Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on August 25, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ANX 03-02.00: Annexation (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) Forwarded to City Council Page 2-16 RZN 03-17.00: Rezoning (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) Forwarded to City Council Page 2-16 ANX 03-03.00: Annexation (James Coger, PP 321) Forwarded to City Council Page 2-16 RZN 03-18.00: Rezoning (James Coger, PP 321) Forwarded to City Council Page 2-16 ANX 03-04.00: Annexation (Stephens, pp 321) Forwarded to City Council Page 2-16 RZN 03-27.00: Rezoning (Stephens, pp 321) Forwarded to City Council Page 2-16 ADM 03-21.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan, Parks) Forwarded to City Council Page 16 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Jill Anthes Alice Church Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Christian Vaught Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 2 ANX 03-02.00: Annexation (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Joe Jones, Pastor for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The subject property is in the county and contains approximately 3.95 acres. The request is to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 03-17.00: Rezoning (Shiloh Community Church, PP 322) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Joe Jones, Pastor for property located north of Mr. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The subject property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 3.95 acres. The request is to rezone property to P-1, Institutional. ANX 03-03.00: Annexation (James Coger, PP 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of James Coger for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The subject property is in the county and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The request is to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 03-18.00: Rezoning (James Coger, PP 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of James Coger for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential single family, 4 units/acre. ANX 03-04.00: Annexation (Stephens, pp 321) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates, P.E. of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Carol Stephens for property located at 4270 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is in the county and contains approximately 1.08 acres. The request is to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 03-27.00: Rezoning (Stephens, pp 321) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates, P.E. of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Carol Stephens for property located at 4270 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 1.08 acres. The request is to be rezoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: Welcome to the August 25th Planning Commission meeting. Renee, will you cal the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford being absent. Hoover: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the August 11`" meeting? Bunch: So moved. Hoover: Is there a second by Commissioner Allen? Allen: Certainly there is. I will second. Hoover: Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 3 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Item number one on the agenda is ANX 03-02.00 and actually, we are going to look at items one through six at one time because they are all companion items. I will let the audience know that items number seven and eight have been pulled from the agenda. That is RZN 03-28.00 and RZN 03-29.00. If you are here for items seven and eight, they have been tabled. Dawn, will you get us acquainted with one through six? Warrick: I will attempt to present these in a somewhat organized fashion. The reason that we are looking at items one through six together is that all of these requests are on adjoining properties so I felt like it was appropriate to consider them together. Of course, the votes will have to be independent and separate. However, this is really one cohesive look at three adjoining properties that are all looking to annex into the city limits and then zone for various uses. Four of these requests, two annexations and two rezonings were originally presented to the Planning Commission on June 9th. At that time the third annexation and rezoning pair, which is items numbered five and six in your agenda, were not included in your request and that was problematic. The way that the other four items are configured without that last set it created an island which is very much in contradiction to the city's adopted annexation policy. We try to annex cohesive groups of properties that create or incorporate neighborhoods and that don't create problems for the city with regard to provision of services so islands and peninsulas are configurations or geometries that we try to avoid. That is one change that has occurred since June 9th when we originally started looking at this area for annexation and rezoning requests. Also, since that time the city has acquired property on Rupple Road for a new fire station and is in the process of design for that. That has been contracted out to an architectural firm and we believe that that will be coming through the review process with a Large Scale Development for the construction of the new fire station in the very near future, certainly this calendar year so that that can be under construction very soon. That is also a changed condition since we looked at this in June. Since that time staff has met with the applicant representing the various properties and we have tried to troubleshoot other issues that we felt were appropriate to discuss before this was finally acted upon by the Planning Commission and the City Council. We have identified a couple of issues with regard to transportation in that Mt. Comfort Road where these properties are located, let me back up a little bit and give you a starting