Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on October 13, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) Approved Page 3 PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Overton Park, pp 220) Approved Page 6 CUP 03-21.00: Conditional Use (Jernigan, pp 524) Not Heard CUP 03-22.00: Conditional Use (Covenant Presbyterian Church, pp 438) Approved Page 10 CUP 03-23.00: Conditional Use (Kautz Fitness Center, pp. 271) Approved Page 18 LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development (Millennium Plaza, pp 177) Approved Page 21 LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development (Collision Repair Center, pp 287) Approved Page 42 LSD 03-32.00: Large Scale Development (The Crowne, pp 598) Approved Page 49 ADM 03-24.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Amendment, pp 247, 248) Forwarded to City Council Page 57 ADM 03-25.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Amendment, pp 286) Forwarded to City Council Page 57 C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (springwoods, pp 248) Forwarded to City Council Page 57 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby, pp 560) Forwarded to City Council Page 95 RZN 03-30.00: Rezoning (Williams, pp 524) Forwarded to City Council Page 101 RZN 03-32.00: Rezoning (Troy Parnell, pp. 595) Tabled Page 105 Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 2 ADM 03-23.00: Administrative Item No action Page 113 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Tim Conklin Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 3 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar Engineering for property located at 3110 Mount Comfort Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains 21.15 acres. The request is to modify the approved preliminary plat of 56 Single-family lots to allow for two additional (58 total) residential lots. Hoover: Welcome to the October 13d' Planning Commission meeting. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present. Hoover: I will mention that we have a very long agenda. I hope that some agendas got outside out front for everyone. We are going to be taking a break somewhere around 7:30. We have fifteen items on the agenda tonight so we are going to need a break I'm sure. The first item of business is approval of the minutes from the September 22nd meeting, do I have a motion? Shackelford: So moved. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Allen: I will second. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Allen. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the minutes from the September 22nd meeting were approved. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Item number one on our agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manor submitted by Northstar Engineering. Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. In August, 2003 the Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manor, a single-family residential subdivision with 58 total lots. Those 58 lots were comprised of 55 proposed residential lots, one large existing residential lot and two lots containing detention ponds. At the time the applicant expressed the desire to retain the existing conditions of lot one on which the existing residence is sited. Specifically, the conditions for that lot read as follows: 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 Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 4 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. The current request is to amend the original Preliminary Plat to provide for two additional lots split from the existing lot one as approved with the Preliminary Plat. The two additional lots would bring the total to 60 lots with 57 proposed single- family residential, one existing single-family residential and the two remaining lots again utilized for detention. Staff is in support of the request provided that the conditions of the original approval regarding access change and sidewalk construction are met. All other conditions of the original Preliminary Plat remain in affect. Staff is recommending approval of this PPL 03-12.00 to be approved with the following conditions: The applicant shall alter the existing access to Lot 1 to prohibit all vehicular access from entering onto the lot from Mt. Comfort Road. A drive shall be constructed from the interior street to access said lot, in accordance with current City regulations for residential drives. 2) The minimum distance between the Mt. Comfort Road intersection and a residential curb cut is 60 feet. 3) The subdivision developer shall construct a four -foot sidewalk along the west side of the proposed lots 1-3 and a six-foot sidewalk along Mt. Comfort Road prior to final plat. Sidewalk location along Mt. Comfort shall be coordinated with the Sidewalk Administrator due to existing vegetation. Where possible, sidewalk construction along Mt. Comfort should be located at the right-of- way line for future provision of an On -Street Linkage, pursuant to the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation & Trail Master Plan. Sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed as provided in §158.01. 4) Parks fees shall be adjusted to accommodate for the additional residential lots. Fees shall be paid in the amount of $31,635 at the time of Final Plat. 5) Tree mitigation fees shall be adjusted to accommodate for the additional canopy. Fees shall be paid in the amount of $99,675 at the time of Final Plat. 6) All conditions of the approved PPL 03-12.00 shall remain applicable, with the exception of those noted herein. We do have signed conditions of approval. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward please? Blakeley: Hi, I'm Mark Blakeley with Northstar Engineering. I am here in favor of the subdivision split for Woodworks Plus. Like Jeremy said before, it was previously approved, we are just trying to get two additional lots out of that large lot one in the front. We have signed the conditions of approval by the applicant and turned that into the Planning Department. That's all I have for now. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I would like to open it to the audience. Is there anyone who would like to address this PPL 03-12.00 for Crofton Manor? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 5 Shackelford: A quick question for staff, I assume this to be correct but I want to make sure though. In conditions of approval numbers four and five that address the parks fees and the tree mitigation fees since we are changing the outstanding number of lots have those numbers been changed accordingly? Pate: That is correct. Shackelford: Thank you. Hoover: Are there any other questions or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: That being said, I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-12.10 subject to all six conditions of approval. Ostner: Second. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Ostner is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-12.10 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 6 PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Overton Park, pp 220) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Terry Gulley for property located on the 3400 block of Gulley Rd. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains 58.81 acres. The request is to approve the development of 51 Single-family lots. Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is PPL 03-16.00 for Overton Park. Suzanne? Morgan: Thank you Madam Chair. The applicant is proposing to create a 58.81 acre subdivision in the Planning area with 51 single-family lots. Surrounding land is in the Planning area and is used for single-family residences. Water will be extended to serve this property and the Arkansas Health Department has granted approval for septic systems for each lot. The right of way being dedicated is 35' on Gulley Road, which is a collector street on the Master Street Plan, 70' for the proposed Maywood Road. This street has been proposed as a collector street to potentially replace the Master Street Plan street East Bridgewater Lane. Also, 50' for the proposed Briargate Drive, Suttle Ridge Drive, Appalachian Way and Gunnison Drive. Street improvements proposed are along Gulley Road the street will be improved to Washington County standards and the proposed Briargate Drive, Maywood Road, Suttle Ridge Drive, Appalachian Way and Gunnison Drive will be built to 28' with curb and gutter. Gulley Road is a collector on the Master Street Plan, as stated. East Bridgewater Lane is classified is classified as a planned principal arterial running diagonally northwest of the property. This is an adjacent Master Street Plan to this property. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) The name of the subdivision shall be revised on the plat. 2) The centerline of Gulley Road shall clearly be noted on the plat. 3) Requested note limiting access of lot 2 to the interior street shall be reflected on the plat. 4) Approval from the Washington County Health Department for each septic system on lots less than 1.5 acres. Conditional letter of approval is attached. 5) Proposed right-of-way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 6) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 7) One copy of the plat with revisions shall be submitted. Items eight and nine are standard conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward and give us a presentation? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am representing the Gulleys on this project. We are in agreement with all of the staff comments and just to go over a little bit of extra information. This is almost 59 acres consisting of 51 lots. It is bordered on the west by Gulley Road and we propose to tie into the new street that is going in on the project to the west of this. It will be right across the street from that. That is Maywood Road. This will Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 7 extend over to the east and we provided connection for property to the north and to the south. I would be glad to answer any questions. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address PPL 03-16.00 for Overton Park? Please come forward and be sure to sign in. Haywood: My name is Malcolm Haywood and I am the aforementioned neighbor to the south. I guess my only real question is I have no idea what the formula is for figuring out the traffic that any given road can handle. At the present time there are plans for 90 new houses on that road, 51 that you just heard about, 28 across the street, 10 up the road and there is one being built down the road. That is already a very busy cut through from Goshen to Springdale. Come by some morning at 7:00 and you will be amazed. I would have some question about what the impact of another 91 houses on a road with no shoulders and so forth is going to be. That was my major concern about the proposed project. Of course the lots are considerably smaller than what's out there now but that is only an issue in terms of the number of them I guess. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Would you address his traffic concern staff? Casey: At this time the city staff is not reviewing the developments that are outside of the city limits for traffic concerns or street improvements. It is limited to the planning issues and the water system. I might add that this does have to go through county approval as well and they are the board that will be looking at those issues at this time. Hoover: Ok, Commissioners? Can we have a report from Subdivision? Are there any issues that we should be aware of? Bunch: I think most of it has already been covered. I do have one question. This is probably for the engineer, Mr. Jorgensen. On item eight in the letter from the County Health Department shows that all the lots have had permits except for 1, 4, 17 and 44. What is the status of those lots? Jorgensen: We have met with the Health Department and we have that issue resolved. There was a question about the ability of those tests of those lots to accommodate septic systems and that has been taken care of I don't know if you have the plat that reflects the rates and the type of system to be installed on those particular lots but on all the lots that you listed they are set up for standard septic systems. Bunch: Do you have documentation that you can turn in to comply with the conditions of approval? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 8 Jorgensen: I don't have it with me but we do have a real thick file on every one of the lots. Every lot was staked out, every lot was submitted to the Health Department. The Health Department, the only reason they don't give an approval at this particular stage is they have a regulation that they don't approve plats unless it is an approved Preliminary Plat so the agreement that was settled on was that the Health Department would give a conditional approval subject to getting approval of the Preliminary Plat. It kind of created a little problem that we had to overcome. Bunch: In order to file the Final Plat those will be available? Jorgensen: Yes. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Hoover: Are there other questions? I guess I'm curious if staff could respond now that you've told me that we don't look at the traffic when it is in the growth area yet it uses our roads to get there I assume, how does this compare to other subdivisions that we are doing that are within the city? Warrick: When we are looking at a project located outside of the city limits the city does not have the ability through our ordinances to regulate the land use. The reason that we are looking at this project is because the applicant is requesting to subdivide and to create new lots. Each of these lots is proposed to contain one single-family home. That's what we are learning through this Preliminary Plat process. However, because we don't regulate land use in the county we don't know that that's in fact what will be there. It is impossible without having zoning to predict what kind of traffic will be generated on any particular development. With the proposal that is before us, 51 single-family lots we can assume that it will generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day per lot. With regard to improvements on the county roads, our ordinances defer to the county standards and that is really handled through the County Street Department and their review process through the County Planning Board, which this project is required to go through prior to final approval. Hoover: Great, now I understand, thank you. Commissioners, are there any other questions or motions? Shackelford: Do we have signed conditions of approval on this? Warrick: I don't believe we have signed, we have verbally approved conditions but don't have it in hand. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 9 MOTION: Shackelford: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 03-16.00 based on all staff findings subject to the stated nine conditions of approval. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-16.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 10 CUP 03-21.00: Conditional Use (Jernigan, pp 524) was submitted by James P. Jernigan for property located at 604 Blair Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow construction of a Single-family residence on this tandem lot. Hoover: Item number three is CUP 03-21.00 and that item has been tabled. If you were here for item number three that was for property at 604 Blair Avenue, that has been tabled. Hoover: Item number four is CUP 03-22.00 for Covenant Presbyterian Church. