there is a four plex in here and there is a whole neighborhood of duplexes that could bring down the property value and that the owner in most of our duplexes live in one side and rent out the other. Basically here you are going with someone just doing an investment property. We know by driving around Fayetteville how some of the investment properties do. They start up with good intentions but because the owner lives someplace else or is not really concerned, it is just cash flow for them, that the property runs down and stuff like that. We are concerned about how the property is going to be maintained over a period of time. It is quite a bit of land and even though there is going to be a parking lot there is still quite a bit of greenspace still left. Who is going to maintain it? Is it going to be professionally? I assume that he is going to keep this property himself. To me I don't think we really want a four plex in this neighborhood because you want to keep the neighborhood the same and keep the unity of the neighborhood and this just seems to be throwing some odd ball into the neighborhood and we don't think that is right. Two duplexes is kind of what we had in mind and we talked to Tim about and we kind of said this is what we really want. The four plex is not going with the best interest of the neighborhood. Thanks. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 24 address this Large Scale Development? Albert: My name is Dianna Albert and I live at 1860 Pine Valley Drive. I also own the property there. My concern is when we purchased the property there we bought it as investment property and I know that is what they are trying to do. A lot of people and the home owners that you see here, we have all gotten together and upgraded our duplexes, we live in one side and we rent the other side. The rental in the past three years from when I moved there has gone from $650 a month to $900 a month due to upgrades. We have keyless entry, tile, irrigation in the yards. My main concern is with a four plex, our property values. How is it going to affect our property values and with the condensation of so many people. I realize, a lot of the people who live in a duplex have a two car garage and they want that and they want the nice things and now we are looking at a parking lot and a one car garage and will they pay extra for those one car garages? I am just real concerned about the issues that we might face for people who own several duplexes in there, how it will affect us as well as the actual look of the place. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development? Hearn: I am Renee Hearn and I live at 1855 and I am also a property owner. I want to just reiterate everything that they have said, I won't go down the list again because I know you have already heard it and you do have that in the minutes. One other big thing is that we have not even seen a picture of what it is going to look like. This is all just mentally, a four plex, is there a picture or a drawing? I am sure there is something that is drawn up that the four plex is going to look like. You can kind of compare that to other duplexes that are there and it is going to stick out like a sore thumb. It is just like having your neighborhood where you live and you have, maybe you live in a neighborhood with all housing, maybe you had someone come in there and build a triplex where you live, it would be the same difference for us. That is where we live and we've lived there for ten years, at least I have and my family has. A lot of these other ones have too. There are kids in the neighborhood. College students rent it but then there is also children. That is why I think it is important to keep the duplexes there and for the value of the duplexes. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Greenwood: Hi, I'm Kay Greenwood and I live also at 2978 Marigold. I live there and I rent the other side. It was done this way for all my good. I am a second grade school teacher and I do see the children out there and when they come home from school they are playing. I just think to myself anymore traffic and what is going to happen? We monitor our area very closely. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 25 We take care of it and we want this area to not just progress as it is to be better and better. The homeowners that you see here, and we are homeowners whether it is a duplex or not, we take very good care of our lawns. We take care and pride in the paper that is on the streets. I really want you to consider what we're living with and with what you want us to have in the future because you will make that decision. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Felker: My name is David Felker, I live at 2777 E. Par Court. I am not a resident of the neighborhood but I am an investor and own property in the neighborhood. I would like the Commission to take into account the pride that you see in the homeowner's association in this neighborhood. Especially for a neighborhood made up of duplexes. Over a number of years sometimes you see properties like these that don't maintain their value and sometimes don't have the pride of ownership that these do. What you see here is a large contention of homeowners and investors who care very much about the property and would like to see the integrity maintained in terms of the style of buildings and also the access with traffic and safety in regard to fire. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Seeing none, I would like to bring it back to the Commission and the applicant if you want to come forward. Commissioners, are there any questions? Church: Typically we have comments from the police department and the fire department that they have reviewed the project. Has that taken place? I didn't see any comments in the packet. Warrick: There are many divisions that review development proposals as they go through the process of review. Those comments are transmitted to you through plat review minutes. In this particular case we did not have any additional comments from fire or police. They also review the development proposals when the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the subdivision come through the process creating these lots. In this particular case I don't have the plat review minutes from when these lots were created back in the 1990's when the Preliminary Plat started and then it was finalized in 2002. This project, the street configuration, the layout of the lots were reviewed by several staff divisions including fire during that process as well. Hoover: Are there other questions? Estes: I have a question of the applicant. The protective covenants, in particularly number two, seem to contemplate or indicate that there will be duplexes. The word no duplex is used, the words per side is used. You Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 26 are proposing, if I understand correctly, a two story four plex. Watts: Correct. Estes: In your opinion does your proposed use violate or conform with the protective covenants and please state why? Watts: I really couldn't say that. I am not an attorney, I wouldn't be able to say whether or not that would fall in line with the proposed use. Estes: Well, I am a lawyer and item number two uses the word duplex and uses the word per side and you are proposing a four plex and I am concerned because although it is not this Commission's charge to enforce restrictive covenants and protective covenants I will not vote against something that in my opinion is not in conformity with the protective covenants or restrictive covenants and I find that your proposal is. Watts: We developed this as a four plex based on the conditions of the Final Plat that it could be developed as a four plex. Estes: I guess I want to have a dialogue with you then. The protective covenants refer to duplex and refer to per side, can you edify me, where did you get the notion and the idea that you could build a four plex and be in conformity with the protective covenants? Watts: We did not get the protective covenants until the design was already done and it was our client's wish to do a four plex. Estes: Ok, that is all I have. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. May I ask the City Attorney what are conditions that we can deny a Large Scale Development? Are covenants an issue, can we rely on covenants as an issue? Williams: That is not exactly what the ordinance says. Of course we are looking at the Unified Development Code and the subsection lists six different things that you can consider in order to turn down a Large Scale Development. Of course item number four has been discussed tonight and that is the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as but not limited to high traffic volumes, topography, and the nature of the traffic pattern. Of course I was at the City Council when they started discussing the delaying of the rezoning which had previously been approved by this Planning Commission of the other lot on the other side of Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 27 Porter Road but with the same intersection that you are considering. The City Council was concerned because the traffic engineers that they have hired to do a traffic study for the entire city is looking at that particular intersection. They don't know how it needs to be changed. They realize that it is a very dangerous intersection at this point in time and so they have delayed the rezoning request in that particular case until the traffic consultants could look at that intersection and decide what if anything needs to be done. I think there is certainly a traffic consideration not only within the subdivision here at the edge of the subdivision but also at the intersection of Porter Road where as you all are very well aware, it is a very different looking, strange looking, difficult intersection. I don't see anything about restrictive covenants. In that particular case of course the home owners would have a right to enforce them themselves and could obtain a lawyer and file suit in order to enforce their restrictive covenants as Commissioner Estes said. There are several things in the restrictive covenants that would lead me to be very concerned if I was trying to build something other than a duplex. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners? Bunch: A question for the applicant. The covenants also state that a 1,200 sq.ft. minimum size, what is the size of each of your units? Watts: I don't have size per unit. I just have total floor space both floors is 4,800 so that is 1,200 sq.ft. per unit. Bunch: Assuming that they are all carbon copies of each other? Watts: Correct. Vaught: I guess I read these covenants a little different. A duplex is considered a single-family dwelling? Warrick: A duplex is typically considered a multi -family or two family dwelling. Vaught: When I read the covenants no duplex, I would assume that covenant would only apply to duplexes, not other units. It specifically set lots one through six aside for multi -family residential purposes so I would think they were separating those out for a specific purpose. Also, the first condition, the Board of Adjustment condition, could you explain that in more detail? Warrick: Due to a configuration of this lot and the lot number one in I believe Phase I of the subdivision, which is just to the southeast of the subject property, the road, Pine Valley Drive curves around and becomes Wildwood Drive basically at this property. The configuration of that street does not provide Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 28 Vaught: Warrick: enough frontage on a constructed city street for the development of anything other than one single-family home on the subject property without a variance being granted by the Board of Adjustment. That was discussed and considered at the time of Final Plat and it is reflected in the minutes of April, 2002. That is the reason that the Board of Adjustment will be hearing a variance request should this be approved. I guess I just have a hard time because it is zoned RMF -24 and a four plex is a permitted use in an RMF -24 and the parking code as well. I would just like to add that staff is never intentionally going to bring you a project that does not comply with covenants of a particular subdivision. This plat when Phase V was created and platted creating these six lots, it went through the Planning Commission. There are minutes in your packet reflecting that. There are notes on the plat reflecting the expected development of lot number six as a four plex. It was discussed at that time and the Planning Commission did approve lot number six being developed as a four plex. I understand that there may be some conflict in the covenants. The covenants are agreements between the property owners, they are not approved by the Planning Commission or Planning staff and they are not enforced by the city but the development of this lot as a four plex was acknowledged in 2002 when the Final Plat was filed and signed and filed of record. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Church: I just have a question of the applicant. I know you are under no obligation to do so but have you thought about meeting with the neighbors at all? Has that been something that you have considered? I know we are certainly encouraging that. Watts: We didn't even know that there was going to be anyone against this until the Planning Commission meeting or the Subdivision Committee meeting when someone first said something about it. Church: This could be the most wonderful project in the world and they really don't have a lot of information about it so it is hard for them to make a decision at this point. Watts: As far as the traffic goes, this will not generate anymore traffic than two duplexes will because it is the same thing it just that they are put on top of each other. As far as the steepness of the drive, it is only 8% and there are countless streets in Fayetteville that are well over 8% and we have met every design criteria that the city has. Hoover: Commissioners Estes and Bunch, would you mind having your discussion Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 29 Estes: out here because I think that there is some difference in opinion on what exactly was discussed at this last Planning Commission. Commissioner Bunch and I were discussing the meeting minutes from the April 22nd meeting and we were discussing that when the motion was made that then Commissioner Ward said "It seems like we have looked at this several times and this lot six where the two duplexes are planned on being built, how many acres is that, approximately two acres." May I see your notes Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Sure. Estes: Commissioner Ward said "I can see that because the way the road is it has limited access and two duplexes on two acres is not a big deal to me. I think it should be approved as is." I seconded the motion that had been made. The discussion was two duplexes on two acres. That is what Commissioner Bunch and I were discussing. Bunch: We do not have with us a copy of the Final Plat. In discussion with Commissioner Estes I think the tenor of the discussion at the previous meeting had to do with frontage issues and allowing two duplexes on a double sized lot with insufficient frontage as opposed to a four plex possibly the terminology four plex came in indicating two duplexes but it seems like our discussion at that time involved allowing two duplexes with a common driveway. Warrick: We have a Final Plat that is signed if you would like it. Vaught: On page 4.9 it talks about the four plex where it was asked at this time they are asking the applicant what they were going to do and he says right now he doesn't know because he doesn't know if he is going to do a four plex or two duplexes but it is noted on the Final Plat as a four plex to go n that lot. That is where they talk about going before the Board of Adjustment. Warrick: In either scenario, had this been two duplexes or a four plex, Board of Adjustment action would be necessary. Hoover: I have to say I'm really confused because rereading the minutes of that Planning Commission we stated that a four plex could go on the lot but the rest of the discussion was two duplexes. Does anyone see that? How did we come up with that we approved the Final Plat with lot six four plex? Estes: The meeting minutes where we considered the Final Plat, page 4.9 is the discussion. Mr. Conklin says "We asked Mr. Harris to find out from the applicant and I'm not sure if he found that out." Mr. Harris: "At this time Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 30 he doesn't really know if he is going to do a four plex or two duplexes." Mr. Conklin: "Right now it is shown as one large lot platted and noted that a four plex could go on that lot." Commissioner Hoffman: "Right, and that is the issue that would be going to the Board of Adjustment." The discussion beginning over at the bottom of 4.10 and on through is two duplexes are planned on being built. If you are asking me what the motion was that I thought I seconded, I thought I seconded a motion, the motion was made by Commissioner Ward "It is beyond my comprehension how that was put on there so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't remove that access easement off there as a requirement. With that, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve this Final Plat with all conditions." I seconded that motion. If you are asking me what I thought I was seconding I thought I was doing two duplexes. Hoover: Commissioner Estes, I would like to add on 4.10 Tim Conklin reiterates the discussion and says "Staff would be in support of looking at a variance for that lot in order to accommodate two lots which would allow for two duplexes." Estes: Further on page 4.10 Mr. Conklin says "It is anybody's right to apply for that so that option will still be open. What we are saying publicly though is that staff would be in support of looking at a variance for that lot in order to accommodate two lots which would allow for two duplexes." I thought I was seconding a motion for two duplexes on two lots. If that is your question that's my answer. Hoover: Yes, I'm getting clearer. Estes: That is also my final answer. Hoover: Would anyone else like to see this Final Plat? Is there any other discussion? I guess let me ask staff. For approval of a Large Scale Development does it take a majority? Warrick: A majority vote. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion or a motion? Williams: I would like to say that anyone that is going to vote against the approval of this Large Scale Development, I think you might be able to refer back to any confusion there with whether it actually applies with what you had approved earlier but I also want to call your attention back to the stated things within the ordinance that allows you to vote no including the dangerous traffic situation I think every other part in here where it talks about not violating city ordinances and stuff, I think that they certainly have done what they could to meet all of those other conditions. Even Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 31 though this is an unusual situation because it is possible that somehow there was miscommunication and you didn't approve what staff thought you approved and what the developer thought you approved, that is not specifically listed in here but I think that might be a valid reason also is that if there was a misunderstanding by the developer or by staff of what you actually had approved I think that would also be a valid thing that you could point to. Bunch: From a standpoint of densities and traffic of course there is no difference between two duplexes and a four plex. It is a duplex, it is a double lot so that really is a moot point one way or the other because there has been a mechanism demonstrated for putting two duplexes on two acres. What we are looking at, more to me what I'm looking at is more of a consideration of massing of the building and whether or not it meets with the rest of the neighborhood. Looking at the plans for this project and seeing how the building will actually be around the corner behind a tree preservation line it is even questionable as to how visible it will be from the rest of the neighborhood. That even further compounds the complexity of the issue because it is supposedly something that may look out of character but it may not even be visible because of the drop off on the hillside of the neighbor's fence on the corner lot, I believe it is lot number one. It is what we would normally call in other things that we do, we would call screening. This will actually be screened from the rest of the neighborhood by virtue of topography and the tree preservation area. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. I guess when you bring up the issue of compatibility with the neighborhood I would be disagreeing with you there because of the parking that is going to be in front. It is almost like a parking lot in front of the building. Williams: I would like to point out that compatibility with the neighborhood is not one of the things that you can consider in a Large Scale Development denial. Hoover: Would you do the list again because I'm not finding it in our packet. Just the short version of it. Williams: It is in this new book we just handed to you. If you turn to Chapter 166 Development and you look at page 18 of that chapter then it is under D where it says "The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a Large Scale Development for any of the following reasons." 1) The development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section. 2) The proposed development would violate a city ordinance, state statute or federal statute. 3) The developer refuses to dedicate the street right of way, utility easements or drainage easements required by this chapter. Fourth is the one I read to you about Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 32 Hoover: Allen: Watts: Hoover: Williams: MOTION: Allen: Hoover: Church: Hoover: Bunch: traffic safety. 5) City water or sewer is not readily available. 6) Developer refuses to comply with Subsection 7(B) or (C) pertaining to the requirements of off site improvements, which is also not applicable at this time. Those are the six things stated in the ordinance. If you actually had not approved the plat that staff believed that you approved then they would not be working from an approved plat so that would be probably in violation of one of those things I just read because the plat must be from something that you had previously approved. Ok, thank you. I understand now. I wondered, this is kind of a strange thought but I wondered if perhaps the applicant might be willing to consider pulling the item and visiting with the neighbors as a matter of good will. It is possible, I can ask him. Right now I believe he is in Georgia so I couldn't give you an answer tonight as to whether or not he would be up for that. Thank you. Are there any other comments? It is certainly within the Planning Commissioner's power to table an item on their own if they feel like there are still unanswered questions concerning possibly about how this four plex was approved and further investigation on what you actually did last year in April and to give him some time to consult with this client and maybe meet with the neighbors. You certainly have the power to table it yourself. Based on that information I would like to move to table LSD 03-18.00. I have a motion to table, is there a second? I will second it. There is a second by Commissioner Church, is there any discussion? In part of our research to see exactly what we did on this I think it would be helpful to also review the Subdivision Committee meeting minutes and Tech Plat minutes that lead up to this Final Plat. When we bring it up for reconsideration if we could have available to us the Technical Plat minutes and the Subdivision Committee minutes leading up to the Final Plat for Pine Valley Phase V it might shed a little more light on the discussions of duplex verses four plex. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 33 Church: Also, I am assuming that those would include the comments from the police department and fire department, is that correct? Warrick: If they made comments then they will be in the minutes. Church: I am wondering if within that time frame if the situation hasn't changed if they shouldn't take another look at it if it is legal for them to do so. Warrick: They are provided plats when a Large Scale Development is proposed so they did, when this project started through the review process, they were provided the information on it. Hoover: Could we ask to get that information again when this comes back through just so that it is clearly stated? Warrick: We will provide all of the Plat Review and Subdivision and Planning Commission minutes for the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and the Large Scale. Hoover: Ok, is there any other discussion? Williams: I would just like to ask for clarification. Are you moving to table this to the next meeting or for a meeting after that so that everyone here including the proposed developer will know when they need to be back? Sometimes it is good to table it until a definite date. Allen: I would be agreeable to whatever you think is best. Would you like to wait longer than the next meeting or is the next meeting fine with you? Watts: The next meeting is fine. Allen: I would like to move that it be tabled until our next Planning Commission meeting. Hoover: Is that ok with the second? Church: I will agree with that. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other comment? Bunch: A question for the motioner. Are you, as part of your motion, recommending that the applicant and the neighborhood association get together? Allen: Most certainly I am. I would like to ask that the applicant meet with the neighbors if at all possible. I think a lot of the problems could be worked Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 34 out just with some dialogue. Hopefully they have a notion of what you plan to build and they have expressed concern about seeing it. There may not be the problems that they have and they may be tended to just by meeting. Hoover: Are we ready to call the roll? Go Renee. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 03-18.00 to the August 11, 2003 meeting was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Shackelford abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to zero. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 35 RZN 03-25.00: Rezoning (Freeman, pp 678) was submitted by Marvin and Dora Freeman for property located at 2848 and 2856 S. School Avenue (Lots 1 & 2, Blockl in the Country Club Addition). The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. The request is to rezone the two lots to R -O, Residential Office. Hoover: Item number five on the agenda is RZN 03-25.00 submitted by Marvin and Dora Freeman for property at 2848 and 2856 S. School Avenue. Warrick: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of S. School Avenue and Peach Street. It is east of McBride Distributing Company. There are currently two single-family homes located on the property which are owned and occupied by the applicant. The site is located in an area which is designated Community Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Surrounding uses included primarily single-family homes with the exception of the distribution operation to the west across S. School Avenue. When improvements were made by the Highway Department in the past a retaining wall was installed along the front of this property which causes problems with sight distance at the intersection of Peach Street and S. School Avenue. This, as well as the condition of Peach Street which is very narrow and not built to current city standards will have to be addressed when the use of the property changes. At that time a Certificate of Zoning Compliance will be required as will improvements to provide adequate parking and access for commercial site development. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing structures for small professional offices and the request is to rezone the property from RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre to R -O, Residential Office. Staff is in support of this request. Findings that are consistent with this request: With regard to the proposed zoning be consistent with land use planning objectives and policies: The proposed zoning is consistent. This area is designated to develop with community commercial uses and is currently starting to transition into that type of configuration. Surrounding uses include, as I mentioned before, single-family residential to industrial and warehousing and also county facilities across S. School Avenue. The proposed use of the site for offices is an acceptable transition between the surrounding heavy commercial and residential uses. With regard to whether the proposed zoning is justified and needed: The proposed zoning is justified in that it is consistent with the city's adopted future land use policy. The use of the site for offices is appropriate and would cause less impact or traffic conflict than a higher commercial designation. With regard to creating or appreciably increasing traffic danger or congestion: Staff finds that with improvements to sight distance conditions parking and access to the site at the time of development, the proposed zoning would not create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. With regard to whether the proposed zoning would alter population density: The proposed change in zoning would not alter population Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 36 density in a manner which would undesirably increase the load on public services. This particular site is currently utilized for single-family residential uses. The Residential Office zoning district would permit professional offices or if it were to redevelop with residential uses duplexes would be the maximum density that could be established on the site. With those findings staff is recommending in favor of this request. I would be happy to answer any questions. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Is there anything you would like to add to the presentation? Freeman, D.: Just that we have lived there 25 years and we have seen a lot of changes in the highway and the land development and we just feel like there should be a change in our property. We have maintained them well as residential properties and we just feel like with the changes that are going around we should have our land rezoned accordingly. Thank you very much. Hoover: I would like to open it up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address this RZN 03-25.00 on S. School Avenue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: From driving by and looking at this property and from reading the comments of staff I think this is an appropriate rezoning and with that I move for RZN 03-25.00. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there more discussion? Seeing none, would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-25.