point, these properties are west of the city limits on Mt. Comfort Road just north of the Bridgeport subdivision and just west of the Clabber Creek subdivision, which is currently under construction. As you are aware, we have been Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 4 looking at a lot of projects in this general area and there are a lot of concerns with regard to the transportation system. Staff felt that it was appropriate to look at that with regard to bringing additional properties into the city limits and as a condition on these annexations we are recommending that before any development occur that it be verified that there is a uniform width of Mt. Comfort Road between Rupple and the subject properties of 24'. That is two 12' driveways. That is a standard drive lane for each direction. It provides capacity and we want to make sure that there is uniform width of that driving surface out to this point. That may not necessarily change things substantially but it will provide some uniformity in the infrastructure and we believe that some improvement out there is certainly not going to be detrimental to any development that may occur and it will benefit the entire area. The other thing that we looked at, and probably the more critical issue, is the intersection of Mt. Comfort and Rupple Road. When the fire station is constructed south on Rupple Road this will be a main thoroughfare for fire apparatus to access the residential areas on Mt. Comfort and at this point in time it is in the county, it is in an island, which is one of those problematic areas that we need to address with regard to annexation. The more important issue is that Rupple Road forms a Y intersection with Mt. Comfort. The topography is very steep and the access lanes are very narrow. We have asked that prior to any development on these three annexation proposals that the applicant or developer assures that there is at least a 22' leg of pavement in each direction so that there is at least passing distance for two vehicles to access either one of these two directional legs at the Y intersection. Also, with regard to the existing duplex, which is on the Stephens' property, staff is recommending that at the time that sanitary sewer is available to it connect to the city's system. That really is an ordinance requirement but we felt that it was appropriate to mention that because with the development of these sites around that property sewer will become available and it is important that we eliminate septic systems as quickly as we can. It will certainly improve the infrastructure situation and it will make this area more desirable. One of the reasons that we do look at annexation is that developers wish to connect to the city's infrastructure. It is beneficial, it makes better use of infrastructure if we can do that in an orderly manner. Bringing these properties together allows us to do that. It allows us to better plan for this area and for the build out of this area. It is in the city's planning area, also referred to as our growth area, so we do expect it to develop. It is beneficial for us to have some sort of control over that so that we're not later annexing properties that don't meet city standards and that have septic tanks associated with them. Those really are I think the primary issues that are associated with these sites and I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you have. The applicant's representative is also here. Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 5 Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Could the applicant come forward? Bates: Good evening Commissioners, I am Geoff Bates, I am an engineer with Keystone Consultants and I will try to help you all understand what is going on. I brought a bigger drawing that kind of puts things more in perspective. The blue line is the city limits. This is Clabber Creek Phase I, which is almost complete. This is Clabber Creek Phase II which was before you not too long ago and this is the proposed subdivision Mr. Coger is doing and this is the church property and the Stephens just agreed to be annexed so it wouldn't create an island. The yellow part is basically what we are going to improve on Mt. Comfort Road. Mr. Coger has agreed to go ahead and widen the road in these places that it needs to be, which is 22'. That is basically it. Do you have any questions? Hoover: We will take some questions after we get the public comment Thank you for doing that. Bunch: Madam Chair, I would like to announce that on one of the annexation requests, item three on the agenda, and the subsequent rezoning, that property does belong to a distant relative. I have no financial stake in the matter and I feel that I can be objective but if any of my fellow commissioners or the applicant feels that it would be improper for me to hear it I will be happy to recuse. Bates: We don't have a problem with it. Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Right now I will open this up to the public, items one through six, the annexations and rezonings of these. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address these? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Commissioners? Ostner: I guess I do have a question. This is just explanatory to help us understand what your ultimate goals are? You are not presenting any of that, it is just to give us an idea right? Bates: This is just to show you what is planned and what we anticipate is going to happen. We have already designed Phase II of Clabber and I have already stubbed out sewer so I can pick up the church with sewer and water. Ostner: This is what we've got, I'm trying to figure this far west is all of this right? Bates: Yes, this whole thing. Ostner: The other pieces are that and the rest already is in the city limits? Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 6 Bates: Ostner: Estes: Bates: Warrick: Yes. Ok, I understand. Can you sit that there for the TV audience? I know a lot of people like seeing these things. Where is item number six, the request is to rezone to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre, where is that property in the project? It is the existing duplex. That property is immediately adjoining Mt. Comfort Road and it does have an existing duplex located on it. It is on your map, you can see that there is a structure on pages 6.8 and 6.9. There is a hammerhead type lot, a dogleg lot that accesses Mt. Comfort Road just east of that property and then the primary portion of that is to the north. That is the subject property of the Shiloh Community Church request, which is items one and two. To the west of that property is the Coger requests. Those are items three and four. Estes: Thank you. Hoover: I would like to ask staff a question just to reiterate. For fire and police service, we have existing there and this meets what we need? Warrick: Both fire and police responded that they could serve these sites. They currently serve the nearby middle school, the Bridgeport subdivision to the south and the various developing properties that are currently in the city limits. Fire did respond that they had right now a five minute nine second response time from the fire station that serves this area currently. They believe that that time will be reduced significantly with the installation of the Rupple Road fire station and that would be reduced to approximately three minutes and forty three seconds. Hoover: All of the sewer is available or is going to be built on these? Warrick: Yes. Sewer is being extended in the Clabber Creek subdivision, which can connect to this project site. I talked initially when I first introduced the items about the annexation and it would probably be appropriate to talk more specifically about each of the rezoning requests whenever you are ready to do that because we do need to talk a little bit about what the request is and where that falls with regard to our General Plan. Hoover: Do we have any annexation questions? Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 7 Anthes: I have one. On page 1.5 of item number one at the bottom of the page the finding states that annexations are automatically zoned A-1, Agricultural, the applicant is requesting to be rezoned to RSF-4, Residential Single - Family four units per acre and then the accompanying item number two, states that indeed they are requesting to rezone the property to P-1, Institutional so we have a little conflict there. Warrick: Yes. The conflict is in the first item. The request for this property, the Shiloh Community Church property is P-1, Institutional so that needs to be fixed. Anthes: That is the item that I wanted to talk to the other Commissioners about. My understanding is that many churches in Fayetteville are in residential zoning districts and the churches are allowed to be there by Conditional Use. P-1, Institutional, in this instance allows uses that when surrounded entirely by RSF-4 zoning as this lot might be, might allow uses that those neighbors would not necessarily be as interested in having there and I wanted to know what everybody else thought of that. Hoover: Let me finish up, were there any other annexation questions specific to the annexations and not rezoning? Seeing none, Dawn, do you want to go ahead and talk about the rezonings and maybe start with the church and respond to that. Warrick: The first request for the Shiloh Community Church property is approximately 3.98 acres, the request is from R -A, Residential Agricultural to P-1, Institutional. The reason that this is being requested is that this is an institutional or public use zoning district. The applicant is requesting to develop a church on this just under four acres. Institutional uses are not precisely designated on the city's General Plan. However, they are expected to be mixed into neighborhoods because those are our churches, our community centers, schools are permitted by right within that zoning district and those are uses that are typically mixed within neighborhoods so that access can be provided to them so that they can become incorporated into those neighborhoods. People can hopefully walk to church or school and access these types of facilities. Staff did feel that it was fair to the General Plan for this to be zoned an Institutional use. There are neighborhoods that are coming together at this particular location that a service in this spot would be able to serve and that is really where we came to with regard to the recommendation for approval of P-1, Institutional zoning on this site. It is true, Commissioner Anthes, that a lot of the churches within the city are in residential zoning districts but they are there by Conditional Use approval. That is a mechanism that the Planning Commission has used in the past as opposed to rezoning a property in order to allow for a church within a residential district with extra conditions or approvals as the Planning Commission has felt needed Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 8 to make the church compatible with a particular area. In this particular case there is nothing for it to be compatible with at this point in time. That will certainly depend on timing as to which develops first, the residential area surrounding this site or the church itself. Basically, the city's regulations would govern the development and any landscaping requirements, screening requirements, parking, setbacks would be accommodated regardless of the rezoning and in fact, some of the setback requirements, all of the setback requirements in a P-1 district are more stringent than if the church were located in a residential district. I think that covers that particular item. I would be happy to answer any questions. Did you want me to go over each of the other two or did you want to stick with the one? Hoover: Why don't you go over the other two while you're doing it. Warrick: RZN 03-18.00, item four in your agendas, is a request to rezone approximately 