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property is located at property located at 4511 W. Wedington Drive. The site consists of the Covenant Presbyterian Church at 8,888 sq.ft. structure and associated parking lot. The structure is a Conditional Use within an R -A, Residential Agricultural zoning. Surrounding uses consist of single-family residences with RMF -24, R -A and RSF-4 zones. The Covenant Presbyterian Church applied for and received approval for the existing structure and 57 parking spaces on May 8, 1995. The applicant requests an addition on the parking lot to add 24 parking spaces to the parking lot. I have handed out a site plan for this request showing what the applicant is proposing. The parking required is as follows: For a church parking is one per four seats in the main auditorium or one per 40 sq.ft. of assembly area, whichever provides more spaces. The applicant has provided information that there are 225 seats which will yield 57 stalls and there is also 2,500 sq.fi. in the main auditorium which will require 63 stalls. At 63 parking spaces allowed the project can have a maximum of 30% above the required parking number which is 82 parking spaces allowed. The applicant is requesting the addition of 24 parking spaces for a total of 81 parking spots. A total of four accessible parking spaces are required and there are currently two accessible spaces in the parking lot and there are no proposed accessible stalls in the addition to the existing two on that plat that was handed out. The request is to expand the amount of parking for the Covenant Presbyterian Church to allow the 24 parking stalls. The reason you are hearing this request is that any change to a Conditional Use requires a Conditional Use Permit. Staff is in support of allowing the additional parking spaces on this piece of property. The total number of parking is allowable within the use and the result of this action will be that the property will be able to better serve more citizens. There are several findings that must be made for a Conditional Use and I will go over some of those. Granting the requested conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. This change will allow the subject property to be used to its full capacity and provide more opportunity for local citizens to utilize it. The amount of traffic and noise proposed with this request will not significantly increase from the current and previous use of the property. The traffic exiting the property will not significantly Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 11 change the amount of traffic on Wedington Drive, a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The additional parking lot will be paved and will comply with current City standards. Screening shall be in compliance with 166.10 which states: A view -obscuring fence or view -obscuring vegetation, or a combination of the two, shall be required between RSF-4 zones and all nonresidential uses (including access drives and parking lots for six (6) or more cars accessory to any use) and between any commercial or industrial use and adjacent to any RT, RMF or R -O zones. Type of screening shall be identified on the parking lot permit plan. Finally, the adjacent properties consist of existing single-family residential dwelling units and the proposal to expand the parking lot on this property will not create a situation that will be incompatible with adjoining properties. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use subject to the following conditions: A parking lot permit (including required grading, drainage, and landscape plans) shall be issued prior to commencement of any work to create this parking lot. 2) Landscape ordinances shall be met with placing landscape islands between a maximum of 12 parking spaces. A final landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Landscape Administrator. 3) A view -obscuring fence or view -obscuring vegetation, or a combination of the two, shall be required between RSF-4 zones and all nonresidential uses (including access drives and parking lots for six (6) or more cars accessory to any use) and between any commercial or industrial use and adjacent to any RT, RMF or R -O zones. Type of screening shall be identified on the parking lot permit plan. 4) The additional parking lot shall be paved with hot mix asphalt or concrete and be striped and shall comply with all City Ordinances. 5) The expanded parking lot will serve the conditional uses currently existing on this property. 6) A minimum of four accessible parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with City and State ADA regulation. 7) The applicant shall be responsible for all drainage improvements if the cost share request is denied by the City Council. There is an attached memo from Mr. Ron Petrie, the Engineering Design Services Manager. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Suzanne. Would the applicant come forward? Matlock: Yes Ma'am, I am Travis Matlock from Freeland, Kauffman and Fredeen, the civil engineers on this project. We have no problem with any of these comments, adding the two additional handicapped spaces or the additional landscape islands or required screening as needed. I am here to answer any questions that you guys may have. Hoover: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone that would like to address this CUP 03-22.00 for the Covenant Presbyterian Church? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 12 Bunch: A question for staff, would the added asphalt area impact on the detention pond, would that be covered under condition number one? Warrick: It will be reviewed with the grading and drainage plans for a parking lot permit. Bunch: Also, another item. What about bike racks? Warrick: I believe that the threshold for bike racks is 25 spaces. I will check that for you. The threshold starts at 25 parking spaces so this addition does not meet that threshold to require the installation of the bike racks. Bunch: Ok, so it doesn't go retroactive on the existing? Warrick: With this being a Conditional Use if the Planning Commission feels that it is appropriate I think that you certainly have the leeway to look at the entire parking area. There were originally 57 parking spaces, this is bringing the number up to 81 and that number would put us at three required bicycle racks. If the Commission feels that that is appropriate staff would support that. Bunch: Thank you. Vaught: Where is this ditch? Is it at the front of the property? I assume it is at the back with the detention pond? Matlock: On the very back side of the property from Wedington it goes along the east property line and then turns the corner and continues up the pavement. It actually runs along there and goes off the property. We are improving part of it off the property up to 46`h Street I think, concreting the ditch. That was condition number seven. The offsite drainage improvements that Mr. Petrie is going to present to the city to help pay for that. We are cleaning out and reshaping and redefining that ditch along the back side of the property and then after it leaves the property it will be concrete all the way up to 46`' Street. Vaught: Are you guys saying that you are comfortable paying for that whole cost if the city won't cost share it because that is what the condition says. Matlock: Right, Dr. Jim Beckman is the representative for the church. He can address that a little better than I can. Beckman: I am Jim Beckman. The issue that you are addressing, the reimbursement verses us paying for the whole cost is water drainage that is city water that does not necessarily come from our retention pond but to tie into the city Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 13 structure storm sewer that was recently completed on 46`h Street. Mr. Petrie felt that needed to be to whatever standards, concrete and so on and so forth. He first felt like the city street department could do that because it was a city obligation to take care of their water but the street department couldn't get to it for a couple of years due to other projects pending and that sort of thing. We have made a formal request, city engineering has, to the City Council for that reimbursement and that will come up in three or four weeks. We can't get a grading permit for our portion until there is adequate downstream drainage taken care of and that is why it is tied together from that standpoint. Hopefully, when Wedington gets widened further out, it is only 150' to our property line where the five lanes are right now and if that gets widened out hopefully the state will concrete that portion. That's the reason for doing as much as we can at this point to tie into the storm water drainage system. The cost of that concrete construction is nearly $90,000 and we just don't feel like since we don't own the property, we don't have the easement to it and things of that sort, we are not comfortable in paying that much money to take care of water that wasn't our water to start with. Are there any other questions? Vaught: Then you guys are comfortable that the city will approve this? Beckman: I think so. Anthes: What is the condition on that site right now with respect to these improvements? Matlock: To the parking lot or the ditch improvements? Anthes: To the parking lot. Matlock: The parking lot right now is gravel and people have been parking there anyway. What we are doing is actually hard surfacing it all the way up to the extent of the 24 parking spaces and clearly striping it in accordance with the Fayetteville parking regulations. It will just extend the parking lot approximately 54. Anthes: There was not a landscape plan submitted in our packet and we have an ordinance that requires a tree per every 12 cars, do you plan to incorporate that in the parking lot itself? Matlock: Yes Ma'am. We have no problem with taking up a couple of spaces and putting a landscape island within the parking lot to meet the landscape ordinance. Anthes: A question for staff, I can't help but to notice Dawn that you might've had some comment about the ditch situation and the funding, can you clarify Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 14 that? Warrick: I would just comment that the allocation of funds for that cost share is the decision of the City Council and that is pending their review. The Engineering Division feels that it is appropriate and important that that improvement be completed or associated with this project and installed as this project goes forward. That is why staff tied those conditions the way that we did upon their recommendation. Should the cost share not be approved the condition would still stand that either this applicant bears the cost of the improvement or they have the option of waiting until the city does get to the point that they are able to prioritize that project and make the improvement. Hoover: Are there any other questions or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: It looks like given the size parameters of this structure our ordinance allows a maximum of 82 spaces, the applicant is asking to add 24 more spaces for a total of 81. They are meeting our requirements as far as additional handicapped parking places and the landscaping ordinances. Based on that information and the findings of staff, I will make a motion that we approve CUP 03-2.00 subject to the stated conditions of approval. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: A second by commissioner Vaught. Is there anymore discussion? Anthes: I would like to ask Loren to add a condition of approval that we require three bicycle racks on the site and to emphasize that we would like to see, since we don't have a landscape plan, that that mitigation happens within the lot itself. Shackelford: My understanding is that the landscaping ordinance will have to be met and that can be reviewed at staff level so I am comfortable with that. On the bicycle rack issue, I would like to hear more from the applicant on that. I personally don't see a lot of need for a bicycle rack at a church facility but I'm obviously just one vote of eight here. Beckman: To my knowledge in the last twelve years there has never been a bicycle ridden to church. It is out Wedington on the west side of the interstate past the Catfish Hole, past Westwood Gardens. We would be glad to build a rack if the first bicycle showed up and we felt like we needed one. That's why we haven't had one because there hasn't been an indication for one. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 15 Anthes: My response to that would be that we are building a lot of new subdivisions and housing out that way and it has been the position of the city that we encourage multi -modal transportation throughout the city and considering the amount of residences that we are building there that might encourage people to start using their bicycles and having children come to your facility for day activities or whatever else you might have. Beckman: We would sure be in accordance with building one. Shackelford: We would have specific ordinances that show in particular what types of bicycle racks, they would have to meet certain guidelines and that sort of thing. My thoughts that this is under the limitations where it is required. I don't necessarily think that we would need that. It looks like it would be an undue expense on this project. Vaught: I have a question for staff. How much is a typical bicycle rack that we require because we have standards they must meet? Is it a minimal cost? Warrick: I don't have that information. There are specifications in our ordinances, as Mr. Shackelford mentioned, that require certain types of bicycle racks with certain types of mounting equipment. I don't have cost information for you. Shackelford: Other than hear say, I've had some developments that I've looked at that has estimated the cost to be somewhere around $250 and $300 per rack. Vaught: I think I concur with Commissioner Shackelford if I know what he is saying. If they want to go ahead and install it out of their good will right now but I don't feel like we should necessarily impose it especially with the cost share that they are picking up with the drainage where they are exposed to more cost there. That is significantly more important I would think. Hoover: Ok, now I'm trying to figure out procedure here. I understand that the motion and the second want it to remain as it is. Commissioner Anthes, do I do a motion to have an amendment? Whitaker: That would be the proper next step if she wanted to amend with a subsidiary motion. Hoover: Ok. Anthes: Does anyone else feel any differently about this? Bunch: Since I posed the issue initially, if we look at the Master Street Plan Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 16 Persimmon Street, which is not very far to the south, and the Boys and Girls Club, this is an area that is going to be developed quite heavily for families with young children and usually the churches in areas with families with young children have many activities other than just the Sunday services so looking towards the future I think we would be remiss if we did not consider putting bicycle racks in to service an area that is going to be heavy with young families. Anthes: I move to amend the motion to include three bike racks as part of the conditions of approval. Bunch: I will second it. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Anthes to add an amendment for three bike racks and a second by Commissioner Bunch. Shackelford: I just want to state one thing. By not requiring it I'm not trying to dissuade anyone to ride their bicycle to church. I think that if anybody is so inclined to ride their bicycle they are going to do so whether there is a place to specifically park the bike or not. There are other places in the landscaped areas and places like that that you could park a bicycle. I would like to think that you could ride your bicycle to church and not have it stolen the hour that you are in church there without a place to secure the bike. I just think that this applicant has shown a lot of good faith effort with the city in trying to do the things that need to be done with the landscape and the off site drainage and that sort of thing. I would like to see it not made a condition of approval just simply as a good faith measure. Hoover: Thank you. City Attorney, do we vote on the motion or the amendment? Whitaker: You would have to vote on the subsidiary motion to amend first. Hoover: Ok, vote on the motion to amend first. Is there anymore discussion on the item on the amendment? Seeing none, Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend the motion failed by a vote of 4-4-0 with Commissioners Hoover, Shackelford, Vaught and Church voting no. Whitaker: The amendment fails. Hoover: Thank you for the procedure. Now we will vote on the original motion. Is there anymore discussion on the original motion? Renee? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 17 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-22.