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 37 RZN 03-26.00: Rezoning (McDougall, pp 398) was submitted by Douglas McDougall for property located at 1187 51st Avenue (Lot 9 in Hamestring South Addition). The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The request is to rezone the lot to RSF-4, Residential Single-family- 4 units per acre. Hoover: Item number six on the agenda is RZN 03-26.00 for property at 1187 51st Avenue. Dawn? Warrick: This property is located north of Wedington Drive along the west side of 51s` Street. There is currently one single-family home with accessory structures located on the 3.10 acre tract. Surrounding properties contain single-family homes with a church located east of the site across 51 st Street. Two new subdivisions are currently being constructed further north and east of the property which will contain single-family residences and are zoned RSF-4. In recent actions the Planning Commission has approved a rezoning request for the property immediately north of this tract in order for that piece to be split for one additional single-family home. The applicant proposes to divide the subject property to provide one additional single-family lot and the request in order to do that is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single-family four units per acre. The applicant would propose if this rezoning is successful to bring forward a lot split request in order to create the second tract. Access to the property is available from Wedington Drive to the south as well as 51st Street, which lies around the eastern boundary. Wedington Drive is classified a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. 51n Street is a local street. 51st Street north of the subject property is on the city limits and has been improved adjacent to the new subdivision, Sage Meadows, which is under construction. Further north 51n Street adjoins an additional subdivision, Fairfield, also under construction and then 51n Street becomes Sunshine Road. Water and sewer are both available to this site with a 6" waterline along 51n Street and a 15" sewer main located also along 51s` Street. The General Plan Future Land Use Map designates this site as residential. Therefore, the zoning request to single-family residential is consistent with that plan. With regard to findings: The first finding is consistency with the plan and I've mentioned that. Second, with regard to whether it is justified or needed: The consistency with the adopted land use plan and policies does justify this rezoning request. Also, the ability to further develop the property a different zoning designation is required in order to do that. The R -A, Agricultural zoning district would only permit one single-family home to be located on this property. It contains three acres and the minimum lot size for a single-family home in this zoning district is two acres. Determination as to whether the zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion: The finding is that the proposed zoning will only allow the development of one additional single-family Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 38 home on the property. The addition of approximately ten vehicle trips per day will not substantially impact the existing street infrastructure. Also, the final finding with regard to whether the proposed zoning would alter population density in a manner to undesirably increase the load on public services: The proposed zoning will not alter population density in any real way. We are talking about one additional single-family dwelling which could be developed without the creation of a subdivision and Planning Commission review. Anything further than the single-family dwelling would require additional reviews and infrastructure or offsite improvements potentially if we were looking at something more than just a lot split to create one additional lot. With that, staff is recommending in favor of the request and I will be happy to answer any questions. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward? McDougall: I am Doug McDougall, I'm the applicant and I just wanted to mention, there was an issue that I discussed with Renee earlier the possibility that an adjacent land owner may want some of the property in the back for which I would have no use after I completed my project so I might possibly request a property line adjustment and I don't know if I need to say that now but I just don't want to be denied that in the future because it wasn't mentioned on the front end. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to address this RZN 03-26.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Bunch: Seeing that this project is the same tenor as other projects in the immediate neighborhood I move that we recommend RZN 03-26.00 to the City Council. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-26.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission July 28, 2003 Page 39 Report from Bylaw Review Committee Hoover: Item number seven on the agenda is a report from the Bylaw Review Committee. Our Chair, Nancy Allen, will give that to us. Allen: The Bylaw Committee has met and we have made some proposals but because we have two commissioners absent this evening I would like to suggest that we wait until our following meeting to discuss that item. Hoover: Thank you. I guess that I wanted to point out that we have got the written statements if everyone got one. Allen: Yes, read them before the next Commission and a copy of our Bylaws. Hoover: Hopefully we will have everyone here then. Is everyone ok with that? Williams: I just want to let you know that the City Council is looking at possibly doing an attendance requirement across the board for all commissions and boards that they appoint. They have been aware of your work in this and so I think that they might be considering this in the near future so you might not even have to go forward with making any substantial changes because the City Council possibly will adopt some rules and regulations that will affect not only the Planning Commission but all of the other boards and commissions that they appoint the members of. Hoover: Do you have any time table on that or any schedule? Williams: I do not. I have on request of a couple of the aldermen I sent a notice out to the rest saying that this is an issue that you have been looking at and asking whether they want to in fact take it up themselves. Tomorrow is the agenda meeting and it will be the first time that they can report back. I would think I might hear something about it tomorrow although there are other big issues before the City Council. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other business? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 7:21 p.m.