18.4 acres from R -A, if it is annexed, to RSF-4. This request is to allow the developer to create a residential subdivision similar in character and size to the subdivision that is being created to the east and the subdivision that exists to the south. This area is designated residential in the city's General Plan and it is consistent with that plan and staff is recommending in favor of this rezoning. The last rezoning request, RZN 03-27.00, item number six in your packet is a request to rezone approximately 1.07 acres from R -A to RSF-4. There is a duplex currently located on this site. The single-family zoning request that is before you is consistent with adjoining properties and is consistent with the city's General Plan. The duplex that is on the site would become somewhat non- conforming but it is permitted in that zoning district by Conditional Use. In the future if additional development was requested then we would need to bring that to you as a Conditional Use so that you could look at what kind of changes are proposed. There are no development proposals along with this particular request. This applicant is bringing their item forward, this annexation and rezoning pair, so that there is a contiguous lump of property under consideration and the island issue is eliminated. Hoover: Thank you. Ostner: I have a question for staff. I don't have a code book in front of me. Exactly what uses fall under Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities? Warrick: Use Unit 4 includes auditorium, stadium, art gallery, museum, cemetery, child care center, nursery school, church, college or university, community center, crematorium, detention home, dormitory, elder care, hospital, mausoleum, playfield, playground, private club or lodge, school, Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 9 elementary, junior high or senior, swimming pool, tennis court, theater or zoo. Ostner: What is a detention home? Warrick: That would be like a juvenile detention home. It is not a jail. The city or county jail is specifically limited in a different use unit so that is not a permitted use under Use Unit 4, it is under government facility, Use Unit 5 specifically. Ostner: Thank you. That answers my questions. Hoover: Are there any other questions about the rezoning of the church property to P-1? Estes: Dawn, is there a reason that this cannot be considered a Conditional Use and then we get away from the use units that are permitted under Use Unit 4? Warrick: The Planning Commission could certainly vote to zone this property a Residential district and that would require that the applicant bring forward a Conditional Use request in order to develop a church. Bates: If it helps at all, the congregation has outgrown their building. They have already bought and paid for that land and they are dying to get started. It is going to be a church for sure. Hoover: Are there any other comments or questions? I understand that we will need to have a motion to vote on each one of these items separately. MOTION: Estes: I would move for approval of ANX 03-02.00 subject to the three conditions of approval listed in the staff's recommendations. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Allen: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion for this item? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ANX 03-02.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 10 Hoover: Item number two, are there any motions? MOTION: Anthes: I move to approve RZN 03-17.00 but with the change to permit RSF-4 rather than P-1. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Anthes for an RSF-4 zoning, is there a second? Bunch: Second. Osmer: Can we have a dialogue with the applicant if that might work? Hoover: Yes. Bates: Are they going to have to come back and get a Conditional Use to build a church? Do you all feel pretty confident that you might pass that for them? Warrick: This project will be coming through the Large Scale review process, the Conditional Use can be heard at the same time. Bates: As long as it won't bold them up any longer than it has because we have been working on this several months. Warrick: You can process this simultaneously. Bates: They probably won't have a problem with that. Hoover: I guess I need to ask staff and the city attorney, do we need to take public comment now that we have a motion about a different zoning than what we brought in the beginning? Whitaker: I think it certainly would be in order at your discretion. I don't know that you would be bound at this point because I think there has been enough discussion about what the ramifications would be but it is certainly within your discretion as chair. Hoover: Is there anyone in the public that would like to address the rezoning to an RSF-4 instead of the P-1? Coger: My name is James Coger and I have the 18.34 acres on Mt. Comfort. I have been working closely with the church on the development to assure that everything is treated as a community, is done correctly and will be an Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 11 asset to Fayetteville rather than on the negative side. We expected them to be here tonight and I don't know why they aren't. My dealings with them are as Mr. Bates mentioned before, they are on Salem Road now with an older small church and they are busting at the seams. Their idea is to do just like a neighborhood church. They have no aspirations of being a really big church someday. They are interested in what you would call a satellite church, they have split off from a larger church and want to become part of that community out there. They are definitely interested in getting under construction as soon as possible because they are in such a small area that they are in. Mr. Bates has treated all three parcels kind of as one big overall plan to make everything flow and work as well as possible. I think the church would be a definite asset to the area for Fayetteville and for all the residents there. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Vaught: I would like just for the record for it to be stated why that motion was put forth that way, why did we change it from P-1 to RSF-4. Anthes: I agree with the last gentleman that spoke that this does seem to be a good use and that the community is anxious to have it. My concern is that that neighborly quality of that church would be preserved with the zoning designation of RSF-4 and a Conditional Use down the road if the church decided to sell this property and it was zoned P-1. There would be more opportunities for other uses to which the community might not be as receptive. I believe that keeping it as an RSF-4 designation is safer for that surrounding community while still allowing exactly what the applicant wants to do in the time frame that they want to do it. Vaught: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-17.00 to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Item number three ANX 03-03.00? Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 12 MOTION: Estes: Anthes: Hoover: Roll Call: Thomas: Hoover: MOTION: Ostner: Anthes: Hoover: Roll Call: Thomas: Hoover: MOTION: Estes: Hoover: Allen: Hoover: I would move for approval of ANX 03-03.00 subject to the three conditions of approval listed in the staff recommendation. I will second. There is a motion by Commission Estes and a second by Commissioner Anthes. Is there any discussion? Renee? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 03-03.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries eight to zero. Item four, RZN 03-18.00, are there any motions? 1 will make a motion that we approve RZN 03-18.00, forward it to the City Council. I will second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Anthes, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-18.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries eight to zero. Item five? I would move for approval of ANX 03-04.00subject to the three conditions of approval listed in the staff's recommendations. We have a motion by Commissioner Estes. I will second. A second by Commissioner Allen. Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 13 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 03-04.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Item number six? MOTION: Ostner: I would like to make a motion to approve RZN 03-27.00 and forward it to the City Council. Anthes: I will second. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Anthes, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 03-27.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 14 ADM 03-21.00: Administrative Item (Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan, Parks) Hoover: Items seven and eight have been withdrawn from the Planning Commission tonight so we are onto item number nine, ADM 03-21.00 which is a presentation of the Fayetteville Alternate Transportation and Trails Plan given by Steve Hatfield. I think everybody has their binders of the trail plan so you can follow along. Hatfield: My name is Steve Hatfield, please give me a moment to get the electronics started. Hoover: Dawn, the Hillside Task Force meeting is tomorrow at 10:30? Warrick: Yes, that is correct. Hoover: The traffic consultant meeting is when? Warrick: Tomorrow evening at 6:00 in this room. The traffic and transportation city wide plan and study will be presented and the consultant will be presenting their final draft. The Planning Commission and City Council have both been invited and are very much encouraged to attend. This is a public hearing at 6:00 tomorrow evening and I encourage anybody who is interested to stop by. Hoover: Dawn, would you like to introduce Suzanne? Warrick: I would be glad to. Suzanne Morgan is our new Associate Planner, she started last week and she will be working on development and zoning review items so you will be hearing from her shortly. We are very happy to have her on staff. Hoover: Thank you. Hatfield: I am just going to give you a brief presentation. Hopefully you all have had a chance to look over the Trails Master Plan or at least review the executive summary that is included in the front of the Master Plan. What I am going to do tonight is briefly review the visions, the goals and objectives of the Master Plan and take any questions you might have. The visions of this plan is to establish alternative modes of transportation and active recreation as an integral part of daily life in the City of Fayetteville. Of course that first shot was the Buffalo River. That also ca be considered a trail. As part of our planning process we had public planning workshops. We had a series of three at Butterfield School, city hall and the Genesis Center. The really nice thing and fun thing about this was we just took out large 36x42 maps of the city with the streets and parks and Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 15 schools on them and asked the public to come and say where are you currently trying to get to, how would you like to get there and what types of corridors are you accessing? What we came up with was about forty or fifty maps that they drew with color markers and it took several months to accumulate that all into one plan and that is where we started with our proposed master plan is what the public said they wanted and what the public said they were utilizing right now as trail corridors. The plan that you will see tonight and the trail corridors is that they are not specific trails, they are just corridors where we would like to implement a trail or an on street linkage. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have done the detailed planning for that particular trail segment. Transportation is the first goal. To provide alternative transportation opportunities for citizens and visitors of Fayetteville. We have already got a good start on that. We already are putting bike racks on the busses, that is certainly good. We certainly want to have less of this, traffic at a stand still. Connections to schools, we are currently doing this, Raven Trail. Along with that there are all different types of trails and on street linkages so there is a lot of detailed design left to do on how you do bike lanes, how you get those to turn with cars and that is all part of the education process as well. We currently have several bike lanes, we certainly have a lot of interior looped trails that people are using. I am not going to go over all of the objectives but this is a list of the objectives that is included in your master plan. I will just read a couple of them. Provide support and encourage local businesses to incorporate bicycle support facilities. The city is already doing that. We are already encouraging bike racks, we can encourage changing rooms and showers and employee incentives to choose alternative transportation. We also want to provide connections between trails and on street bike ways and sidewalks. We certainly want to utilize signage markings and other devices to regulate, warn and guide the users of the FATT system including the motorists. The environment, develop and protect greenway corridors that will enhance the environment by conserving floodplain lands, preserving the local landscape character, protecting wildlife habitat and improving air and water quality through the preservation of vegetation and reduction in automobile dependency. That is a lot of words but I think the environment is very important and I think this plan can go a long ways in achieving those goals. The great smoky mountain park, they have a web cam that is up on a tower and they take a picture every fifteen minutes. This is on a good day. This next image is on a bad day so air pollution is everywhere. This is our own backyard, Mt. Sequoyah. We have some jewels and assets that I think we certainly want to preserve. Combs park, Clabber Creek we just spoke of earlier tonight. There are two turtles in the creek. We are taking steps to preserve that corridor with trails. Promote the use of natural techniques and greenback civilization is another one of our objectives, promote and incorporate the use of recycled materials. We currently are doing that. Asphalt can be a recycled material. Limit the use of chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides. Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 16 We certainly are doing that in the Parks system now and we will continue that on the trails system. Recreation and fitness, improve opportunities for safe accessible recreation throughout the City of Fayetteville. This is an example of a study done in Omaha, Nebraska on three existing trails. I don't know if you can read that very well but as you can see, all three trails had a very high user, 100% of one trail there was at least one in each household that was using that trail. In a daily or weekly basis 89% of the people there were using that trail system daily or weekly. It really had a lot to do with where these trails were installed and where they were implemented. The neighborhoods had a lot to do with it. I think that might have been a little bit more to do with the education. The residents might not have known the trail was there, they might not have promoted it as recreation. Of course in our own backyard we have great trails within our parks system right now and they are getting heavy use. Trail grand openings are other ways that people come to celebrate. I had a conference in Providence, Rhode Island. Another thing that spins off recreation is the opportunity for financial gain. This also gives people the opportunity to recreate. If they don't have a bike they can go to this bike shop, rent a bike, ride a rail trail and take the bike back and they don't have to be bothered with owning one. These are just a few of the objectives. Links parks, schools and other recreational facilities through the trail and on street linkage development. Address the needs of a variety of trail users by providing paved and unpaved surfaces. Provide lighting where appropriate. For instance, we are working on a design riht now of Center Prairie Trail between Center and Prairie Street off of 6t and on that one we are looking at lighting because I think that is going to be a heavily used trail. We are also looking at making it connect to the new library. Education is a really big component of the plan. Highlight and connect significant natural and historical resources in the area with trail corridors, create an informed user group of citizens and visitors that understand the rules and benefits of alternative transportation and a trail system. Education goes beyond just the rules of the road and the rules of the trail. It goes to the opportunities that we can do to educate them about the environment, have interpretive signage, let them know what is out there in their own backyard. We have a bike rodeo every year. The BCO coalition helps put that on. Of course education is a big part in getting people comfortable with being on the road. They have every right to be there as a bicyclist and these are just some images of people learning how to do that safely. Another one of the objectives is to establish and promote outdoor classrooms and signage along trails to teach students about repairing ecological, hydrological and natural history. Of course along the way we will promote this whole issue by developing web pages, trail maps, education packets, events that highlight the opportunities and benefits of trails and greenways. Safety: Design and manage all components of the alternative transportation and trail system to ensure the safety and security of the users. We are starting to do that. This is Gulley trail extension. We Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 17 recently installed fencing and mallards to control access so that there is not a runaway car going down that trail. Also, another aspect is safe crossings of drainage and creeks. This is a pedestrian bridge on east Mud Creek trail. Also, wherever