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 18 CUP 03-23.00: Conditional Use (Kantz Fitness Center, pp. 271) was submitted by Kathy Ball on behalf of the Kantz Center LLC for property located at 2668 Citizens Dr. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The request is for the operation of a recreational facility in a C-1 zoning district. Hoover: Item number five on the agenda is CUP 03-23.00 for Kantz Fitness Center. Dawn? Warrick: Thank you Madam Chair. This project is for a tenant space located within the Kantz Place development at the northwest corner of Crossover and Mission. This is the development that houses the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market. The applicant proposes to complete a tenant finish out for a fitness center within this development. The fitness center will offer a cardio theater, machine and free weight areas, aerobics, tanning, a juice bar/refreshment area and locker rooms. An office and area for child care are also identified on the floor plan which is included with your materials. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fitness center, which is contained within Use Unit 4 in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Staff is recommending in favor of this request. This is an area that is surrounded by multi -family residential and an R -O zoning district to the north and to the west and then the entire center where this project is located is a multi -tenant development that is in the CA district, Neighborhood Commercial. There are a variety of different uses. Everything from banks to grocery, small deli and offices. Staff feels that it is compatible within this area, within this specific development as well as in the area in general that it would provide a service to the residence who live in the surrounding neighborhoods as well as to the tenants and their patrons to the development itself. As I said, staff is recommending in favor of this Conditional Use request with four recommended conditions. 1) Signage shall comply with Ch. 174 Signs of the Unified Development Code and shall be consistent with signage already existing in this multi -tenant development. 2) No changes will be made to access, parking and solid waste disposal provisions within the Kantz Center development. 3) No changes will be made to the exterior of the structure which would be inconsistent with approved commercial design standards for the Kantz Place development as previously approved by the Planning Commission. 4) No new outdoor lighting shall be installed for this project. We do have signed conditions of approval for this. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward please? Stanley: Good evening, my name is Roy Stanley, I'm with Lindsey Management Company and Kathy Ball and I are here on behalf of the owners of the Kantz Center to ask you to approve this Conditional Use request. In light of the purposes that are stated in the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 19 provide services to a persons living and surrounding neighborhood areas we feel like the plans that Jon and Michelle Burnett have for a fitness center just fit perfectly within that. I could try to tell you about them and I am excited about them but I've got Jon and Michelle here to tell you about them instead so I am going to defer to them for just a minute. Jon and Michelle Burnett. Burnett: If I may I've got a brochure that I would like to pass out to everyone on the board. I would like to add on the brochure it states that the club is to be opening October 15`h and the brochures were printed before I was aware of the need for a Conditional Use Permit. The idea is basically a neighborhood fitness center as opposed to for instance, the Fayetteville Athletic Club, is made to cater towards both Springdale and Fayetteville and basically the entire cities, because the size and what they offer. What this is, it's relatively much smaller but it still enables me to offer all the amenities that a larger club offers as far as with the tanning and the cardio and whatnot but it also gives the people in that community the convenience of being able to be members of a fitness club that is much closer to their residence. I really see good things and I am very positive as far as just the impact and what it can do for everyone especially with the good things as far as physical, mental and even emotional well being for everybody that has a healthier lifestyle. That's basically it. Hoover: Thank you. Stanley: As part of your packet I hope I got to you in time letters of support from adjoining property owners. I do have one or two more letters if you would like to see them. I have one from First Security Bank. There were one or two neighbors that I did talk to that I didn't get letters from but they did say they had no opposition. The ones that didn't support it certainly have no opposition to it. I didn't make copies. Hoover: That's ok, we'll pass it around. Warrick: The letters in your packet are found on pages 5.10 through 5.13. Hoover: Thank you. Stanley: Do you have any questions for us? Hoover: Let's take public comment first and then I'm sure we will. Thank you. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this CUP 03-23.00 for this fitness center in Kantz Place? Seeing no members of the public I will bring it back to the Commission and to the applicant. Allen: I think this project seems very appropriate to the site and with that I will Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 20 move for approval of CUP 03-23.00 subject to the four conditions of approval. Church: I will second it. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Church, is there more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 03-23.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 21 LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development (Millennium Plaza, pp 177) was submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Crossover Rd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3.205 acres. The request is to construct a 32,344 square foot retail commercial building with 144 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: On to item number six, LSD 03-33.00 for Millennium Plaza. Morgan: This request is to construct a 32,344 sq.ft. retail structure with 135 parking spaces. This project is delineated by Joyce Street on the east, Hwy. 265, Crossover Road, on the west and Joyce Blvd. to the south. The property is zoned C-1 to the north and C-2 to the south. Three drives will access this property. Two are located on Hwy. 265 and they will both have one inbound and two outbound lanes. The third access is off of Joyce Street to the north of the property. Cross access is being provided to the north of the site which is currently undeveloped. Right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline of Hwy. 265 and Joyce Blvd., and 35' from the centerline of Joyce Street. Street improvements include 14' of pavement, curb, gutter and storm drain to be extended along Joyce Street to the north of the property line. Installation of a 6' sidewalk with a minimum of 10' greenspace along Hwy. 265, Joyce Blvd., and Joyce Street for the length of the subject property is to be installed. Existing tree canopy is .08% and preserved canopy is 0%. The required is the .08% and mitigation is set at three trees. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) Access into the property shall not exceed a 10% grade. 2) The legal descriptions on the plat shall be corrected. 3) A Tree Preservation Canopy Table and mitigation Proposal must be submitted for this project calculating all existing tree canopy removal, and indicating both the location and species of trees proposed for mitigation. This shall be shown on the tree preservation plan with accurate numbers that reflect existing and removed canopy as shown in the Landscape Administrator's report. 4) A detailed landscape plan is required before building permit approval. 5) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street, 35 feet from centerline, for Joyce Street along the eastern property boundary and for a Principal Arterial, 55 feet from centerline, for Hwy 265 and Joyce Boulevard. Right-of-way along Hwy 265 shall be dedicated by warranty deed. 6) Street improvements a minimum of 14' from centerline along Joyce Street to the north of the property including pavement, curb and gutter, and storm sewer. 7) All proposed parking lot lighting shall comply with City Ordinance requirements and include full cut-off fixtures, with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 8) On condition eight there is a change of wording due to realizing that all streets do not have a curb. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with 10 feet of greenspace along Hwy. 265, Joyce Blvd., and Joyce Street for the length of the project property boundary. The sidewalk shall be constructed Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 22 through all driveways to meet City Standards. 9) The sign for this development shall be either a monument sign or incorporated as a part of the proposed retaining wall with materials similar and appropriate to the design of the development as stated by the applicant at Subdivision Committee meeting. All signage for this development shall comply with Chapter 174 Signs of the Unified Development Code. I handed out a sketching of the proposed monument sign. 10) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Items 11 through 15 are standard conditions of approval. Signed conditions have been received. Hoover: Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Milholland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I am Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering. The developer Mr. Elsass is here. He did sign the conditions of approval and we are not asking for any waivers or variances. It is a very visible site and we feel that he has a real good plan available to construct here for this commercial site and respect your opinions and trust that you will approve the plan. Thank you. These are the east, west, north and south views. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to public comment for LSD 03- 33.00 for Millennium Plaza. Please come forward. Quinn: I am Patricia Quinn, we have the property adjacent to it. My questions are more of a personal nature but I was kind of wondering what type of lighting there is going to be because we live just north of the property. I am a little bit concerned about the lighting if we are going to have daylight all time around and also what type of businesses are going to go in here? What type of noise can we expect how late in the evenings? Since our property is adjacent to the north end of it there is kind of a cedar tree line but I was just wondering if there is going to be some kind of a retaining wall or something to protect our side of the property. From what I'm just hearing then they are going to be putting in sidewalks on Joyce going up but then the sidewalks would then end where they are building and the development ends. These are just questions I have with this development. Hoover: Ok, we will get those answered in a minute. Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Would the applicant address these issues that Ms. Quinn brought up if you would start with the lighting, the type of businesses and the protection to the property to the north which I'm not sure what the zoning is to the north. Elsass: I'm Kirk Elsass. First of all Ms. Quinn, I did go by and try to see you a couple of weeks ago and I was going to try to be a good neighbor and you Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 23 all have got a big dog and I didn't get out. To answer your questions with the lighting we plan on using basically the same type of lighting as we did over across from the athletic club at Key Corner Plaza. I don't really have a particular light but I would be more than happy to share with you before we do anything like that. I didn't hear the rest of her comments. Hoover: If you could tell us the type of businesses. Elsass: That I don't know that I can answer because I don't have anything particular at this time. It is basically a speculative type building so my anticipation is restaurants, food, office, one of the designs if you will notice on our building in the back on the east side there we have developed that as if it is a finished front side the same as the front is on the west side and also, if you will look at the plat the way we've laid that plat out we are trying to do something a little different with this type of center such as I have done in the past. Generally we have a problem with parking and retail customers and people that are in the office business look at it differently. They want to park as close as they can. To answer your question, we are going to try to put more office on the east side, we are going to try to put more retail on the west side to try to give a good mix there so you've got a good flow of traffic going in at certain times and going out at certain times. To answer your question of what will be in there, I just assume, that one of the things you will have to remember is that property is currently zoned C-1 and C-2. I generally believe that what's over at Millennium, what we've done at Zion Valley, I don't think you are going to see much C-2 property. One of the things I will assure you and everyone else, there will not be a liquor store there as long as I own it. Hoover: The third question she had was is there any screening to the north edge here? Elsass: We discussed that and I don't remember what I ended up having to do. Warrick: On the plats there is a tree line indicated on the north edge between the subject property and Ms. Quinn's property, which is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. According to our grading ordinances the subject property cannot grade within 5' of that property line with the exception of a 24' wide area for future cross access. Three is not a proposal for that property line to be affected so most, if not all, of that tree line should remain. I believe that most of the grading in that area has been completed or at least initiated. Elsass: It's been done on that end. On the north end and to I think really answer your question if there is anything we need to do besides what's already there, the ordinance she was referring to does not allow you to build on your own property within 5' of that. I know when the guy got in there and Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 24 did some cutting, he spoke with you all one afternoon. I would tell you this, if there is anything we need to do we are going to have back in that back corner close to your house where we've got this designed for sanitation back there and it will be done in a concrete block type surrounding with a gate and everything but if we need to add some fence line or something in there I would like to get together with you and maybe you can come to my office and not bring the dog. It is a big dog by the way. Hoover: What is our screening requirement between residential zoning? Warrick: There is a screening requirement between commercial and non- commercial uses. It would be very appropriate to add a condition that there be a screening, either a fence or a vegetative screen along the north property line to accomplish what Mr. Elsass is discussing. Elsass: I would be happy to do that. I would like to have it if it is in a motion to change anything we have I would like it to be where my neighbor and myself could work this out. I really would prefer putting vegetation but they may prefer a fence. Warrick: The ordinance would allow for either of those. We would ask that it be shown on the project plans submitted for building permit. Hoover: Are there questions Commissioners? Allen: When those of us who went on the tour were out there I think it was around 4:00 in the afternoon and, as you know, that area is heavily trafficked, particular at that time, but most anytime during the day. I had a lot of concerns about being able to make a left turn out of this project. I wondered if staff could comment on whether they feel that adequate provisions have been made to handle that problem? Warrick: Matt has gone back and looked. There was a discussion about the proximity of the two curb cuts proposed for the subject property and there was also a discussion about the configuration