Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on August 11, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) Approved Page 2 FPL 03-06.00: Final Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 396) Approved Page 14 CUP 03-19.00: Conditional Use (Ledbetter, pp 523) Approved Page 18 ADM 03-20.00: Administrative Item (Clabber Creek Subdivision, pp 322/283) No action necessary Page 21 Report from Bylaw Review Committee No action necessary Page 24 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Jill Anthes Alice Church Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 2 Hoover: Welcome to the August 11, 2003 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Hoover: Thank you Renee. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting from July 28`h? Bunch: So moved. Allen: Second. Hoover: Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the July 28th meeting was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Aaron Nickel of Woodworks Plus, Inc. for property located at 3110 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 21.15. The request is for a proposed residential subdivision containing 58 lots with 56 Single- family dwelling units. Hoover: Item one on the agenda is PPL 03-12.00 for property located at 3110 Mt. Comfort Road. Jeremy? Pate: This property is located at Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family four units per acre, and contains approximately 21.15 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision containing 58 lots with 55 single-family dwelling units proposed. The existing residence is lot one and the remaining two lots are utilized for detention ponds. The surrounding zoning is RSF-4 as well and the surrounding land use is single-family residential and agricultural. Water and sewer are extended from existing lines along Mt. Comfort Road. There is a typo in your tree preservation. 1.89% is existing currently on the site. That 1.89% is also required and preserved is 1.84% so there is a .05 difference and so there is mitigation required. Street improvements proposed are 14' from centerline of Mt. Comfort Road with curb, gutter, storm sewer and required sidewalks along the entire street frontage. Staff is recommending that the sidewalk construction along lot 1, the existing single-family residence be waived until such time as redevelopment and change in land use and ownership occurs. A note to this affect has been included on the plat. Stub outs for future connectivity to the west and to the north are proposed by the applicant. Staff is recommending a provision for future connectivity to the north and the west as a means to alleviate traffic congestion on Mt. Comfort Road and provide alternative vehicular and pedestrian access points in the future. Local streets are designed to Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 3 provide access to abutting land uses and to provide connections to a higher order of systems. The stub out to the west potentially would connect to Salem Road allowing residents the opportunity to travel north to Howard Nickle Road and south to Wedington Drive at the time of build out of the Master Street Plan. The stub out to the north allows for a future connection to the planned east/west collector street on the Master Street Plan linking 54th Street to Raven Lane. The City of Fayetteville General Plan 2020 specifically addresses the city policy of connectivity stating that new development should be regulated to require connectivity in order to provide for easy access to commercial and residential areas by vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Staff recommends that the streets shown to be stubbed out to the north and west for the purpose of connectivity be approved as indicated. Projected vehicle trips per day for a single-family residence is approximately 10 total vehicle trips per day for 550 trips per day. The iroposed Preliminary Plat was heard at Technical Plat Review on July 2" and Subdivision on July 31s`. Discussion at Subdivision did include traffic on Mt. Comfort Road. The detention ponds proposed, sewer capacity, proposed covenants and the proposed stub outs for future connectivity. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to fourteen conditions of approval. I will go over those for you. 1) Access to Lot 1 shall remain in situ until such time as redevelopment on this particular lot occurs. Lot 1 access shall be restricted to interior streets at that time. 2) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Mt. Comfort Road. Staff is recommending 14 feet from centerline to include pavement, curb and gutter, storm sewer, and a 6 -foot sidewalk at least 10 feet from the curb, extending the entire length of the property. The sidewalk requirement for that portion fronted by Lot 1 shall be constructed at the time of redevelopment and/or development of any new structure or access change to said lot. The applicant has included a note to this effect on the plat, and will also address Lot 1 requirements as an existing lot in the covenants. 3) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for required frontage of 70 feet for an RSF-4 residential lot (Lot 10). The Board of Adjustment must approve the waiver request prior to final approval. The applicant is proposing to stub out a street for future connectivity to the west and to the north. The stub out to the north extends approximately 28 feet along the proposed Lot 10, with future right-of-way dedication planned. The request is for approval of a buildable lot without adequate public frontage until such time as the street is constructed by future development. Staff is in support of this request. 4) Planning Commission determination of assessment for future road construction along Lot 58, the northeast detention pond. The developer is responsible for payment of assessed amount prior to final plat recordation. Staff recommends the assessment be in the amount of $22,660 for approximately 206 feet of construction to local street standards, with 14 feet from centerline paving, curb and gutter, storm drains and required sidewalks. 5) The existing barbed-wire fences along the property boundaries shall be removed. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 4 Those fences used for agricultural purposes for adjacent landowners shall remain. 6) Right-of-way for Mt. Comfort road requires 45 feet from centerline dedication. Proper dedication shall be made at final plat. 7) All street names shall be approved by the City of Fayetteville GIS division. 8) Access shall be limited to interior streets for those lots fronting Mt. Comfort Road, including lots 26-32, and Lot 1 at the time of redevelopment. 9) The covenants must provide for maintenance of the lots which include the detention ponds. 10) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and a minimum of ten feet of green space along Mt. Comfort Road. All interior streets shall have a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace on both sides where applicable. Sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed by money in a city escrow account prior to final plat approval. 11) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $30,525 (55 SF lots at $555) are due prior to recordation of the final plat. Items 12 and 13 are standard conditions of approval. If it pleases the Commission staff would like to add an additional condition be required of the developer reading "Tree mitigation fees shall be paid into the tree escrow account in the amount of $450 prior to Final Plat. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward please? Blakeley: Hi, my name is Mark Blakeley, I'm with Northstar Engineering representing Woodworks Plus on this subdivision. I would just like to add a few things that Jeremy didn't go over. The homes in this subdivision will be approximately 1,800 sq.ft. and all brick. We are planning on putting oil catchers in the detention ponds to make the quality of the water runoff better than it would be if there weren't any. We have worked with Carl Strain, the neighbor to the northeast and acquired an easement for our force main through him. We haven't got the paperwork done but he has agreed to an easement on that. We have been working with our neighbors to the north, that's where we decided to put the oil catcher in the ponds to help alleviate any of their concerns and they are here today and I guess they will have questions for that. I guess I just want to say if there are any questions that you might have I can be here to answer them now. Hoover: Right now we are going to take public comment and then we will come back to you. Thank you. Right now if we could take public comment on this PPL 03-12.00. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this? Come to the podium and when you do will you please state your name and if there is a sign in sheet sign in. Kimbrough, L:I don't see a sign in sheet but my name is Les Kimbrough and I am one of the neighbors to the north. We appreciate the time and effort that Northstar has put in to helping us address some of the concerns about our runoff. I wouldn't be able to say that we are 100% satisfied just with those recommendations. Our number one concern out there, and I think Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 5 everybody in the neighborhood would agree, is traffic. Before you guys proceed I would simply like to suggest that someone please come out, especially during the school year, and come down Salem Road and attempt a left hand turn on Mt. Comfort. Between the hours of 7:45 and 8:30 that is virtually impossible and it gets pretty dangerous even during other times of the day. It is my understanding that there are other subdivisions in the Planning on Salem Road. I believe one of the names of them is Salem Heights. I don't know how far that extends back but I understand that there is a considerable amount of construction that is going to go on there with several hundred units. I would suggest that Mt. Comfort, Salem, and even Rupple Road coming up to the middle school are inadequately prepared to handle that many people. I would just simply make the suggestion that someone please come and look at that traffic. Although the engineering company has been very helpful with us in making suggestions that doesn't address the number one concern out there, that is the safety and traffic issue. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Kimbrough, J: Hi, Jim Kimbrough, I'm also a neighbor to the north. I was reading the paper the other day and I kind of was concerned after I saw 421 units on Clabber Creek subdivision and as I listened a couple of weeks ago we talked about 560 trips for the 560 units for this proposal. Warrick: Kimbrough, J: Generally a single-family home generates 10 trips per day. I am also looking at a department of the Army, the Corp. of Engineers, that speaks to another subdivision right next to us on the west and it has got about 31 acres of property on it. I looked at the little map and it looks like there is probably better than 60 units in that one as well. If you kind of add those up it gets substantially more than 560 trips. You are looking at more like 4,500 or 5,000 trips once all of these things are put into place. Again, our chief concern is the traffic flow. My chief concern even more so than that is the retention ponds, the detention ponds. I think that it is a bit much to take a subdivision like this and run that thing right up to 2' or 3' of the fence line, build this pond and then build a cement runway right onto my mother's backyard on one of the ponds and into the other part of our property on the east side and indicate that that is a good way to handle the runoff problem that we don't currently have. We don't have any problem right now but we are going to when this subdivision gets developed. It is good that we have talked about the oil separators. It is not good that it is within 2' of the boundary line and is going to run right into our fence and across some agricultural property. I think that there could be some other options besides running those ponds right up to the line and dumping it on us. I think that those that are engineers could look at it, those that are going to subdivide it look at it. If you all have that in front Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 6 of you, take a peak and you can kind of see what I'm talking about. Les and my mother are probably more concerned with the western most detention pond, I'm concerned with the eastern most because of the lay of the land. While it may have an oil separator to catch some of the pollutants that are going to come off that storm drain, all of that water is going to end up in my backyard eventually and running down a dry creek bed. The engineers have both come out and taken a look at it and they understand what my dilemma is and they also understand my concerns, thus, the oil separators. I do have some questions about these ponds too for you guys to consider and I'm about to get done here so bear with me. If the city is not going to maintain these ponds how are they going to be maintained? The storm drain and that runoff is going to have a great deal of trash in it before it is all said and done not counting the runoff that involves gasoline and oil and all the other stuff that is going to be there. Who is it that will mow those ponds and keep them in some kind of condition? I want to know who will be accountable for the water quality and for the trash pick up later on down the line. It may be ok here on the front end, maybe we won't get a big rain here for a while but eventually we will and I want to know who's door to knock on as I monitor water quality as I attempt to protect a federally protected wetland on my property about 1,000 yards. I think those are things to consider. Again, I think it is a bit presumptuous too, and I will mention the stub outs just briefly. The one going to the west I understand that would be a great idea, that's our property and we don't have any intention of giving that property up. To simply have the stub out there is kind of saying well, you are going to have to before it's all over with anyway. That is why I objected initially about them and also I know what those stub outs end up being, they end up being parking lots. The one to the north, while I understand the idea of connectivity, is going to be a while and you have got a detention pond right next to the one on the north and why would it be ok having that there running onto that property if it is going to be developed sooner or later. I think that the answer the engineer gave me is that they will build a pipe and they will manage that runoff later on. I want them to build a pipe now. I don't want it on me now. If you are going to build one I think it is time to do it at the front end. I will finish up by saying that the infrastructure is not in place to handle this much load in terms of traffic. You are imposing, not you, but this addition will impose on us if it is handled the way it is. There could be a little space in between those detention ponds and our fence line. There could be some more planning built into this concept of dumping that stuff on the neighbor, running it right up against the fence, oil separator or not. I would appreciate you all considering those things. Thanks. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Patrick: Hi, I'm Betty Patrick and I want to ask about the ponds. We have had a Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 7 big problem since I have lived out there for 31 years with water moccasins and copperheads. Mr. Kimbrough used to have a pond back there and the water moccasins were incredible. It was not fun, even with my kids going out in the yard I was having to watch for them to kill them. We had a problem this year and there is no pond out there, he bulldozed that off. What is going to keep water moccasins out of this water that is going to be supposedly behind my house? Of course you know how I feel about the traffic. That is a major problem out there for everybody. It affects everybody. I just want to know what the health hazards. I am like this guy here. What is the oil, who is going to maintain it? Who is going to take care of the trash? Who is going to keep that up on down the road? That is all I have to say. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Matt, would you kind of review with us our ordinances for detention ponds and how these are going to work? Casey: Ok. As you know it is the policy of the City of Fayetteville that we require the developer to provide some sort of storm water detention. Usually we see that in these ponds where they limit the peak flow from the development to what is actually out there now. They are not allowed to increase the peak flow from the site so the detention pond holds back the water to release it at those predevelopment rates. To address some of the concerns about the maintenance, when this comes through for Final Plat, assuming it passes tonight, after construction when it comes through for Final Plat it will be noted and it will be required on the Final Plat that the property owner's association for the subdivision will be responsible for the maintenance of the pond. In the future if there are problems with the grass not being mowed, trash, etc., our code enforcement officers can go out and evaluate that and through them we can enforce the cleanup of the ponds and the maintenance of those ponds. Does that answer your question? Hoover: Yes. Commissioners, are there any other questions about detention ponds? Ostner: For illustration, people are talking about water moccasins and what not, I was wondering how full these ponds would be and how often they would be full. It is called a pond. Casey: It is a dry pond. The majority of the time it will be dry, it will be sodded just like most of the yards and properly maintained it can be a nice landscaped area. As far as when it holds water it will just be during the heavier storm events. It will hold some water in the lower storms and more up to the 100 -year storm but the majority of the time it will not have water in it. We also require that concrete trickle channels be placed though the ponds and that the ponds be grated to that to get the small Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 8 amounts of water that could remain in there and be mosquito traps so that will get out of there so it is not causing those health hazards. Hoover: Are there any other questions about detention ponds? Bunch: When you are looking at these post development flows and predevelopment flows, predevelopment flows right now are sheet flows and assuming how this looks, you will still have some sheet flow off the proposed houses. What impact do you look at on restricting flow? The flow is going to be limited to less than predevelopment rates but it will also be concentrated to a smaller area, what sort of provisions are made for that? Casey: On this site there are two ponds and both of them are discharging in the general direction that it is going now. I am looking at the contours, there is not a defined channel through there across the property. The lay of the land is they are discharging in the same direction that it would all be going anyway and I have talked to them through the preliminary stages and they have indicated that they were going to try to get some easements to the north to pipe that because I had told them early on that we are not going to allow a point discharge directly off onto the neighbors. That is something that we look at in more detail in review of the construction plans after this step in the process. I was told by the applicant that they would be pursuing easements to the north to try to channelize that or put it in a pipe to try to make that less of an impact. We have several different options available. They can release it into different outlet structures for the pond to where it will spread out and that is something that I will be working with the design engineers on through the construction phase. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Are there any other detention pond questions? Ok, shall we move onto traffic? I guess I would like staff, can you tell us, and I don't know if our traffic consultants have made any recommendations for Mt. Comfort Road or what our plans are. Warrick: I can tell you that staff has requested that they look specifically in this general area of Mt. Comfort, Rupple, Salem. The transportation study is a city wide study and therefore, we are looking to the consultants to provide recommendations to the city with regard to transportation infrastructure city wide. We know that there are developments occurring in this particular quadrant of the city and we have asked them to address the northwest portion of Fayetteville. The transportation consultants are in the process of finalizing their final draft. It will be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council at a public hearing on August 266 here in this room at 6:00 p.m. Staff is also working towards preparing the capital improvements program for the next five years and that is Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 9 something that the City Council will be considering within the next few months in part of the budgeting process. I can't say what's in that at this point in time there is nothing that is solid as far as a recommendation but that is in the preparation right now. Hoover: Dawn, when we are looking at these subdivisions and there is a traffic issue, is there some criteria that we are basing our decisions on or how are we basing our decision? Warrick: I'm not sure I know exactly what you're looking for. Hoover: I guess how do we know when too much is too many trips? Warrick: A lot of what we know is from what the neighbors tell us as to the traffic patterns and what is happening in that general area. There is capacity on Mt. Comfort if you consider the type of street that it is and the number of trips generated in that general area. I don't have hard numbers for you but there are certainly peak hours where there are failures in the intersection out there but there are also times when there is not a problem and traffic flows freely. It is not a 24/7 critical problem but there are situations that need to be addressed and that is something that staff is looking towards the transportation study to help us to develop some solutions and some priorities with regard to our transportation infrastructure. What we can do, what we feel is appropriate to do, is to work towards meeting the goals of the city's Master Street Plan and to implement the city's policies on connectivity through means such as the proposed connections, stub outs in this case to the west and to the north because we feel that as property develops in the future, it may be long term future, but we need to keep in mind that property will develop and we need to have connections to keep those trips off of our major thoroughfares so that people can get for instance, their children to school without having to go in and out off of major streets so that children can visit their friends by way of sidewalk or trails. That is the idea of having this policy for connectivity and we feel that it is appropriate to look at stub outs as a means of implementing that. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners, are there questions or comments? Bunch: A question on the condition number three, just to clear it up, it talks about a future right of way dedicated for the north stub out. I realize that that might not be a complete full width street but would the dedication be at this time by deed for future use or would the dedication occur in the future? Warrick: We would expect the right of way to be dedicated with the Final Plat document for this subdivision after construction is completed. Bunch: Thank you. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 10 Shackelford: Two questions. Do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Warrick: We do. Shackelford: A question to the applicant, you have heard conversation tonight regarding some recalculation on the tree preservation, the fact that there is .05 mitigation required and I believe a tree mitigation fee of $450, are you in agreement with that as well? Blakeley: Yes. Shackelford: Thank you. Allen: I am still not real clear with the traffic issue whether we depend upon the future street study in making this decision. Warrick: The last time that the city had a city wide transportation study I believe was in 1992. We have had a lot of changes in the City of Fayetteville since that time. There has been a lot of new development and a lot of infrastructure changes. It was time for us to go back and request to hire a consultant to do a new transportation study. Since 1992 we have been developing. We have been basing our information on our Master Street Plan and what we feel full build out will be once additional properties develop. I mentioned at Subdivision that the city doesn't have a lot of capital improvement projects to go out and build streets. We rely on developers to do that as they come through with proposed development projects, we make those streets connect as best we can to fulfill the goals of the Master Street Plan and the General Plan. Through development is the way that we get infrastructure improvements. As each piece comes along we put the puzzle together and eventually we have a street system that meets the needs of that general area. That is the goal. Without development there is no need for infrastructure improvements. As development occurs there certainly are growing pains and there are times when the development and the infrastructure are not timed as far as they don't coincide exactly right. That is a situation where the city needs to go in and what we are doing is going in and looking at our transportation infrastructure trying to identify through the consultant's study problem areas and solutions to those areas so that is how we hopefully get to a point that there is a balance between the infrastructure and the demand. Allen: That is a very good answer and hopefully helpful to the neighborhood. Shackelford: If I am hearing correctly it looks like there are mainly two issues of concern here. One being the detention pond I think that our ordinances do a very good job of addressing these issues. There is some misconception when you hear detention pond, you think that it holds water Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 11 year around and that is not the case. It is made to control runoff during high rain situations. The second point obviously is traffic. I have friends in this area and I spend time in this part of town and obviously there is a traffic concern here. I concur with what our city staff is telling us and I have heard other commissioners say in the recent past of how we look at these deals. We are basically dependent upon development to increase revenue through impact fees and property taxes to allow funds to improve the infrastructure in these areas. That does cause a problem because there is always going to be a need before there is a solution in these high growth areas for infrastructure improvement. In my opinion the only way we are going to get the infrastructure improvement is to allow the development that is going to fund these improvements over time. With that being said, I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 03-12.00 subject to all 15 conditions of approval. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there any more discussion? Ostner: It seems a little confusing if Mt. Comfort has times where it is very heavy, and as you said, some of these intersections are breaking down and aren't adequate, I'm not understanding why we are adding two. This is not a huge subdivision, why could we not add one to lessen the friction of stopping and starting and turning to lessen the friction out onto Mt. Comfort? Warrick: You're talking about one access point as opposed to two? Ostner: Yeah, I guess I'm asking that to you if that has been considered and if that is part of the equation or is the eventual build out and connectivity what is going on there? Warrick: I feel like there is some balance in that as far as the eventual build out having additional connections and alleviating some of the traffic trips or motions that would happen on the Mt. Comfort intersection. Another thing that is probably to important to look at is access in and out for emergency purposes and trash pick up and getting people in and out of the development in the interim while we are waiting for additional properties in the vicinity to develop and provide that connectivity. You are correct that every time you have a curb cut you provide additional conflicts on the street but we are talking about a relatively Targe tract of land and a pretty good spacing between the proposed curb cuts. When you talk about the amount of improvement that is required by a developer for streets for specifically off site improvements it is very important to realize that the amount of improvements the city can require has to have some sort of Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 12 relationship to the amount of development that is being proposed. For instance, we can't look at one 56 lot subdivision and say you are going to solve all of the city's traffic problems in this area. There is not a balance to that, they don't bear a rational nexus to the amount of development that is being proposed and so that is why we are looking at improvements to Mt. Comfort to 14' from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drain. To get back to your particular question with regard to the number of curb cuts, I feel like there is enough distance to provide some relief in between these curb cuts, could three be just on? Probably. It is better for emergency vehicles and if there is an accident or something that causes people not be able to get out of one they have an alternative until such time as that future connectivity is developed. Bunch: Before we vote, a question for the applicant just to reiterate and get it on the record. What is the fence situation particularly on the north and the west properties? Right now that is agricultural land with livestock operations, site, sounds and odors associated with livestock and the liabilities with animals and agricultural practices. What are you proposing on screening from those operations? Blakeley: What he has proposed is at the time that the house is built for each individual lot at that time with the house that the fence would be built then. There is not going to be an overall outside boundary fence to be built during construction or after it's over, it is going to be with individual lots. Bunch: What about the covenants that were mentioned at Subdivision Committee that would include pond maintenance and that sort of thing. Do you have those? Have you been working on covenants? Blakeley: Yes, we have been working with the client on getting a draft of those. We haven't got that with us today, he hasn't given them to us. I do know that some of the information that the surrounding neighbors were asking for that I got information about was the house size, the materials used. The concern was with the fences on the north and the west was they wanted the fences to