possible we would like to do grade separated crossings instead of at grade. This will be similar to what it will look like on the contract we just let for West Mud Creek trail. This is how we will be going underneath Hwy. 71 so you will not have to deal with Hwy. 71. It is expensive but on the type of highways that you are crossing it is well worth it. Of course we are going to build the trails to national standards. We already have a very good start on detail specifications and details for the city. We want to promote the trails as a self policing facility where the potential for criminal activity is reduced by the number of trail users and proximity to neighbors. The day that Gulley trail extension opened I ended up sitting on the back porch of a friends house and literally, half of the people were sitting on their back porch watching the people on the trail. It does happen. Economic benefits: Improve and enhance the economic health of the region by increasing property values, length the visitor stays, attracting businesses and providing citizens recreational opportunities near their homes and places of work. Of course these are shots from other places in the country but this is where I think we can be. This is a business that is right along an abandoned rail trail. That trail has been there for over 20 years and this is a typical Saturday during the summer of how many trail users could be utilizing our trail system. These are a couple of shots, the slide on the left I have used over and over again. I was at a conference in St. Paul, Minnesota and this was in the handout that they give you at the hotel. I am not really sure why those bikes are on the back of that casino add but apparently they thought it was important to cater to the bike rider I guess. Of course you have delicatessens and restaurants and everything else that come along with it. Provide trails as an incentive for companies and individuals seeking to relocate. I think you will find that with the people that are moving in the area. They are expecting trails and greenways. I know working in the Parks and Recreation Division we get calls everyday asking about our trail system, where they can find out about it and when we are going to build some more. I think it is evident that it is needed out there. Maintenance and management, that is always a big issue. Properly maintained trail facilities to ensure user safety and to enhance the quality of the user experience. Several other shots from St. Paul. There are graffiti issues that have to be addressed. The slide on the left is where we can reduce our maintenance. They were only mowing one strip down the trail and then they were letting the wild flowers and native grasses take over along the steep banks. I think that is an excellent way to do it. Develop an adopt a trail program to involve volunteers in maintenance activities. We certainly have a lot of volunteers in this town and they are very anxious to help out on our trail system. Of course we do need to have detailed design construction of some of these. This is just an example of what level of detail you have to Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 18 get to once you identify those. This is actually a slide from the National Home Builders Association. They actually did a survey and I just put them in here just to stress the need and the desire from their survey. 62% and 58% want walking/jogging trails and open space 46%. Community amenities, this is another one of their surveys. Highway access was number one, walking and jogging trails was number two and sidewalks number three. Park area was number four. Evidently throughout the country this is of utmost importance. This a graphic of the population and employment density. This is one of the tools that we use to actually evaluate each corridor and I can explain that a little bit more when we get into the matrix. Generally, the darker the green is the denser population. The darker the grayish blue is the employment density. As you can see, there are several areas where we are doing a good job. We are actually working near where we live, not many are here and I think the trail system will help that when we get those a little bit closer together. Parks and schools, that was one of the key things we wanted to connect with the trail system. That just gives you an overview of where those are located. This is an example of the top ten on the multi use trail matrix and some of the things that we evaluated was the right of way available, was it connecting to other trails, was it coordinating with other projects? When all of these projects are coming forward if we can coordinate with the state highway project or a new street widening it can reduce the cost greatly. Community destinations, total population served, total jobs served. Scenic quality certainly is considered. Parks and schools served. These are all of the things that we actually evaluated for each of these trail corridors. We did the same thing for on street linkages and there you can see the top ten. What I would like to do before I finish this slide is I would like to explain just briefly how we came up with the employment density because we did use 2000 census data but John Goddard with our GIS Department and I worked closely together and he had a great idea that we actually use what you guys work on. Anything that has been platted for the city we use census data per household to go off those platted areas so we aren't using old data, we are actually using data that is projected to be built out in the next year or so any subdivision that has been platted we used census data per household numbers to arrive at a population that is going to be in that area. We are not four years behind, we are actually a year ahead and it is fairly accurate. This just gives you a sense and an idea of how this build out may happen. This is just the city plan. This first part will be the near term phase. If you look at the white yellowish