of the intersection and the potential for a left turn lane traveling west off of Joyce Street at that intersection. With regard to the proximity of the access locations for the project, there are two proposed. This property is two lots. We had previously looked at a development proposal for just the southern piece. Mr. Elsass has combined two tracts of land for this proposal and it is a relatively large site with a relatively large building, a lot of parking and staff felt that providing two options for people exiting the site was appropriate. The Planning Commission certainly has discretion to look at that and determine what they feel is best. With regard to the intersection and how that functions for people to be able to utilize the signal to get onto Hwy. 265 off of East Joyce Street which runs along the east property Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 25 line, I'm going to let Matt address that because he has gone back out there with that question in mind to address it form an engineering standpoint. Casey: I went out this morning and looked at this intersection again. There was some discussion at Subdivision Committee about adding a left turn lane west bound from Joyce and it looks like there would be sufficient pavement to do that but if you do add the left turn lane it would be lined up directly across from the through lane east bound which could cause some major traffic safety issues. To add a lane it would need to be where the existing through lane is and you would have to expand the pavement to the north to be able to add the through lane at that point. What that would entail is relocating the existing traffic signal, which would be a major expense. One that I think would be beyond the scope of street improvements to place on this development. That would not be the staffs recommendation. My feelings are this will be a project in the future when the road will be extended to the east. Our Master Street Plan shows that road to be extended through the property straight through this intersection. There will need to be some major modifications to the intersection to be able to accommodate this and we feel that at that time that these necessary lane changes will need to be addressed. It is our recommendation not to do that at this time but to do it when the entire intersection is redone. Allen: The answer to my question is at this time it is not adequate but that you see that coming in the foreseeable future. Casey: I'm not saying it's not adequate but there's just not room to make any changes at this time without major renovations of the intersection. We have not done a traffic study for the area. Allen: Would it or would it not be a safety concern at this time? Casey: It would be a safety concern if we added that lane and it was directly across from that through lane. As far as volume we have not required a traffic study in this area so we can't throw any numbers out as far as traffic volumes but as Dawn has mentioned, we have requested that left turn lanes be added on each of the drives that are proposed and also the entrance off of Joyce to the east that would allow the traffic to come through to get to the light to be able to make left turns going south. Allen: Thank you Matt. Bunch: I can see where that is problematic trying to add the extra lane. Can we at this time, require the right of way for the future road work since Joyce is on the Master Street Plan and it would entail a major project to move the signals and that sort of thing? Are we getting the right of way at this time to be able to accomplish that in the future? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 26 Casey: Yes Sir, we are. Warrick: It is 55' from centerline to accomplish our Master Street Plan intent of a principal arterial along that southern tip of this triangular piece of property. It is being dedicated with this project. Bunch: Thank you. Shackelford: I am a little confused on condition number seven for approval. The proposed outdoor lighting ordinance has not been approved by the City Council has it? When you are saying that the outdoor lighting shall comply with city ordinance you are talking strictly number, light and that sort of thing? Warrick: Yes Sir. The parking lot ordinance does address lighting and it discusses that the lights shall not be taller than 35' and that they shall be directed downward and away from adjacent residential properties. Shackelford: Ok, and it looks like the applicant has agreed to the full cut of fixtures. There wasn't any mention of metal halide or anything like that correct? Warrick: That's correct. That's typically an Overlay District consideration. Shackelford: Ok, thank you. Ostner: I have a question about traffic also. This southern curb cut, I guess I'm talking to Planning and Engineering. This southern curb cut is pretty close to the intersection. With the speeds allowable on Hwy. 265 is that curb cut safe? Warrick: The curb cut location meets the city ordinance requirements for distance from intersections. The applicant has arranged both of the access points onto Hwy. 265 directly across from existing curb cut locations that serve the Millennium development and I believe this one is across from the White Oak Station. That is a safer configuration than off setting them because when people come to those intersections they can see what the person directly across that street s proposing to do. Hopefully they are using their signals and they can see where they are lined up and what they are proposing to do to enter the main flow of traffic. The configuration is desirable and the distance from the intersection does exceed the city's minimum requirements which is 60'. They are proposing this intersection to be 307 %' from the intersection. Ostner: Our ordinance requires 60'? Warrick: Yes Sir. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 27 Ostner: I thought it was 200' at major intersections. Warrick: That is in the Design Overlay District, this project is not within that area. Ostner: I just wanted to bring up that point. Warrick: It would meet that requirement as well. Ostner: Sure. Lining up the curb cuts is safe but following a dangerous curb cut is also dangerous I think. I think the White Oak Station seems dangerous to me. When I'm out there and when there's traffic and people are trying to pull out they are approaching from the north coming down the hill or coming northward. If it meets our minimums that's what is important. I would want to ask, we cannot make you but I think it would be safer if no left turn were allowed at that intersection leaving your development. I think the in and the northward are just fine. That's just my suggestion. It is not required by ordinance. Elsass: One of the things that I've been watching, I purchased the southernmost portion of this property over a year ago and one of my largest concerns was as I was developing Millennium across the highway was the dangerous intersection. This is a high profile very visible location with a lot of traffic. It was a huge concern of mine and I spent a lot of time, I live just down the street and I look and I try to observe what the traffic flow is with the other shopping centers that I own. I have watched some of the habits of some of the tenants, some of the consumers that the tenants and the consumers, the office people and the retail people, that come into these centers. When we first proposed this one of the things that didn't get mentioned into the packets was that one of my largest concerns was getting onto Hwy. 265 and getting off. If you are going north you are not going to have much of a problem. If you are going south there is going to be somewhat of a problem. One of the things that I had suggested after many, many hours of watching this is that I felt like this back entrance should've been put further south so it was visible to the consumer also with the office person that they would see that, utilize that and they would not try to make that turn out at that location and would go back to that stop light. That was one of the things that I originally proposed to the staff. The other thing that I originally proposed to the staff is maybe not spending the money on going in and removing the trees in the area along Joyce on the back side of that and then maybe spending that money not trying to defer the money, but put the money aside to spend on a stop light. I would like to say this. This staff right here has worked with me very, very hard and because of the way the ordinances are structured their hands are tied in so many ways. They have, in my opinion, they have bent over backwards to make it work the best with what they have to work with. If you will look at this location, if you will go study it and I have, it is not square, it doesn't have the same type street in the back. It is going Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 28 to eventually go down Dr. Knox' property, the main road is. All the ordinances that staff had to work with, it is very challenging to make it fit into this little circle. I commend what they have done. They have worked very hard with me. I tried to cooperate. I told them if they felt like that needed to go back there because of the Fire Department, the trash hauling and so on and so on, I'm acceptable with those things. I will go either way with it but as far as which way to make that turning lane that was something that she recommended. We will do whatever you all tell us to do if we think it is a safer way. That is my number one concern at that intersection is safety. If you don't have safety at an intersection like that it is kind of hard to keep consumers coming in there. We want it to be safe, we want it to be good for the neighbors. They have worked as hard as they can but their hands have been somewhat tied in this whole process. Hoover: I have a question for staff in reference to this. The curb access on the Joyce Street side, did you determine it needed to be that distance from the intersection? Warrick: We recommended that they use this northern location for a couple of reasons. The first was because of the grade. The proposal to intersect the site at the southeast corner of the building was approximately 25% slope to access the site. The international fire code requires a 10% or less on a slope for an entrance into a development so we did feel it was appropriate for that purpose to look at an access that was less steep. The other reason that we looked at an access that was further north than the originally proposed location was to provide some stacking distance for people accessing the signal to intersect Joyce and Hwy. 265. If the location of the curb cut was quite a ways more south than what's shown that limits the amount of stacking room that you have and people accessing that signal and we felt that it was appropriate to keep the traffic in an area that they could stack and not have visibility problems or trap people within the development and force them out onto Hwy. 265 instead of being able to access Joyce Street to approach the intersection at the signal. Hoover: I guess using that rational on this access on Hwy. 265 that we've been talking about, do you think that's sufficient stacking distance for people heading south? Elsass: It's going the other way. Warrick: Are you talking about the stacking distance on Joyce Street? Hoover: I'm talking on Hwy. 265. Warrick: Those are two different locations. Hoover: Right, exactly. I just switched to the other to Hwy. 265 now and the Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 29 southern most entrance. Won't there be stacking in the intersection there too? Elsass: There already is. Hoover: Yeah, we noticed that. Warrick: Certainly we witnessed that out at the site. The one thing about the two intersections or the two curb cuts onto Hwy. 265 and of course the Planning Commission will make the final decision on this, having two alternatives does allow people if there is a back up at one of those access points to utilize the other one. I believe that at certain times there will probably be a problem turning left to go south on Hwy. 265 but I believe that that will probably be during a peak hour situation and there will be flows because there is signalization at various points along Hwy. 265. That allows having the two curb cuts does allow people options. The third curb cut in the rear is I believe a better option if you are proposing to travel south on Hwy. 265. I think that people who utilize this development will realize that after they have been there once or twice. I think that's probably my response. We did also consider the fact that this was two pieces of property with quite a long frontage along Hwy. 265 and had this property been developed as two independent tracts we would certainly have been looking at two curb cuts. One would've likely been even closer to the intersection, which we would not have been encouraged by but that was one of the considerations that we did apply to this project. Another factor is that the applicant is proposing a future cross access to the north which should again, allow for alternatives to people trying to exit the site. Hoover: I've got a couple more questions. Just in general, when we have one single tract coming in and it had been two lots before, do we usually look at it as how it was before or how it is now? Warrick: We consider it as how it is now as far as the project that's being proposed. My point I think was more about the amount of frontage that is existing along this property and the size of the development that's being proposed. Hoover: I guess in general my question is would you review with us what we're looking for in a Large Scale Development? What Planning Commission has to make their determinations about? Commercial Design guidelines I know is one, what are our other issues that we focus on? Warrick: It is easier to list out the five items that the Planning Commission has discretion on with regard to denying the Large Scale Development. As far as a Large Scale is concerned you are looking for compliance with the city's development regulations and that does include the commercial design standards, the parking lot development, access, landscaping. When Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 30 it comes to the issue of your consideration on a Large Scale Development there is in the ordinance a specific listing and it states Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a Large Scale Development for any of the following reasons. First, the development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section and this section is § 166 of the Unified Development Code. Item two, the proposed development would violate a city ordinance, a state statute, or a federal statute. Item three, the developer refuses to dedicate street right of way, utility easements or drainage easements required. Item four, the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors, such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography or the nature of the traffic pattern. Item five, city water and sewer is not readily available and then item six, the developer refuses to comply with subsection 7B and C pertaining to on or offsite improvements. There are six items in there. Hoover: Thank you. I just wanted to review those again. Bunch: One other question on traffic, the fire lane to the north, is that a 20' wide fire lane and is it proposed to be a one way or would it be advantageous to have two way traffic for the reasons that we have just been discussing on stacking and being able to allow people to find the East Joyce Street exit? Warrick: It is marked as a one way. A 20' drive aisle is narrow. Our standard is 24'. 