remain and then there was some confusion about whether the outside boundary fence would be taken down or not. They will stay and just a 6' privacy fence that usually goes up standard with the individual house is all they have proposed for that. The ponds will be maintained by the P.O.A. and the trash in the ponds. Bunch: The covenants will include a recommendation for a 6' p said? Blakeley: I didn't know if that was going to be in the covenants houses that they build they do build 6' fences with them. vacy fence you Typically the Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 13 Bunch: Ok, but the existing fences will remain. Blakeley: Yes, the existing fences for agricultural purposes will remain. The interior fences that are barbed wire will be removed that are on the property. Allen: Could the traffic study possibly come forward with some idea such as a stop light or something that might eliminate traffic problems in this area until the rest of the area has developed? Is that a possibility? Warrick: I think there are a lot of possibilities. I have not been personally involved in a whole lot of the direction that has been given to the traffic consultants. Our Long Range Planning Division has been more on point with that and the Engineering Division is actually the project manager for that project, for the study. I don't know exactly how the results are going to come forward and the final draft that will be presented on the 26t.. At that time though we will have a forum with the consultant and will be able to ask specific questions and hopefully get more information as to what their recommendations mean and to how they might be able to be implemented. Allen: Is that open to the public so that the neighbors might be able to attend if they have concerns? Warrick: Yes Ma'am it is and that meeting again is at 6:00 in the evening on August 26th here in this room. Allen: Thank you. Hoover: Are there any other questions? I am just curious Dawn, when we have an intersection in the city that fails what is usually the remedy to that? I know you are saying that it only fails at peak times and I know we have other, I've seen the charts from the traffic engineers that there are lots of intersections that fail at peak times. Warrick: I don't know if I am going to be able to answer that question because each one is handled probably a little bit differently. There are different reasons that intersections fail. There are different times that they fail and then there are different solutions. Typically we would look to our traffic engineer and request some sort of solution as to how to deal with that. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-12.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 14 FPL 03-06.00: Final Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 396) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy 16 and east of 51" Street. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre and contains approximately 30.99 acres with 88 lots proposed. Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is a Final Plat for property located north of Hwy. 16 and east of 51" Street. Jeremy? Pate: This is a Final Plat for a subdivision, Sage Meadows. The property is zoned Residential Single-family, four units per acre and contains approximately 30.99 acres with 88 lots proposed. The request is to approve the Final Plat for Sage Meadows to allow for the sale of lots. The Preliminary Plat for this subdivision was approved in January, 2002. Surrounding land use is single-family residential or county. Water and sewer have been extended, an 8" water line and sewer lines to serve the proposed development. Right of way being dedicated varies along 51" Street but there is a minimum of 25' from centerline. Interior streets include Dover Street, Cannondale Drive, Ponca Street, all with 50' of right of way. 51s` Street has been improved to 14' from centerline with curb and gutter. The adjacent Master Street Plan is 515` Street. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat for Sage Meadows with the following conditions. 1) Dedication of right-of-way for 51' Street (varies, minimum of 25' from centerline), Dover Street, Cannondale Drive, and Ponca Street (50' ROW) shall occur with final plat recordation. 2) Planning Commission determination of acceptance of 1.7 acres banked by the adjacent Fairfield Subdivision along with $1,107.50 in lieu of Parks requirements for $40,420 owed for Park Land Dedication requirements as approved with the Preliminary Plat by Planning Commission on January 28, 2002. All necessary documentation for land transfer, dedication and fees shall be received prior to final plat signatures. 3) Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Code to include a minimum four foot sidewalk with a minimum six foot greenspace along 51", Ponca, Dover, Shetland, and Cannondale streets. 4) Tree preservation mitigation fees shall be paid into the tree fund in the amount of $4,044 prior to signing of the final plat. 5) Access shall be limited to interior streets only, including lots 43-48 and 1-8. The remaining conditions of approval are standard. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Can the applicant come forward please? Brackett: Hello, I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates, I am here representing the owners tonight. Pretty much we are finished with the subdivision and we are ready to get on with selling the lots and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Hoover: Thank you. We will open it up to public comment, is there anyone that Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 15 would like to address FPL 03-06.00 for Sage Meadows? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Commissioners? I guess I could ask did this go to Subdivision? Bunch: Yes Ma'am. Hoover: Would you like to give us a report? Bunch: The main reason that Subdivision forwarded this to the full Planning Commission has to do with condition of approval number two, the banking of land by an adjacent subdivision and the transfer of that land through this subdivision to the parks program and because of that technicality it was forwarded. Ostner: On the Planning tour I believe we drove through there and I didn't see the sidewalks. Brackett: The sidewalks will be bonded and will be built after the homes are built, along with the homes, just to keep them from getting torn up during the home construction. Hoover: Commissioners? Allen: I wonder if maybe since we were privy to an awful lot of discussion about the land dedication, if it might be a good idea to explain that a little bit if you could Dawn? Warrick: Sure. This is to my knowledge the first transfer of development rights that we have seen in the fact that the developer of the Fairfield subdivision, which is north of Sage Meadows, banked extra park land when they dedicated land with that subdivision to meet their park land requirements and the developer of Sage Meadows has then purchased the extra land that was banked by Fairfield, 1.7 acres, to reduce the amount of dedication money in lieu that they had to pay towards the park land fund so it is a matter of land already being banked and dedicated to the park system and now being able to be utilized by a different developer and he purchased basically a right to dedicate that land in his name for the Sage Meadows subdivision directly from the Fairfield developer. It reduced the amount that this developer is paying in money in lieu funds and the same amount of land is existing in the park land dedication for this linear greenspace that the Parks Department is developing in this area. Ostner: Where is this land that is banked? Warrick: There is a map in your packet on page 2.5 that shows the Fairfield subdivision park land property that is along the north edge kind of along the curve of Sunshine Road where it goes from a north/south street and Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 16 turns eastward back towards Mt. Comfort. That 1.7 acres is the area that is shaded on that map on page 2.5 and that is the land that has been purchased by this developer to go towards his requirement. Ostner: Shouldn't that land be delineated on the Final Plat? Warrick: It is not adjacent to the subdivision that we are considering. It was already dedicated and is owned by the city through the Fairfield subdivision and it will be shown on all of the Final Plat documentation for Fairfield. It was extra that they went ahead and banked. The ordinance allows for a developer to bank that land and apply it to future developments in that quadrant of the city. The ordinance doesn't specify that that particular developer has to apply it to a development in that quadrant. Therefore, in this case that developer sold the rights to this one. Hoover: Are there other questions? Williams: I think it is probably appropriate for the land to be able to be sold and used by another developer. Another part of our park land ordinance even gives the Planning Commission the right when two developments are being built at the same time that they are not real large but they would meet the requirement to have 40 aces or 100 units so they could be a neighborhood park. The Planning Commission itself can require the developers to work together and put a park together so I think by analogy that the City Council, when they passed that ordinance certainly looked at developers working together to have a larger park area for both of their neighborhoods to use so I don't think there is any problem with the sale in this case. Hoover: Are there any other comments or a motion perhaps? Shackelford: Do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Pate: Yes we do. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on that, I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-6.00 subject to all conditions of approval based on the comments of staff as well as the city attorney. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Church: I will second it. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 17 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve FPL 03-06.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 18 CUP 03-19.00: Conditional Use (Ledbetter, pp 523) was submitted by Kevin Ledbetter for property located at 425 S. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-1 and contains approximately 0.234 acres. The request is for a change of non -conforming use to allow a non -retail pottery studio. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is a Conditional Use for property located at 425 College Avenue. Dawn? Warrick: The subject property is located at 425 S. College Avenue. The site consists of two lots plus additional portions of other lots within a residential subdivision. The current zoning is RMF' -24, Residential Multi- family, 24 units per acre. The structure on the property was constructed in approximately 1947 according to assessment records. In addition a detached storage building is located at the rear, which is the southwest corner of the shop building. The use of the site since the main building was erected has been for auto repair. Ledbetter's garage is the current owner and occupant of the property. Surrounding uses are residential and are all located within the same zoning district as the subject property. An undeveloped right of way for 5th Street lies along the southern property line. Access to the site is from S. College Avenue with two wide existing curb cuts. There is currently a large vacant area along the south side of the garage building where vehicles are parked awaiting service and pick up. The proposal is to utilize the existing structures, the storage building as well as the garage, for an artist's studio. The applicant is a studio potter who is looking for an appropriate location for his daily activities. He does not have employees nor does he generate traffic other than his own vehicle. There are not retail or gallery activities that are associated with this proposal. Occasionally UPS will make a delivery to the location. Proposed hours of operation are from 9:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. The applicant states that no noise will be generated from this use. Screening in the form of a wood board privacy fence would be installed to provide a visual barrier between adjacent residential properties and the detached storage building. The request is to allow an existing non- conforming use to be changed to another non -conforming use, which is more appropriate to this particular location. That is something that the Planning Commission ahs the ability to approve through Code §164.12 and that is the non -conforming structures and uses section of our ordinances. Staff is in favor of converting the site to a structure, the site and structure into a studio space for one artist. The result of this action will be that the property is more compatible with the residential neighborhood in which it is located. The amount of parking, noise and vehicular activity in general will be reduced, a new sidewalk will be installed along S. College Avenue, a privacy fence installed to screen the detached storage building. With the sidewalk we will be looking at some increased landscaping along the front property line. There will be no structural changes to the building itself. However, an awning is proposed Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 19 and a reduced amount of signage with one small sign announcing the name of the business would be proposed installed or erected. Staff, as I said, is in favor of this proposal and we are recommending approval with nine conditions. Starting on page one of your report those conditions are as follows: 1) Planning Commission determination that "the proposed use (artist's studio for one potter) is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use (auto repair garage)." 2) Pavement shall be removed to provide a 15' landscaped area behind the sidewalk on the subject property south of the driveway access to the garage/loading area. Landscaping shall consist of one tree every 30 linear feet (2 trees). 3) Sidewalk construction shall comply with City design standards and shall be inspected by the Sidewalk Coordinator prior to concrete pour. 4) Wood board privacy fence (6' tall) shall be installed in a manner which provides a screen for the stand alone storage facility along the east and south sides of the property. 5) All required improvements shall be installed and approved prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for this change of use. 6) All improvements shall be complete within 6 months from the date of Planning Commission approval. 7) The applicant shall arrange for appropriate trash disposal with the Solid Waste and Recycling Division. Any trash and/or recycling receptacles shall be stored in a screened enclosure or inside the building except on days when trash pick up is scheduled. 8) Signage shall be limited to a small painted sign with the name of the business. Sign shall comply with size and location requirements for the RMF -24 zoning district. 9) Only security lighting shall be installed for this property. All lights shall be directed downward and away from adjacent residential properties. We do have signed conditions of approval from the applicant and property owner and I believe they are here to field any questions you may have. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward? Is there anything hat you would like to add? Nibert: No. Hoover: I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address CUP 03-19.00 for property at 425 S. College Avenue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. MOTION: Allen: I think this is an excellent project and very appropriate for the neighborhood. That being said, I will move for approval of CUP 03- 19.00. Anthes: I will second. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 20 Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes. 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 CUP 03-19.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 21 ADM 03-20.00: Administrative Item (Clabber Creek Subdivision, pp 322/283) was submitted by City of Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Division on behalf of the developer Sam Mathias of BMW Investments, LLC. The request is for a variance to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance to accept 35.0 acres along Clabber Creek corridor in lieu of all Park Land Ordinance exactions for Phase II and III of the development. Hoover: Item number four on the agenda is ADM 03-20.00 about Clabber Creek subdivision. Is Mayor Coody here to address us on this? Would you like to come forward? Coody: Basically, what we have tried to do is originally the tree and trails task force was put together as a result of the Kohl's lawsuit settlement. One was to purchase the 40 acres out here that we are talking about right now for roughly $200,000. They didn't have all of the money that they needed. They had about $175,000, the Parks Department was going to have to come up with about $30,000 more to purchase this 40 acres. The land got sold to somebody else first and before they got a chance to offer $200,000 for this area I intervened and asked for a little bit of time so I could talk with the new land owners. Subsequently, we came up with a plan to where they could donate the land to the city, where the city could acquire this land for free, and they would get a sizeable tax deduction for it. I think this really works out well that the tree and trails task force money was kept to now be used on another project. The city gets four times the park land dedication amount for free and the developer gets to lose some land that he really couldn't do much of anything with for a tax deductible donation. This is really a situation where all three parties come out ahead and I am very pleased about the way that this has unfolded. I think lately that the city attorney has come up with an interpretation that I would like to hear about. I am wondering if this has to come before the Planning Commission or City Council or if this is something that can be done administratively. Williams: According to our ordinance the only time a park land dedication must be made is if the developer does not in fact, provide park facilities that are within our parks and recreation plan. Since the Parks Department has, and this is on our master trail study and part of our master trails plan and part of our recreation plan, the developer has in fact donated that land then our park land ordinance doesn't come into affect. You don't even have to go to the park land ordinance, that is only if the developer has not donated a park basically within his subdivision. Because of that I think that determination can be made administratively as long as they follow the ordinance, which they will do. The Parks & Rec. Advisory Board already looked at this and obviously, they are happy with this. I don't think that either the Planning Commission or the City Council needs to do anything else. This is not a variance of our ordinance. In fact, the city administration is merely following the ordinance in this case. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 22 Coody: I want to add that this is the first time that the city has done something like this to my knowledge. We need all the tools in the shed that we can get to acquire more land here in town and we don't have a lot of money to do it so this is an avenue for us to be able to acquire tracts of land that we want in the system without having to layout money for it. I am really hoping that this is not the last time but that this is simply the first in a long series of lands we are able to pick up at no cost to the city to compliment our trails program and our parks program. You don't need to vote on this or anything but I wanted to say thanks for hearing us out today. Don't you wish all items were this easy. Bunch: A question for the city attorney, looking at an item that we had earlier on the agenda where land was dedicated and banked, do we have a mechanism in place for donated land to be banked where it could be used to the advantage of the developers similar to the trade that was on a previous item of our agenda? Williams: I think that the developer in this case has chosen not to do that. He is banking it for his entire project. In other words, it would be considered not only for Phase I but Phase II and Phase III, as many as 423 single- family homes there. I don't think that this would be available for him to sell a portion of it to another developer in order to try to have that kind of wind fall. I think he is more interested probably in the donation aspect to the city for possibly income tax purposes or some other reason. Bunch: What I was looking at is considering what Mayor Coody just told us, to develop this for future use as an incentive to other developers if we were to allow someone to donate land in lieu of dedication but still be able to bank some of that, this is a very powerful tool for bringing land into the city and trying to look down the road how can we embellish what is already here so that we can use it in the future to provide better things for Fayetteville? Williams: I should note that this is a fairly unique situation because this land was already part of the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation plan. In other words, it was already desired park land and many times development will not include such land and so I don't think that in that particular case they would be able to do this same sort of deal that the mayor has worked out with this developer where we are getting substantially more land than we would normally be able to get. It does have to meet that other criteria that it has to be part of the Parks and Recreation parks plan and not just any land a developer might want to give us. Hoover: Is there any more discussion about this item that we're not doing anything about? Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 23 Osmer: On the note Mr. .Williams just mentioned, what is wrong with the developer donating off site park land that might be on our master trail plan? Williams: I have no problems with that. If they want to make donations they can certainly donate to the city. Ostner: To satisfy their park land requirement if it is offsite? The unique situation that you just mentioned is that this project happened to abut an area that is on our master trail plan. I am trying to think through Mr. Bunch's idea, if there were another subdivision across town and there was an area on our master trail plan that we needed, could he buy that, donate it as his required park land and still build his subdivision across town elsewhere? Williams: The basic rule is that whatever land that is being donated has to be to serve the neighbors of that particular subdivision. The reason the initial one was ok tonight, the Sage Meadows, was that it was close enough to the other park so that it served the people that are going to buy the homes and pay this park fee. You couldn't go across town. You could be in the general area and still be able to do that. It would have to be relatively close to make sure that it is going to serve the residents that are going to be paying this money. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, we will move on. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 24 Bylaw Review Committee Report Hoover: Item five on the agenda is our Bylaw Review Committee report. Dawn, would you direct our discussion on this since you prepared it so nicely? Warrick: What you have in your packets is a red lined or marked up version of the Planning Commission bylaws and a memo that I think appropriately addresses the findings, recommendations, and discussions of the Bylaw Review Committee and those are outlined as four proposed modifications to the bylaws. The first is basically housekeeping to remove a sentence that would then be not necessary if any of the following three items was deemed appropriate by the Commission. Basically, each of these items addresses article one, which is members and terms of the Planning Commission bylaws and there were discussions with regard to attendance both at the regular Planning Commission meetings as well as the agenda sessions and tours and then the last item is discussing requiring service by each Commissioner on the Subdivision Committee for a six month period during the three year term that they serve. The first item would be to remove the sentence which states that any member who is absent for three consecutive regular meetings except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances shall tender his resignation. Item two is to add a statement that members shall attend at least 18 meetings in any term year. Any member who is absent for three consecutive regular meetings except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances shall tender his resignation. My understanding is that there was consensus of the Committee in favor of this change. This requires attendance by each Planning Commissioner of 3 of the regular meetings in each term year. Item three is addressing the Planning tours. Members shall attend no fewer than Yz of all scheduled Planning tours during any scheduled term year. Any member who is absent for three consecutive Planning tours except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances shall tender his resignation. On that particular item there was not committee consensus. That is something that probably needs to be further discussed. There were discussion points including that some Commissioners are not able to attend meetings that are scheduled during the work day. There was also some discussion with regard to the mention of Planning tours and not agenda sessions. The city Code of Ordinances does address Planning tours when it talks about requirements of the Planning Commission. The committee also talked about possibly changing the time of the Planning tours to better accommodate Commissioner's schedules. The last statement or item is that each member shall serve at least six months of each three year term on the Subdivision Committee and there was I believe consensus on this that each Commissioner serve on the Subdivision Committee for the value that it provides to themselves as well as the Commission as a whole so that the burden is not born by three or four Commissioners for the entire three year time frame. I think that I got the information accurately stated in the Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 25 memo but the three Commissioners who served on the Bylaw Review Committee are here and they can certainly further our understanding of this. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the chair of this committee like to add to this? Allen: Sure. I think that you synopsized that well Dawn. I do know that Kit has informed me that the City Council will be discussing this same thing so I think that our discussion can only act as input or suggestions to the Council because I think this is kind of a moot point on our part. Commissioner Shackelford, Estes and I did meet and we agreed on all areas of these suggestions about attendance and also about serving on the Subdivision Committee. The one area where we did not have a consensus was regarding the tour and agenda. I see the only reason to discuss it would be if it would be helpful to the Council to hear our input and suggestions. Hoover: Mr. Williams, should we go ahead and vote on this and then send the recommendation forward or what should be our procedure? Williams: You can do what you want to do. I will say that the Planning Commission is the most important, powerful Commission that the City Council appoints. It is within their power to appoint you and it is within their power to un -appoint you. I don't think that the City Council will concede that power to you. They want to select you and therefore, they are not going to let you decide who gets to stay. The City Council themselves will decide who gets to stay and that is what their ordinances now state. They talk about you have to go to the City Council and the City Council votes to have somebody come off. I have spoken with some of the aldermen about all of the city boards and Commissions and about membership requirements and attendance requirements for that. I think that there is interest there that once they get past some other issues that are currently taking a lot of their time I think they will be able to tackle that particular issue. I would just ask for some patience from the Planning Commission. I am not saying that you can't do whatever you want to do. You can either do it as a group or you can do it individually and talk to your aldermen about what you think should be done but I will say that because this is such an important body, the most important body they appoint. You remember back in the past for a while every alderman was on the nominating committee. Of course they are not there now but that s primarily because it was very important to them who got selected so I think that is a power and a right that they have that they will probably jealously guard. I am sure that they would like input from you so anything you might want to give them either formally or informally would be fine. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 26 Shackelford: Just one thing, and I promised Commissioner Estes I wasn't going to talk too much so I will try to honor that. He and I obviously had some differing opinions in this. One thing I do want to make clear, and Dawn, I'm not correcting you by any stretch of the imagination but just kind of expanding on it. In section three when we talked about we didn't have a consensus and you finished up that statement saying that we talked about changing times to better accommodate Commissioner schedules. One thing I want to make clear is that is not just in my opinion for current sitting Planning Commissioners. I have a real concern about future potential Commissioners and having these meetings that happen during business hours being mandatory attendance and the affect that it would have in limiting many groups in our community from being able to serve on this Commission. I just wanted that since it wasn't really clear, it looked like we were just arguing over our personal schedules, it does go beyond that in scope and my feelings, very strong feelings, regarding limiting people who might have a desire to serve on this committee. Thank you. Hoover: I would like to comment that I was at one of those meetings and we did discuss having agenda session at 4:30 instead of 3:30 and having tours at 5:00, can we get some feed back from some of the other Commissioners on that? I too have conflicts at the 3:30 scheduling. 