colors, those are the trails and the flesh tone is the on street linkages. This next part we are pulling in the mid term phase and then ultimately, which is 20 years down the road this is what could happen with the long term phase. The Master Plan will be revised and looked at way before we get to that long term phase so a lot of that could change. The nice thing about having an evaluation matrix within this Master Plan if somebody gives us some right of way or if we acquire some property tomorrow that could change the ranking of Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 19 those trail corridors. It is a constantly changing way to look at it. This is just another way to look at the total score and the total ranking for the trails. They ran from 20 points all the way up to almost 80 on the evaluation. This is another look at the on street linkages. This one is very hard to read because there are so many on street linkages but you can see that it is a little bit more of a constant variation. Ultimately what we do is we ask why, why do we do it. Is it for community building? This was work day at Center Prairie Trail. We had 50 or 60 people out there all day helping take out the ties and I think they even had fun. For the kids this is the bike rodeo. Public health and fitness, that is becoming a big issue. Of course the turtles in Clabber Creek, wildlife habitat preservation. That is basically all I have for this presentation. I would like to thank you for your attention and if you have any questions I will be happy to try to answer them. Hoover: Thank you Steve. Are there any comments or questions for Steve? Bunch: I would like to compliment those who participated in this. It is quite a compilation of data and ideas and obviously a lot of work went into it and it is very good to now have a master plan for our community for the trails and hopefully we will be able to utilize it. I do have one question about one of the funding mechanisms on increase of utility franchise fees. Can you give us a little bit of an explanation of how that works and also tie it into our current utilization of utility easements from property owners as opposed to city. As new utilities go in we are getting away from having utilities on city property so an increase in franchise fees with the new scheme of things would be possibly a penalization of people who are already giving land for easements. Hatfield: Right. I will admit that that is one of the options that I haven't researched as fully as the others. I will say that what I would almost rather see than that action is to partner with some of the utilities and if we get the corridor first is actually lease it back to fiber optic companies, phone companies and cable television companies and lease back our corridors to them. Franchise fees I don't think personally is the ultimate way to go and that will be an ongoing discussion with the city council and the administration as to which parts of those funding methods we address and move forward with. Hoover: I would like to thank Commissioner Allen for being on the trails committee. Would you like to tell us your experience? Allen: I have enjoyed my time on the trails committee and continue to. I did want to say that I really want to commend Steve Hatfield and his staff and many others for your many, many, many hours of hard work on this very exciting project. I think this is going to be thrilling for Fayetteville. Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 20 Hatfield: Ostner: Hatfield: Ostner: Hoover: Warrick: MOTION: Allen: Ostner: Hoover: Yes, I would like to add that the sidewalk and trails committee had a good start on this before I was hired as the Trails and Greenways Coordinator. We also had a subcommittee that worked very hard on the text and also the Parks and Recreation staff worked very hard. There are a lot of people that put a lot of hours into this. I want to duplicate the comments. This is an incredible document and it is a great plan. The first criticism is that it needs to be the Local Ozark FATT plan, LOFATT, not FATT. I think we can play off the name quite a bit. I am just being silly. There are a lot of people moving here right now. Noted in the paper two or three weeks ago was that migrations have changed severely and areas like ours, it's no mystery, areas like ours are being inundated with people who want to live here. Most of the people I know who have moved here recently say where are the trails. They are used to them where they are from. My friends are from the Madison area and the Denver area. They say we drive but we don't have to where we're from. We can bike, we can walk, we can go exercise and this is how we start and I think it is terrific. There are lots of great opportunities on all different fronts and I think it is fantastic. Dawn, do we need to do any action on this item or can we make a recommendation that we whole heartedly would like this to move forward quickly? It is appropriate that the Planning Commission make a recommendation on this item to the City Council. Under state law the reason we have a Planning Commission is to review community plans and make recommendations to the governing body as to the adoption of those plans. Yes, it is very appropriate that you have some sort of action on this item. As a member of the Sidewalk and Trail Committee I would like the honor of making that recommendation so I move that we move this forward to the City Council for their recommendation and approval. I will second. We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Ostner, are there any other comments? Renee? Planning Commission August 25, 2003 Page 21 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend the Trails Master Plan to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Hoover: Thank you Steve, let us know if there is anything you need to get moving on this. Is there any other business Dawn? Warrick: No Ma'am. Hoover: We are adjourned. Thank you. Meeting adjourned: 6:33 p.m.