20' is wider than two side by side parking spaces and wider than many streets within the City of Fayetteville. I believe that traffic could pass in either direction with a 20' drive aisle. If the Planning Commission felt that it was appropriate to have that as a two way I believe it would be appropriate to mark it that way. Bunch: Can we get the applicant to respond? Elsass: My comment goes back to what we talked about in Subdivision. I just ask you guys the question. If that location of that exit is back there in the back corner and you are the general consumer, are you going to use it? Chances are no. You may, maybe you will figure it out. If you are a retail person maybe you use it one time and then you learn. If you live back towards the backside where the Quinns go everyday to home or if you live back in that direction yes you are going to use that entrance. That was my whole comment a long from the very beginning. Staff, like I said, has worked with the grade issue of that further south exit on Joyce Street. I believe, and I have studied and looked at this for so many times I've sat out there and tried to figure out how can we flow this. My original plan was to bring them in off of Hwy. 265 and hopefully encourage everybody to use the back street and go out the stop light. The concerns that Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 31 subdivision and Mr. Bunch and a couple of them had was trying to get that road wide enough what's going to happen when it backs up? This is not a major road through here. It is going to be improved but it is not going to be enough to handle the rest of the traffic that is coming back from the east direction. To answer your question, if you want it two way, at this point it is not doing what I had asked for that. I told them I accepted their reasons for why we are putting that back in a corner. I believe that if you are going to get the traffic, whether this center is there or not, at some point that is going to back up and if you are going to get the traffic to go through and flow correctly you need to put that to where people can visually see it from the intersection in that area. I have talked to several people about that. Matt and Dawn and all of them worked on this thing trying to figure out the best way. I think they have spent more time than they do on most of them because they have been out there and I told them to please go look at it. It is one of those things that with that one of the things we would've had to ask for to get that exit off of there would be the trash department and would the fire department approve it. They can't access around there, only the chief can agree to that. The other thing would be as far as access right there is we would've had to ask for a variance to get it where we wanted it. We would have to move it within a certain distance. There are some things that I told you a while ago, their hands were tied. Did they go with what I had originally suggested? No. Does that make it perfect? No it does not. That was the solution that I had. I don't believe from the retail centers that I've dealt with whether I personally have owned them or I've been in the process of marketing them, I don't believe you are going to get people to go behind buildings to go home. They're not going to do it. Most people are not going to leave a restaurant or retail shop in the afternoon or evenings and you sure don't want to go back there in the back and put these huge massive lights back there and now the Quinns have got lights and we're trying to screen that. It is kind of a vicious circle that they've been running in this thing. It is not a normal site. Will I put two lanes back there? If that's what you want. I think you are trying to make something happen that's not going to happen from my experience. The consumer is not going to do it. They are going to use the one that is the easiest. You guys do the same thing and so do I. Whatever is the easiest and visible. Can we use signage? We will definitely try to use signage if we have to keep it in the corner because the idea is going to be to get as many of those people. If I put retail in the front and office in the back those office people will use that so we're good there. Hoover: Is there anymore traffic discussion? Ostner: The consultant that we hired, the traffic consultant, that big quarter million dollar book they gave us, recommended at 45 mile per hour speeds that the sight distances were I believe either 350' or 400' or safety. All of our new roads that we were going to lay out, if the design speed of that road was 45 Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 32 miles per hour, we weren't supposed to do streets closer than that number, whatever it was and I don't have it, but I know it was 350' to 450'. This is 300' but it is this southern curb cut that I just don't see as necessary. I see the development being very nice, great designs and as a consumer as you say, I see it and I turn and I find my way in and it's 200' further than the southern curb cut. The fact that there is an invisible used to be property line running down the middle of this site doesn't seem to make any bearing. I guess that's all I have to say. In general I like the project. The elevations look like they pass our regulations but the safety concerns me. MOTION: Shackelford: I guess I have a little different view on this. We are spending a lot of time talking about the difficulties of making a left turn on Hwy. 265 at peak hours off of this property. As somebody that lives and works in this part of town I can tell you from Township to Hwy. 412 making a left turn on Hwy. 265 at peak times is very difficult. It is not specifically associated with this property. I think that you look at a project this size, we are talking almost 33,000 sq.ft. of retail space and I think you need as many curb cuts as possible to help flow onto, off of and inside of this project. The southern most curb cut is lined up with another curb cut directly across the street, which our staff is telling us is the safest way to do it and I totally agree with that. If I am going to pull up and try to make a left turn I want to be able to look across the intersection and see what the other person is trying to do at the same time. I do like Commissioner Bunch's thoughts about the I guess I'll call it an alley for no other reason, on the northern most side of the property. I don't think we're talking about making that any wider, we're just talking about making it a two lane street. If you pull up to the northern most curb cut on Hwy. 265 you see that you can't take a left turn out of there as is conformed now you are going to have to drive all the way around to the southern end of the building to get to that back exit. Where as, if that were two ways around the end of the building, you could look out, see traffic was too bad on Hwy. 265, go around and out the back. I would recommend that you look into that. I don't think there are any significant changes because it is wide enough as it is now it is just instead of striping it as one way just leave it two way so those people would have that option. We've talked a lot about the different things that we have to consider for a Large Scale Development. I think this is a very nice one. I like the design, we've had no conversation about concerns on Commercial Design Standards. I like the way that it is laid out. Traffic on Hwy. 265 is always going to be an issue and I don't think that this project specifically adds to or detracts from that. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 03-33.00 with the stated 15 conditions of approval and I guess if I'm understanding correctly, we want to add a 16` condition of approval stating that screening consisting of either vegetation or fencing be required on the north property boundary of the proposed development. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 33 Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Vaught, is there more discussion? Anthes: I was waiting until we finished with the traffic discussion to talk about commercial design standards which is why there haven't been any comments yet. Shackelford: Sorry, I jumped the gun. Anthes: My question with regard to commercial design standards is about the east elevation of the building. I agree that the exit onto Joyce is a nice way to be able to filter people out during peak times and perhaps it would be better facilitated if the east elevation was treated as another front and was as handsome as the west elevation and therefore, you would be more encouraged to use that and it wouldn't feel like a back service drive. I would like for you to tell me your feelings and thoughts about that. Elsass: When that was originally turned in the proposal on the east side was basically a blank wall. Staff asked us to revise it in a different manner. The reason it is devised that way is that if you will look at that that's more of an office type look. It is not a retail look. I am not going to encourage office to go back there. I can't, they're not going to do it, they are going to go to the highway side, the retail is. The office, there are some businesses such as accountants, engineering firms and things of that nature that would very likely look at that and go back in that direction. As far as changing anymore and modifying that, we were skeptical in the way we presented this is because one of the concerns that I have is that if you look at the plat of this layout it is 60' in depth with this building and there are some areas where we've got to cut across there. That whole middle section may be retail and if you are a retailer you don't want all these windows and doors back there for security reasons. It is that much more safety, it is that much more problems. To do that it is going to be impossible. I have got a location here that doesn't allow me to have a back. That's what I am running into. Anthes: That is precisely my comment. Elsass: To go back to what Mr. Shackelford was talking about a while ago, as far as the lanes back there, my encouragement was to try to make more retail on the north end of the building, have less traffic, your deliveries, your drop trucks and those type of things on a one way route back there. That was my original plan. What is going to happen here is these people are going to go down this thing any way they want to. I have got over across Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 34 from the athletic club right now I have gone in and had signs put up to make that a one way based off what the fire department and the fire chief wanted. They don't listen, they don't look at it. They go any way they want. They park back there, we try to avoid it but it doesn't happen. It is going to layout the right way. They are going to utilize that. Hopefully, the way we've designed it more of your drop off trucks are going to be back there. Hopefully they will park back toward that dumpster, that was another reason that I had hoped that this exit onto Joyce Street was going to move further south that way you had your trucks come in, they sat back there, and most of this stuff in this direction would be more office. I have a problem with going with anymore than that because really I can't give the consumer what they need because I don't know what they need. I won't know until I get in there. Most of the buildings that I've done in the past that are anywhere close to this you've got a back. We've got to put air conditioners. If you will notice, there's really not any place on that east side to put air conditioners. We've got to go in and figure out a way to design it differently to find a place to put them because we've got to hide them somewhat to make that a front at some point too. As far as arranging that in a different way, we can shift some stuff around. I am really not interested at all in making it look like the front because I don't want to encourage that. I know the Quinns don't. If I lived that direction I wouldn't want it. I would say yes, office people coming in and out that live within a one to two mile radius, yeah, they are going to use that for the back and go in and out but you are not going to get a retailer to use that front. Joyce Street is going to eventually go straight out. It is not going to turn that way. That's not going to be a front. Ostner: As you are driving westward on the new Joyce Street it will be. Elsass: You mean eastward? Ostner: No, if Joyce has been extended. Elsass: Joyce is going to go straight down, it is not going to extend down that street. Ostner: Right. I am facing west on Joyce. Elsass: You are facing west but you are not seeing a thousand feet back that direction. If you will notice the way our design is, the south entrance has a design that meets the frontage of Joyce Street but as far back that direction, you are going to have a street down through there, are you calling that the front of Joyce when Joyce is going this way? Ostner: Joyce is extended east, turn around and head west and I'm looking at the west elevation of your building, excuse me, I'm looking at the east elevation. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 35 Elsass: You are if you go down the street as it exists today. Am I missing something here? Hoover: No, he's saying that you are still going to see it no matter where you are. Ostner: If I stand out in that hay field and stand on where the new street is going to be. Elsass: If nothing is ever built there. Ostner: No, if it is built. Let's play like it's built and am going to go stand where it is going to be built and I turned west, I'm facing the sun. I have got a sun burn, I'm looking at the east elevation. Elsass: I disagree with what you're saying but that's fine. Ostner: That's what our point is, that east elevation is going to be very prominent. Elsass: Does that not meet the standards? Vaught: I guess I take a different take on it. I think that is a nice looking elevation and it is nicer than a lot of things we have seen. He is using different colors, he is using awnings over the windows, the entrance. I think that meets commercial design standards. I think we've approved frontages that don't look that nice before. Shackelford: I also would remind you that coming from the west in the direction that you are talking about you are going to be able to see a part of the east elevation but you are not going to be able to see the full east elevation. There are grading issues there, there is some slope on that property, there's also screening and vegetation that is there. The part that you are going to be able to see from the intersection you are talking about is where the front kind of wraps around on that development. I don't think you are going to see more than a fourth or even that far down the building from that position. Bunch: Kirk, can you tell us what you came up with as part of the design issues on the sign and the wall? Is this the new drawing just a concept? Elsass: It is totally a concept. Bunch: You don't have the grade yet on the retaining wall? Elsass: Yes Sir. That was the best I could do to come up to give you something to show what it would be. That is what is in my mind to put there. As far as exactly what materials, exactly it is going to be something that is going to Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 36 blend in with the building. Bunch: A question for staff, would this concept in hand comply with the wording on number nine condition of approval to give the developer the latitude to work with the grades and the sign? Warrick: I think it is certainly in the spirit of that condition and the only thing that I would be looking at a little bit more closely would be the setbacks and the size to ensure that it meets the sign ordinance requirements and that probably is going to have to be determined when we know exactly the size of that retaining wall and what the display surface area of the proposed sign will be. As far as concept, I do think that that is in the spirit of what that condition was crafted to do. Shackelford: As I made the motion my intentions were that that would be handled by staff to review specifically to make sure it meets all of our ordinances. Anthes: I have a question for the applicant. I appreciate the work you've gone to on this site. Elsass: Thank you Anthes: I do notice that on the east elevation it says that there is basically a parapet or screen wall for each of the units located on the roof. I know that you mentioned that you were going to try to find a place for those units. It looks like your architect may have already found one for you. It is a note right in the middle of the elevation. It says HVAC units on roof is what it says on the drawing. Do you plan on using rooftop units? Elsass: We have talked about designing where the condensation lines will be run down the wall under the concrete where it will condensate and we are going to build them on brackets and build them up on the roof and hide them behind that area. Anthes: I think that might address part of my concern