4:30 would certainly help me out tremendously. Can I get other people to comment on that? Estes: There was some discussion that during some months of the year the tour at 5:00 and extending beyond 5:00 it would be dark and we would be touring applicant's proposed projects in the dark and that might not work very well. There was also some concern regarding the demands placed upon staff by having to work after 5:00. Those are just two issues that I think need to be brought to our attention. I don't know what can be done to accommodate staff after 5:00. Warrick: We will work when you need us. Hoover: May I ask this, what if agenda was at 4:00 and tour was at 4:30 or something of that manner? Estes: I just wanted to throw out on the table the discussion that was had that during two or three months of the year it is dark at 5:30 and we would be out looking at applicant's projects in the dark and that is probably not something that we ought to be doing. Ostner: That sort of came to my mind, the burdens we place on staff after hours. It is almost 7:00 and we willingly volunteer. I know there were no punches pulled, when they signed on they knew that these meetings were late but I Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 27 think it is a balancing act. I am not sure if this is just the beginning of the conversation I would like to hear from the city and the hiring policy of how much is required and how much you all are willing or able to give after hours. I know you can't answer that now but I think it is very important. I enjoy staff and it is crucial that they be on the tour. If that is not included in how their compensation package is structured I think it comes directly into play with our conversation because we are not just getting together and talking about our agenda. They are walking us through, they are sharing what they already know. I am very much in favor of shifting the hours to accommodate working schedules. I am self employed, I have the luxury of being able to come here during hours. That is just another point to talk about I suppose. Hoover: Commissioner Vaught, should we just go down the line and get feedback? Vaught: Sure. I would agree with Commissioner Shackelford in the fact that it is a volunteer position and some people are taking vacation time or personal time to be able to serve on these things during the day and we need to weigh the burden that will place on our future applicants and the ability to serve. The time demands already limit our pool. If we start making meetings during the day mandatory it is really going to wittle that down even more. It is a different position, City Council is compensated for their time, probably not great, but they do receive something. We are at our own expense here willing to serve and wanting to serve, investing time after hours on nights and weekends to look at these things or possibly tour sites ourselves if we haven't had the time. I think that is also a strong consideration and if there is any way to possibly change the tour to 5:00 or even in the morning before work some days. Anything, whatever works best with staff and what they would like. I am a morning person so I would love it at 7:00 in the morning. I think those are definitely considerations and I hope that City Council will take that into consideration when they discuss it and keep that in mind. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioner Anthes? Anthes: Having yet to have the honor of serving on a committee I can only say this in anticipation of the fact that if we are requiring each member to serve on Subdivision and that is during the work day and then agenda and tours are during the work day I don't know that you would want to, speaking of what Commissioner Shackelford said, if you require the agenda session for everyone do you exempt people that are on Subdivision during that point in time because they are already actually dealing with the same issues and they have a lot of times seen the properties prior to those tours. That is my only comment. I think I share the same concerns as some of the other members. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 28 Hoover: Thank you. Commissioner Estes? Estes: If I could just add for a moment, we are not changing the rules. The ordinance now mandates attendance at tour and even adds that the failure to attend the tour may be cause for removal from this Commission. I understand everything that has been said. Believe me I understand what a financial and personal sacrifice it is to serve on an appointed board or commission. It is a financial sacrifice, it is a sacrifice in terms of time but once the decision is made to apply I think that an individual should well consider what is being asked of them. When I was asked to apply for this commission I telephoned then chair Phyllis Johnson and asked her what was required and she told me what was required and she told me what was required and when I applied I knew what was required of me and I intended to fulfill those requirements. I guess my message is that we are not changing the rules. They are set out in the ordinance. When a person applies to serve on this Planning Commission if they would do their due diligence they would learn that there is a Subdivision Committee, they would learn that there is an agenda and tour requirement and they would learn that every other Monday night they are expected to attend the meeting. If their personal schedule or their professional schedule does not permit that I would suggest they not apply. There are many things that I have wanted to do in my life from time to time that I just simply didn't have the resources available to me and I didn't do those things. Those resources perhaps they would be time, perhaps they would be finances, perhaps they would be other commitments. When a person asks to be appointed to this Planning Commission I think they should understand that there are going to be some things required of them and if they can not fulfill those requirements then they should not apply. Pragmatically that is going to eliminate or preclude a large segment of our constituency from applying to serve on any board or commission, it will preclude them from running for City Council. It will preclude them from running for the Arkansas State Legislature but that is just simply a fact and I think it is very important that when a person apply for appointment to this Planning Commission and accept that appointment that they serve and that they serve in conformity with the ordinances. I think that is all I have to say. Vaught: We are changing the requirements by adding the requirement to serve on Subdivision Committee is that correct? Ostner: Yes. Vaught: It currently does not state that you must serve on Subdivision Committee. Bunch: In the theme of making the Planning Commission available to a greater segment of the population and knowing that this Planning Commission has changed forms with different people having different time constraints. My Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 29 major concern is to have flexibility built into the days and times that are chosen for the various committees and agenda and tour so that it can be altered to accommodate the needs of the different commissioners as the Commission involves. Rather than cast everything in stone it may come up that a Wednesday is a better day for most everyone than a Thursday depending on what city staff has scheduled for those days. Keep that in mind that it doesn't necessarily have to be hard and fast rules and regulations but it can be flexible and more accommodating to future commissioners. Shackelford: I obviously disagree very strongly with some of the comments that Mr. Estes made and have a very differing opinion. First of all, in contrast to what he said I do think that we are changing the rules in two very specific areas. The first of which is what Commissioner Vaught pointed out, we are talking about requiring Subdivision Committee attendance which is most definitely a change of the rules. The second point is that he made the comment that there are agenda sessions and tour requirements now. Nowhere in the ordinance do I see agenda sessions mentioned and we are definitely changing the rules by making a requirement on the agenda sessions. I have a very strong concern in that area because agenda session, in my mind, there is no official business that can be done there. There is nothing that can happen at that agenda session that doesn't have to come before this board. If it is on the consent agenda I can very easily pull it off or anybody else can as well. There is no information that is available there that is not available to the full Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting. I interpret the ordinance whenever they say regularly scheduled meeting or tours to be the special occasion tours in which we met, and some of you guys haven't been here that long, but we met with developers and engineers and we would get on a trolley and go on site. CMN Business District is a very good example. We met two or three times in the middle of the day, got everybody together, went and looked at exactly what trees we were talking about, exactly where the buildings were. That is the way I read the ordinance on the tour section of what it is saying. Obviously, I have a very strong opinion in this area. I think that we need to be very careful in putting restrictions in place that is going to further limit those that can serve on this. It is all speculation, it is folks that are in business, folks that work hourly. There are a lot of people that you are going to preclude from serving if we change these rules. I don't want to do it lightly. With that being said, I think it is something that needs to be addressed by City Council. I know we are having this conversation to give them my recommendation, our recommendations. I guess I just did that. That is my recommendation. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioner Allen? Allen: I would never want the Planning Commission to become so exclusionary Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 30 because of work problems but I do think that if Commissioners are privy, applicants, are privy up front to what is expected of them that they can make a decision about whether or not they have time to apply. I felt like I was a bit of mahot-magondy on the committee with Commissioner Shackelford and Estes but I do think that there is some middle ground here and we could have some flexibility that we could look at different times. I think it is invaluable to have tour and agenda meetings. It is an opportunity for us to see the site together and ask staff particular questions that we have and so I am hoping that we can find some middle ground. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioner Church? Church: I guess I would just like to start out by saying that I have a very unique personal situation. As I have said to Commissioner Hoover, I don't think that I have a young child who has to be picked up at daycare and who has to be taken in the morning but I don't think that that can be considered at all. I guess I've said all along that I think that once the decision is made I will just have to make a personal decision. I guess I would just say that at the time that I became a Commissioner I specifically asked the question if we were required to attend agenda session and I was told that it was not a requirement. I am one that I want to know what I'm agreeing to before I get into it. Since that I've been placed on the Subdivision Committee and may spend three or four hours that is a unique situation, on one Thursday and then am asked to spend several hours the following Thursday at agenda session. I guess I went into this thinking that I knew what the rules were but if in fact, it is changed, that is something that I will just have to look at. I do feel like the rules are changing. That is fine. I will just have to make a decision when I see what they are but I think it is very important that we consider the needs of business people because I think that the uniqueness of this body is that we have a mix of people from all different walks of life. I think that is why it has really made for such a good Commission. I think we work well together and we are all different but I think that is a good thing and I would hate to see that change in the future so I think we should just consider all of those factors. Hoover: Attorney Williams? Williams: I would like to end this by just telling you all that I hope that the people listening realize how many hours that you all do put in. Not only in front of the camera right here but at the Subdivision Committee and then at the agenda meeting and going over this material. The reason that Fayetteville is as nice as it is is because we have volunteers like you without pay who put hours after hours in over several years and I want you to know that as a long term resident of Fayetteville I am grateful for your service and I think that there are a lot of other people out there that are too. No matter how this is resolved I want to thank you all from the citizens for all of Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 31 your hard work. Hoover: Thank you. Could we have staff comment? Have you any thoughts Dawn on this? I guess what is in my mind is perhaps maybe staff should be thinking about what this flexible schedule might be or what other options for the schedule might be because I know that at agenda you have to rush to get all of the items together and there has to be a day and a time that is better for you and we might need you to make a proposal to us. Warrick: With regard to flexible scheduling for things like the Subdivision Committee, we might be able to do that annually but not on a six month change when you change out the membership of the Committee. We have to publish our schedule many months in advance with a minimum of 6 to 12 weeks in advance because that is how long our development review cycle starts. It is not fair for us to make those changes midstream for projects that are coming into the review cycle. I am more than willing to try to make adjustments if there is some sort of consensus that the Planning Commission as a whole as to a date other than Thursday mornings at 8:30 that might be better. I am certainly willing to look at that. I don't think that we are ever going to have a perfect system I think that may be able to get a system that is a little bit more functional for everyone involved hopefully for everyone involved. It affects more than just staff and Planning Commission. It affects the applicants, it affects their design professionals and it affects support staff as far as getting materials and processing everything. It affects our time frame for making public notification which is required by state law as well as city ordinance so there are a whole lot of different factors that need to go into that. I am more than willing to work with the Commission to see what, if anything, can work better. With regard to staff time, we are salaried. We don't get paid for overtime but we do get a salary that I believe somewhere in the line is reflective of the work that we are supposed to do and that we do do for you and for the citizens through our regular schedules, which are not really regular. Like I said, I think that staff is very willing to look at this issue and work with you to better plan for different time frames if that is what the Planning Commission deems to be appropriate. We will be as responsive as we can. We certainly have things like public notification and file preparation and different things like that that we need to take into consideration and then publication times for getting those schedules out to the public and to the developers so that they understand hat to expect when they come into our process. Anthes: I just have a question of Dawn. Taking into account what Commissioner Hoover and Estes said about the time schedule and agenda session, I know you have to post well in advance what the schedule is but would it be impossible to say March through October tours at 4:30 or whatever and then November through February when the sun goes down earlier in the Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 32 day something like that, would that kind of irregularity pose trouble for you? Warrick: Probably not. The requirement for posting a public hearing is two hours. Two hours doesn't give my staff time to get your materials put together but if we know when those changes are going to occur we can make accommodations for that if that is what the Commission chooses to do. Anthes: Thanks Dawn. Hoover: I would like to add my comments in general, which I didn't get to make. Having served on Subdivision, I am in agreement with Commissioner Ostner and Church that I think that you should be forgiven agenda session when you are serving on Subdivision because sometimes that runs into many hours and you are also very aware of the project because you have looked at it for so long. I would hope that the Council would consider that when they are looking at our attendance. The second item is the agenda at a different time and I am wondering if we need to have a motion to ask Dawn to look at other timeslots and present them to us? Would that be agreeable to everyone? All we are doing is investigating it to see if there is a time slot that would work. Shackelford: Do we need to do that now or do we need to wait and see if that is going to be changed? Hoover: I don't think that that has anything to do with that. We can set our own agenda time. Warrick: May I ask how much of a variation you are looking for? We can probably make some modifications to that but my preference would be looking at the whole review cycle and making some shifts to the Subdivision Committee time and even day if necessary for starting 2004. I realize it is August and we still have several months left in this year but if that is agreeable I would certainly be able to look at that. Hoover: I can see if you would look at the entire scheduling. Maybe that would be more appropriate since we can't look at one part of an ordinance. You probably can't look at one meeting in the scope of all your work. Warrick: Everything is dependent upon the thing before it and after it. It is certainly a living process and it is affected by each step but we will certainly look at it if you will give me maybe two meeting cycles to get something back to you so it would be the second meeting of September maybe. Church: One other comment I think also, is if we knew if that meeting were going to last an hour and a half or two hours and I know on agenda session that Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 33 may be a little bit easier to do than something like Subdivision. If we started at 4:00 and we knew it would be over with by 5:30 that may be picking out the most important things to look at or whatever. If there were more of a time factor there that would help business people plan their work schedules. Shackelford: One further comment and I don't know that it is a big of an issue as it was under past chairmen of this Commission. At one point we got very irregular in the tours after agenda sessions. It would be nice if we had some sort of notification prior to agenda sessions whether or not there is going to be a planned tour. There are a lot of times that there hasn't been a development that we felt necessary to go tour. That would be helpful. Hoover: Shackelford: Ostner: Hoover: Allen: Hoover: So you are saying an agenda of the tours? You got it. I wasn't full of thoughts on Subdivision Committee until tonight. Something that has come to my mind is the requirements of our applicants. Subdivision is somewhat of an in-house review. We open it to the public and we listen to their comments but it is very similar to Technical Plat where staff and we are there total nuts and bolts and either forward it or require them to clean it up. I don't think Subdivision should happen outside of business hours. The applicant already has to almost always come to a Monday night meeting here at the Planning Commission if that is the type of approval. Sometimes they do not. To look at shifting Subdivision before or after business hours I would have to think would be unfair to require applicants to off hour meetings simply to walk through the process. Before hand I was talking about staff, I was assuming we're an infinite pot of time and effort flowing out but the applicant I believe is important in this case so any fluctuation with Subdivision I think should be within business hours. Thank you. Do we have any final comments? I think all we are doing here is giving Dawn a directive. Are there any other comments to add to her notes? In terms of infinite flow there are other little things that come along. For example, for the last three and a half years I've been a member of the Sidewalks and Trails Committee, which is required of someone from the Planning Commission. I enjoy doing that and I am able to do that but I do think that it is not as easy as it looks on face value. It is a really complicated issue to determine what's there. I agree and I am so glad that we're not making that decision. We will let City Council do that. Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 34 Allen: Yes, the paid people can do that when the smoke settles. Hoover: Ok, with that we will adjourn. Thank you. Meeting adjourned: 7:03 p.m.