about the east elevation. In my mind I'm putting a little a/c unit outside of the door of each of those units. Elsass: No, the architect and I discussed that and one of the things that we looked at was doing some brick screening around that area but if you do that you break up the flow of the sidewalk down through there and there was no way to do that. Somehow our plans are to build mount top roof units that the condensation units would go on top. As far as the north end there again, that runs into where I'm not sure exactly because we don't have the doors placed in every area. We have them put in there but we end up a lot of times in those things you will end up to get your building permit you have to submit your plans, this guy ends up needing a double door or he Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 37 has got a restaurant where he has to have two wheelers or things like that so there are some issues there that I'm just not 100% clear on how that is going to stack up. On that east side, absolutely. The visible side of the road and the way we designed those rounded areas are all designed so that none of that would be visible to the public. To answer your question, yeah, that's the plan. Anthes: Thank you. Hoover: I have a question for Kirk. When you started out you said on Joyce Street, did you have some way of saving those trees? Elsass: One of the things that I had proposed or had suggested several times to the staff was that I would be willing to take the money, I believe that the improvements of that street, they know I'm not going there, they know I told them I would not oppose anything they suggested. My suggestion was leave those little trees, leave that portion of Joyce alone, leave the screening, allow the new future Joyce that's going to go through, take the money that I was going to have to spend on improving and widening that road, I would have liked to put that entrance further south and take that money and allocate it towards however you come to a formula and say this is what it is going to cost, either give it to the city or allocate it towards the intersection. I don't want to jumble this whole thing up because these guys, like I say, they've heard all of this. Mr. Bunch and others on Subdivision have heard all of this and I'm not trying to beat it. To answer your question, I believe that we need to discourage traffic from that exits on the back side whether it be my development or if someday the Quinns do something with theirs or whatever up that road. We need to discourage any type of traffic that is through traffic to go back up into that little S curve in there. It is dangerous. My thinking is you encourage it to all go channeled out to the stop light and to keep it from going back that way. That was just a suggestion I made. I would contribute the money towards doing that so when that is developed and Dr. Knox does develop his property then that would be money in place or could be spent now to do whatever that wants to be done and not widen that portion back there. I personally would rather leave, I'm not a cedar fan, but as far as what trees that are in there in that little ditch, staff tells me that that road is laid out and one thing is that road is a collector street. Can that collector street be moved down and cut across the property to make it make more sense? I don't know that. To me, that's what I would do. That little portion back there where all those big oak trees are sitting back there, if it is going to be a collector street they are going to have to come out. They've looked at this, this is not all news to them. Hoover: Subdivision, can you tell me what the discussion was about not developing that back there? As I recall, there were some nice sycamores and some other trees in that ditch. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 38 Elsass: There are really not. There are some cottonwoods, there are some cedar trees. There are not any trees but if I lived back there and I was Dr. Knox and I lived over there. What I am saying is I would rather plant some trees in that area. At some point the water and the drainage in that area is a problem of getting the water from the north end above the Quinns all the way down. That's one of the areas that is going to have to be opened up and cleaned out. In the area that I've got we can plant our trees, our vegetation to screen that all down the road. I am not really saying that we should save any trees there. If we could at this time and not do that hey, that would be fine with me because like I said, all there is is old cedar trees and old cottonwoods in there and those trees fall down everyday, especially the cottonwoods. Truthfully, the concerns I had was sending people back that direction. I didn't want to send anybody with an improved road back that direction. Like I said, the comments at Subdivision was based off of like I said, their hands were tied. They were following your ordinances. That is the way this is designed. Vaught: When Joyce Blvd. is extended straight on through what is going to happen to this portion of Joyce Street that goes from this exit down to the intersection? Warrick: Joyce Street where it currently exists along the east property line is designated as a future collector street on the Master Street Plan. It is not proposed to be vacated, it is proposed to be utilized as a collector street. Vaught: Even though this intersection would be so skinny? Warrick: It will probably be redesigned in that process of the extension of Joyce Blvd. to the east. It is proposed to still be utilized to have a 70' right of way with 35' of pavement and potentially three lanes of traffic. Vaught: By redesigning the move further away from the odd shaped intersection? Warrick: At least reconfigured so that it makes more sense. Vaught: So there is potential we would be ripping all of this up? Warrick: No. The improvements that staff is recommending are consistent. They would be located so that they would be in the proper location for that extension. Hoover: I had one other question. At Subdivision did you by chance discuss having an only right hand turn at that southern most access? Elsass: No, Ms. Warrick suggested that we make the lanes turn the way they are proposed on the plat and that's what we did. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 39 Hoover: I have a lot of concern about the safety too and being out there I didn't have any problem with people turning right but it looks like it is the left turning that could be a real issue. I guess I just felt it seems like a dangerous condition and that that would be very difficult to do. I know that we say not everybody follows the signage but if you did have a sign there that said no left hand turn that might help somewhat. I didn't know how other commissioners feel about that. Shackelford: I've thought about that obviously, I'm the one that made the motion here. I think common sense is going to limit you from trying to make a left turn here at peak hours. I have been out in this area, use the gas station directly across the street from here as a normal place that I buy gas. There are a lot of times during the day you can make a left turn from there and not have any problems. I guess I think common sense will win out. If you are trying to make a left turn and they are backed up from the stop light well beyond view here you are probably not going to try to make a left there. At other times of day and off peak then probably you should be allowed to make a left and I don't see it as being any significant impact on overall safety. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Anthes: I can see that many of us are still highly concerned about this southern access point and I do agree with Loren and with the applicant in that people are going to turn left whether or not there is a sign or not. However, you can encourage it or not encourage it. It almost looks to me like this three lane condition in that particular intersection you could fill that center up with a landscaped area and encourage a right turn only. If nobody is out there, if nobody is stacked up on Hwy. 265, if nobody is sitting behind you waiting to get on the road you could turn left out of there and it would be fine but during times when there were people backed up rather than sitting and waiting because you had an extra lane to sit there and wait and wait and wait to try to pull out and you had people stacked up behind you I would probably urge you to go ahead and turn right and bag going left at that area just by not having that lane available as a left turn only lane. Have you thought about that? Elsass: No Ma'am. That's got to be proposed to Dawn. I don't remember how we did it but we didn't have it originally. She did ask us to widen it from what we originally had. Anthes: We haven't thought about it as long as you guys have obviously but could you maybe just talk to us about that possibility? Warrick: The Planning Commission can certainly make a proposal to amend the motion on the floor. That's your decision. Staff was just trying to ensure Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 40 that the users of this development had options. That was the intent behind the recommendation. Anthes: Can you comment specifically on whether taking that third middle turn lane and landscaping it at the southern most curb cut would work? Warrick: There is a provision in the ordinance that would allow for that kind of configuration if the applicant or the Planning Commission chose. We do have a specification that would allow for a landscaped median. Anthes: As someone who has worked on this plan with the applicant is that something that would satisfy you? Warrick: Staff will agree to the Planning Commission's recommendation. At this point staff has made a recommendation and we are comfortable with it. If you choose to change it I'm not going to be injured and I am perfectly understanding what your concerns are. If you feel that that would cause a safer situation then staff will fully support your recommendation. Shackelford: I have a couple of concerns in that area. Basically, three things. First of all, if you start putting vegetation and landscaping in the middle of an area like this you could very easily impair visibility and further cause issues with people trying to get in and out of there. The second thing is it seems like nobody every maintains these. People with larger vehicles, trailers are always running through them killing the vegetation and they end up not looking very good. The third thing is I guess just selfishly as a consumer, if I want to make a right turn and someone wants to make a left and they can legally do that I may sit there 15 minutes waiting. I think you are going to help the people get in and out of this by leaving it as designed and somebody can make their decision and have a lane to do what they want to as far as getting off this property. That's my two cents worth. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Vaught: As the second on this, I agree. I think it meets the commercial design standards, I think it is a very nice looking project and I appreciate the work that you have done on the east elevation. I do understand the traffic conditions. My fear is that if you close off this southern entrance totally it could make a nightmare situation for traffic inside the development trying to get around to the back side. It is going to constrict the traffic with people pulling in and out of these parking spaces trying to get to one curb cut. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford in the fact that it is ok to give people these options and they can make decisions out of common sense on when they should or should not make that turn. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other comments? I believe we have a motion Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 41 and a second. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-33.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries seven to one. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 42 LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development (Collision Repair Center, pp 287) was submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located south of 2787 N McConnell Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.39 acres. The request is for the construction of a collision repair center. Hoover: Item number seven on the agenda is LSD 03-34.00, a Large Scale Development for the Collision Repair Center. Jeremy? Pate: This item is a Large Scale Development for a Collision Repair Center. The applicant is requesting to construct a 15,000 sq.ft. automobile collision repair center on North McConnell Avenue. There will also be an attached 4,335 sq.ft. office space. The applicant has described the proposal to be utilized much like the existing Metro Automotive on North College with automobile sales, leasing and collision repair. The property does have frontage onto I-540 and McConnell Avenue and is located with in the Design Overlay District. The paved area next to the structure is to be utilized as an outdoor storage facility. Therefore, it is required to be screened from adjacent properties. Permission has been secured from the property owners to the north and the south to grade to and construct upon those property lines. Additionally, a majority of the required tree mitigation canopy currently is proposed to be planted on the property adjacent to the south. That proposal I believe has been withdrawn and I will discuss that a little bit further. Surrounding land use to the north is the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. To the south is Fairpark apartments, a residential multi -family use. To the east is McConnell Avenue and to the west is I-540. Currently the tree canopy existing is 34%, preserved canopy by the applicant is 4.72%. The required in a C-2 zoning district is 15%. Therefore, mitigation is required in the amount of 15 high priority trees and 27 medium priority trees. The applicant had requested to plant the mitigation trees on an adjacent property to the south with permission from that property owner. There is a memo that I just handed out from the Landscape Administrator to notify members of the Planning Commission that the developer has dropped this proposal. You can read over that. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination of street improvements: Staff recommends that McConnell Avenue be improved approximately 14 feet from centerline, with curb, gutter, storm drains and 6 -foot sidewalks constructed in accordance with current City standards. 2) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the required 200 feet between curb cuts within the Design Overlay District. Staff is in support of this request, as the width of the lot and location of existing curb cuts on adjacent properties creates an impossible situation to comply with the Ordinance requirement. Condition number three can be removed. 4) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds the elevations as presented indicate a structure that meets the requirements as set forth in the Commercial Design Standards Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 43 and the Design Overlay District. The side of the structure facing I-540 is less articulated, however is located approximately 350 feet from the right- of-way, reflects a variety of roof pitches, has a variety of materials, and should be adequately screened from view with proposed mitigation trees. 5) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street, 35 feet from centerline, for McConnell Avenue. 6) All proposed parking lot lighting shall comply with Design Overlay District requirements, including 35 feet maximum height and utilization of full cut-off sodium light fixtures, with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 7) Additional screening shall be provided along the northern property boundary to screen the Outdoor Storage area, prior to final approval. Items eight through thirteen are standard conditions of approval. We do have signed conditions. There are a number of findings as well based on the Design Overlay District that are in your staff report. Actually, a number of the items in your packets are basically withdrawn now because of the proposal for mitigation on the adjacent property they are no longer applicable. I can answer any questions. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant please come forward? Milholland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I am Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the client who is also here tonight, Mr. Tracy Hoskins the developer. Mr. Hoskins has signed the conditions of approval as read by the city staff here tonight and concurs with those. We respectfully request your approval. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer those. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this LSD 03-34.00 for the Collision Repair Center? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Comments? Ostner: I had this question at Subdivision and Jeremy, you answered it but I didn't quite understand your answer. On the parking, for the office area they were allowed 21 and 30% overage and for the shop area they were given 30% overage and then they were given more over that and I am wondering why that is. Pate: Because of the facility to the west of the proposed Collision Center is identified as outdoor storage and also the use of the proposed structure as leasing and sales the ordinance doesn't have a minimum or maximum allowance for sales or leasing at automobile dealerships. That's consistent with the recommendations staff has made in the past. That's the reason for the overage there. There is no 30% that falls into that category. Ostner: That is in the ordinance? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 44 Pate: Yes. Warrick: The development is a mixed use to some degree development. It contemplates not only collision repair but also sales and leasing of vehicles. Therefore, we considered it to some degree the way that we do an automobile dealership where outdoor storage and storage of automobiles is a part of the development, a part of the function of the project. Our ordinances do not set a minimum number of parking spaces when you are dealing with a project that is vehicle related in that manner. Ostner: You mean it doesn't set a maximum? Warrick: Correct. Hoover: I have a question in general. For the Overlay District, how much of this property is in the Overlay District? Pate: The entire piece of property. Hoover: Ok. What are our special ordinance, what are our specifics in the Overlay District that we look for? Warrick: The additional impact of being in the Overlay District restricts the distance between curb cuts, which is addressed in one of your conditions. It increases the amount of greenspace required on the site whereas, a standard commercial project has a maximum coverage of 85% with 15% remaining in greenspace. In the Overlay District it is 75% coverage and then 25% remaining in greenspace. There is a limitation on the signage requiring monument signs for any freestanding signs on the site. Pate: If I might add, there is also a greenspace requirement of 25' along any frontage as opposed to 15' and there is also lighting associated with that, 35' maximum tall in parking lot lighting along with the lighting shall be shielded, directed downward and not reflect onto adjacent neighborhood. Hoover: Are we asking for just the one variance of these requirements? Warrick: To the distance between curb cuts. Hoover: That's the only one? It meets everything else. Warrick: That is correct. Ostner: I have another question for staff. There is a retaining wall on the southern edge of this project that appears to be about 4'/z' tall. I thought retaining walls had to be stepped back when they adjoined a residential use. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 45 Casey: That's only if they exceed 10' in height. That's when the terracing requirement kicks in. Hoover: Can I ask the applicant, now that these trees are going to be on site. Is there some idea how they are going to fit on the site now or did I miss that? How many of these trees are new trees? Milholland: I think I understood your question, I'm not sure I heard all of what you asked but I think it is how are the trees going to be on the site. Hoover: The trees that were originally proposed off site, I don't know how many that is, where are you going to put them on the site now? Milholland: It is not totally decided at this point. We worked with Craig on this last Friday and Tom, the Landscape Architect I have working for me worked with him. I talked with Craig today and I do know that they are planning on putting quite a few more of them around the detention pond area and some along the north boundary closer to I-540 to help the screening there. Hoover: Thank you. Ostner: Is that an issue that staff feels comfortable with? Warrick: Our Landscape Administrator feels comfortable that they can comply with this condition. Hoover: Can we go over the commercial design guidelines? Would someone like to explain the materials on the building? Milholland: I'm not the architect. It is a combination of materials there. The top view is the front that faces east to McConnell. It will look real nice. As read from the staff, the rear is quite a number of feet from the bypass and will have quite a bit of vegetation and trees back there to obscure it. As far as materials, I will have to ask the client to come and explain particularly where the materials go. Hoover: If you could explain to us what goes where. Is it brick or block on the mass of it? Milholland: I think this is brick. Hoskins: Actually, both of those samples are block. The sample on the left is crimson and the sample on the right is palomino. Those words are indicated on all of your elevations. The three stones there in the middle of the row there of course is indicated on the front of the building. The Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 46 entrance of the building is a combination of all of those stones. I can't find my brick though. There was another sample board we had up here that had the brick on it I believe. I don't see it up here. The brick is basically on the front of the building, it is up around the windows in the top. We did have a sample board of the brick here but I don't see it tonight. Of course, the galvanized metal is for the cylinder affect on the north side of the building and as accent trim on the top of the building. Hoover: Thank you. I guess I'm curious from staff or maybe Subdivision can report on the metal panels. I believe in the Overlay District they are not allowed or what does the ordinance read? Warrick: The ordinance prohibits metal sidewalls. Hoover: Subdivision you said there was some discussion about it? Bunch: The amount of the galvanized metal is minimal with the exception of a cylinder and it is more of a trim and an accent rather than siding. If you will look at the different elevations you will see that it is either roofing or trim that matches the roofing to the rest of the building. Maybe Tracy can tell us about it. It is not as a sidewall, it is not like a metal building. Hoover: You all determined that it was more an accent than a background? Allen: Just a comment that perhaps the sun wearing sunglasses on all of the elevations will offset the metal sidewalls. Anthes: On §161.24, Design Overlay District, Item 1, to protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the I-540 Highway Corridor by providing for non-residential developments which will maximize preservation and enhancement to the natural and open character of the terrain and village. Perhaps the location of the tree mitigation on site will answer this question but I know in reading the Subdivision Committee minutes there was some discussion about what was the back of the building. Usually facing I-540 is counted as a front even if it is not on a street and I know there was sort of a heated debate, or it read sort of like that in the minutes, I wondered if Subdivision would tell us about the discussion about the front and back of the building and the screening? Bunch: The main front of it of course faces McConnell and is a very good design. The other front is a considerable distance from I-540 and it is rather difficult to tell if the storage shed on the back of the Southwestern Bell building extends beyond that. Anything, I think, would be a little improvement over that. The conversation at the Subdivision Committee was more to give the applicant options that if he did not want to develop it fully as a front and spend the money to do that because of the location, the Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 47 distance from I-540 as well as the proximity to the storage shed for the Southwestern Bell work center, they did have the option of using landscaping for screening as opposed to dressing that up fully as a front since it does have two streets of frontage. It may not have read that way but that was the intent to offer that alternative. Anthes: Will that have any bearing on the landscape plan now that the tree mitigation is on site? Have you all thought about that? Hoover: The question is have you thought about adding your tree mitigation trees to the I-540 side of the building to help screen it some more around the detention pond I believe? Milholland: I thought earlier when you asked the question I thought I answered it by saying that's where we put some of them. If I didn't, I'm sorry, I meant to make that clear. We don't have a final plan but I know that's what Craig and Tom has talked about. Anthes: I would just like you to consider the placement of those to properly screen that side of the building if it is not being treated as a front. Milholland: I'm real sorry, I just don't understand your question. Anthes: Technically, even though it is not being treated as such on this project, the side of the building facing I-540 is a front for your building. In keeping with the Design Overlay District requirements which I read at the beginning of my last comment, I would encourage you to consider using your trees that you are going to plant strategically placed in order to screen the I-540 fagade of this building because you have chosen not to embellish it as if it were a front. Does that clarify it for you? Milholland: I think I understand what you're saying but I think that the answer is that it is going to be worked out with Craig and that's his preference. I think that he expressed those ideas. Warrick: Your comments will be used for the development of that mitigation plan. Anthes: That's all I ask, thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other comments or motions? Vaught: I will move to approve LSD 03-34.00 excluding condition of approval number three. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Vaught excluding item number three of the conditions of approval, is there a second? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 48 Bunch: I will second. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-34.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries seven to one. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 49 LSD 03-32.00: Large Scale Development (The Crowne, pp 598) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of LEC Properties for property located on both sides of Beechwood Avenue, south of 15`h Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 32.3 acres. The request is to build an apartment complex with 444 dwelling units proposed. Hoover: Thank you. Right now we are going to take a ten minute break. We are ready to reconvene. We are on item number eight, LSD 03-32.00 for the Crowne. Jeremy? Pate: This property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 32.3 acres. The applicant proposes to construct a residential multi -family apartment complex with 444 dwelling units in south Fayetteville in proximity to 15`h and Beechwood Avenue. The existing site is undeveloped pasture land with trees located along fence rows and within the 100 -year floodplain along Town Creek to the south. This residential development is part of an overall conceptual master plan. That master plan is attached on page 8.9 in your packets. A 7.6 acre natural greenway corridor is proposed along Town Creek. In response to citizen input and parks staff recommendations and associated rezoning approvals from 2001 with regard to protecting the floodplain. The developer is to construct a trail within the greenway corridor per Parks and Recreation construction standards to be coordinated with Parks staff. Surrounding land use and zoning include to the north the University of Arkansas baseball stadium, indoor track facility and Baldwin Piano Company. To the south is primarily single-family residential and duplex residential development. To the east is Razorback Road and vacant land and to the west is also vacant. 80' along Beechwood Avenue exists from the former state highway designation as state right of way. Of course 35' from centerline for a collector street along 18`h Street is being dedicated with this proposal. Street improvements proposed include Beechwood Avenue constructed to collector street standards with a 36' width with curb, gutter, storm drains and 6' sidewalks on both sides. 181h Street will be constructed also to a collector street standard 18' from centerline with the same improvements. A revised traffic study has been submitted with the proposal and you all should have a copy of that. Staff is recommending based on that traffic proposal that money be placed in an escrow account for this Large Scale Development's proportionate share for the traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Razorback and 15`h Street. This would be an off site improvement. Based on calculated peak traffic flows at full build out the developer has proposed to contribute 29% of the total cost for the traffic signal amounting to $38,976 due prior to building permits for this phase of the proposed project. Existing tree canopy equals 10.6%. Preserved is 10.2%. Required is that number of 10.6%. Therefore, mitigation is required of 27 trees all on site. The rezoning request was approved for the subject properties back in 2001 and a realignment of this rezoning was also approved this year to allow for the Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 50 current development proposal. The proposed Large Scale Development was heard at Technical Plat Review on August 27`h and Subdivision Committee on October 2°d. Discussion at that Subdivision Committee did include building elevations, street improvements and interior street alignment. Staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development subject to the following conditions: 1)The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street for Beechwood Avenue (80 feet total) and 18"' Street (35 feet from centerline). 2) Right-of-way from centerline for 18`h street shall be indicated on the plat. 3) Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends Beechwood Avenue to be constructed 36 feet wide with curb/gutter, storm drains, and 6 -foot sidewalks on both sides. 18`h Street shall be constructed 18 feet from centerline with the a six foot sidewalk on one side of the street. Sidewalks shall be constructed through driveways and to City Standards. 4) Planning Commission determination of traffic signal contribution in the amount of $38,976, 29% the total cost of the traffic signal. Total contribution is due prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Street names shall be submitted for private drives within the development. Names shall be coordinated and approved by 9-1-1 Coordinator. 6) Investigation for a potential through street designed in accordance with current City standards to service Commercial development to the north of the East residential development will occur at the time of proposed commercial development. 7) All trash enclosures/compactors shall be screened on three sides with access not visible from the street. 8) Park land dedication in the amount of 7.6 acres shall be required prior to building permits. 9) The developer shall construct a trail pursuant to Parks and Recreation standards within the designated greenway corridor along Town Creek. All conditions as noted in the attached Memo dated August 25, 2003 are applicable and shall be considered, by reference, as part of the official Conditions of Approval. 10) All proposed parking lot lighting shall utilize full cut-off fixtures, with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. A receipt for street light payment shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 11) A floodplain development permit shall be required prior to any construction within the floodplain, in addition to grading and drainage permits. Appropriate federal and state permits shall also be obtained and filed of record with the City of Fayetteville. Items 12 through 15 are standard conditions of approval and we do have signed conditions of approval from the applicant. Hoover: Thanks Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward please? Kelso: Good evening, I'm Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates, we are the engineers on this particular project. We reviewed the staff recommendations and concur with those conditions. We also offer the building elevations of this site. That was not part of the required items for a residential multi -family development but we do offer those for you to Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 51 look at. We also have the architect here and the owner here to answer any of your questions. Hoover: Thank you Jerry. At this time I would like to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this LSD 03-32.00 for the Crowne apartments on Beechwood? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. Shackelford: I will start with a question of staff. Typically our conditions of approval are both defined and measurable. I am confused by number six. The condition calling for the investigation for a potential through street, are you asking for a right of way dedication? What are you asking specifically for this board to find? Pate: On your site plan on the eastern residential side there is parking that backs out into a drive currently. If that drive is utilized as a through street to connect to potential commercial development we just wanted to place this condition up front so that investigation for that as a through street in compliance with all city regulations would be on record. Shackelford: Ok, thank you. Vaught: I have another question on that. Where exactly on the plan is that? Are we talking about connecting to Razorback Road? Pate: No, this is actually within the development within the main entrance to the eastern side of the development. Warrick: There is proposed development to the north of that section of this residential portion that we will see when they are ready to bring forward that proposal and those projects will connect in some fashion. Basically, we are letting the developer know that we want to further explore that with their development proposal with the commercial property to the north so that we can ensure compatibility and understand how they are going to make that connection and ensure that it's appropriate when that time comes. These projects will be connected. Shackelford: You are saying that we don't need to require that, it doesn't need to be worded that if the development is completed that these projects must be connected, you just want it stated somewhere in the records that that investigation opportunity potential be out there, is that correct? Warrick: That is correct. The way that it's proposed, that access drive is on the north property line so there is an expectation that when the property to the north does develop that they will be able to access that drive as well. How they access that drive and to what extent traffic from the northern Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 52 commercial development comes into this project will have to be addressed when we know more about what that project brings. That is really what we are trying to do is leave that open so that we have the opportunity to further discuss it and make sure that we can address it appropriately when we know what that development will bring. Shackelford: And you are confident that this language will give you the ability to require that at a future date? Warrick: I think that this language gives us the ability to look at it. We are not proposing a right of way dedication with this. Shackelford: Ok. I apologize, it is just a little different language than what we typically see in this situation. Thank you. Ostner: I'm still not following where we are talking. Hoover: Is there a large site plan? Vaught: Is it access between the eastern apartment complex and the northern retail development or is it from the east out? Warrick: That page that you are looking at is an overall master plan that is not solely the project that we're looking at tonight. Kelso: I think if you look at your back where the commercial is here on the north side of the residential it is that drive right through there that staff is talking about. Ostner: It would feed out onto Razorback? Kelso: It would just feed into the commercial. It is just making sure that those connections are taken into account. You see we've got cuts and things like that, I think that's all. Hoover: Is page I 1 the best page to look at? Kelso: Page I 1 we provided for everybody as a master development plan for this overall area just to kind of help see how things will develop. Hoover: Do we have other questions for Jerry? Is everybody oriented? Commissioners, do you all have more questions on where we are? Jerry, would you mind coming up here to make sure we've got it clear? Kelso: Sure. They are making sure that we have these connections here. They are talking about this drive right here making sure that we've got these Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 53 cuts and connections so that we've got through traffic that can feed in and out. Hoover: Now that we know where we are, are there some other questions? Anthes: A question for staff since we all seem a little fuzzy, will you go over for us your comments about the 90° angle parking as it pertains to something that might turn into a city street and your comments on that just for clarification? Warrick: The area that you are talking about, the applicant had originally proposed that parking back out into a main drive that is located on the western side of the development access off of Beechwood in that location and staff was concerned with the amount of parking that was backing into this drive aisle that will be extended further to the west to additional parts of a project that could become in the future a main thoroughfare if not a public street. We recommended that the applicant look into an alternative design basically protecting the through traffic so that we didn't have dozens of parking spaces backing out immediately into that through way. The applicant came back with a proposal for a median and parking that was protected that allowed for the through traffic to flow and also still allowed for the amount of parking that they felt they needed along that connecting piece. We did look at the possibility of on street parallel parking but the applicant felt that he needed additional spaces and chose to pursue this configuration which staff supports. Anthes: Thank you Dawn. Hoover: Was there any specific discussion at Subdivision that we should know about? Bunch: The item we just went over and we talked about quite a bit on the project with the park land dedication and jogging trails. We spent quite a bit of time on this same item trying to figure out the road and we finally got it where everyone understood it at that time or thought that we did. Ostner: I was the main talker on this issue at Subdivision. I understand the concerns of staff. However, I think the current configuration, though I appreciate them designing as the staff has requested, I think the current configuration promotes speed. There is really no reason to go slow besides just to get through. Whereas, the old configuration with a median, which we are trying to do in a lot of different places, put in a median to constrict the visible pavement. I think that is safer. People drive and back out through all of these big apartment complexes. These parking areas are a lot like streets, they function as streets, small streets and people back out into them all the time and you go slow because you know you are in an Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 54 apartment area. I think the original design with the median is good, is really good. I wish that would be built instead of what is currently being proposed of separating the parking and just having a straight through shot. Hoover: Did you have a comment about that? Kelso: Just that we've worked with staff to come up with what we've got right now. The other issue is if it was a boulevard down the middle you still have people backing up so is it more safe in that situation or is it more safe in this situation? You still have a straight shot, people are still going to be traveling it. I don't know if they will slow down that way verses this way. This way at least you are protected with cars backing out. They are not going to back out in the middle of the parking lot. You've got your cars that are going straight through that are protected with these islands that we've got. We would actually look at it as this being a little bit safer in that way. Ostner: It doesn't seem like that long ago that Dickson worked this way just fine and it had an ambience of going slow and I think it can be a good thing if it is designed right. Hoover: Do we have a copy of the overall master trail plan? I am just curious how this connects. Would you point to where the project is? Pate: It is in this location. This is 15`h Street and Beechwood and this is the proposed trail. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have any other comments or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: I understand what Commissioner Ostner is saying and that's probably a good point that has some validity to it. I guess I look at this a little bit differently. The applicant has met every expectation that our ordinances and staff has put on them. Staff has recommended that we carry it through in this configuration. It has come through Subdivision Committee under this configuration and I think it is our job as Planning Commission to review the proposal as it stands before us. Given that, I think this meets all the criteria that we are supposed to look for for approval of a Large Scale Development. This is a very large Large Scale Development. It is an area of town that it is going to be real interesting to watch this develop. I find that it is in compliance with all the issues that we review when we look at Large Scales so I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 03-32.00 subject to all 15 conditions of approval. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 55 Bunch: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there anymore discussion? I would like to say that I appreciate the elevations. I know that they weren't required but it certainly does help when we are looking at the overall project. Ostner: The other thing that I want to thank the applicant on is the amount of effort of putting the trail in and lining up the greenway through the water corridor to coincide with our master trail plan. It looks great on the drawing. Anthes: I don't want to belabor a point but I am a little confused. Staff, the area that has been under discussion that has the double median, we are also as I understand it looking at the residential development just east of that this evening and the road that goes along the north of that seems to be setting up the same condition that you didn't like before. Warrick: That is why we included condition number six with regard to looking at that in the future when the commercial development is brought before us. Anthes: Are you satisfied with the way the alignment is working? Usually when you do those sorts of traffic patterns you want the lanes to line up and it looks to me like if they install it the way it is drawn on the plan the parking spaces don't have an alignment where those. Warrick: At this point we are satisfied with the configuration that's been proposed. Anthes: Let me ask the applicant about that. As an engineer, when you are looking at that roadway design are you satisfied that you can get a good connection of lanes between the north side of the east piece of property and what's being proposed on the north side? Kelso: Right now we really don't know exactly how that intersection will work. What we've tried to do is center verses trying to adjust the lanes where they line up exactly. Otherwise we would be building a three lane deal right there and right now we just don't know how that commercial is going to take place. There is enough greenspace as you can see just to the south of that that if that had to that could shift down some eventually. Right now what we've done is we've just try to center the drives. Anthes: Thank you. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? We have our motion. Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 56 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-32.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 57 ADM 03-24.00: Administrative Item: (Master Street Plan Amendment, pp 247, 248) was submitted by Joe Tarvin of EGIS Consulting on behalf of Colin Haynes in conjunction with the springwoods PZD. The request is to remove the proposed westward extension of Trucker's Dr., designated a Collector street, from the Master Street Plan. ADM 03-25.00: Administrative Item: (Master Street Plan Amendment, pp 286) was submitted by Joe Tarvin of EGIS Consulting on behalf of Collins Haynes in conjunction with the springwoods PZD. The request is to remove the proposed Technology Blvd., designated a Collector street, from the Master Street Plan. C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (springwoods, pp 248) was submitted by Joe Tarvin, P.E. of EGIS Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes for property located on the southwest side of I-540 and Arkansas Highway 112. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, in the Design Overlay District and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning District to allow for development of Residential and Commercial sites. Hoover: Item number nine on the agenda is ADM 03-24.00 for a Master Street Plan. Are you going to do items nine and ten together or separately? Vaught: I am going to recuse myself from items nine through eleven. Warrick: I am going to attempt to start the discussion on items nine, ten and eleven. They are all related and I think that they merit a combined discussion. Each of these items does need to be voted on separately as they are separate and distinct actions and requests that are before you. Items nine and ten are two Master Street Plan amendments that relate to the following Planned Zoning District project for the springwoods development. One of the Master Street Plan amendments is to eliminate the westward connection of Truckers Drive, a collector street, and the second is to remove the proposed collector street identified as Technology Blvd. on the Master Street Plan connecting Shiloh Drive, the outer road along I-540 and Deane Solomon Road. The applicant's request is based upon the development plan that you see in the Planned Zoning District for springwoods and it has to do with the area that has been identified for preservation that does contain wetlands and we will further discuss that in our staff report and in the applicant's presentation with regard to that Planned Zoning District. Just to introduce those, I think that it is important to talk about all of it together but do keep in mind that these two actions are amending our policy document, which is our adopted Master Street Plan and they do require separate votes. Jeremy is going to discus the Planned Zoning District. Hoover: May I ask staff, do we have a copy of the Master Street Plan here? Pate: We do. It is not on a board. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 58 Warrick: In your maps it is also included for the maps for item number eleven. It is pages 11.46 and 11.47 that indicate where those streets are proposed. Hoover: Thank you. Pate: I am going to begin tonight, this is a rather lengthy item and please bear with me. I just handed out from our Unified Development Code Chapter 161.25 referring to Planned Zoning District, the purpose and intent of that Planned Zoning District. Also in Chapter 166.06 which is the Planned Zoning District, PZD, development criteria. That s what basically staff makes findings on in regards to a commercial, residential or industrial PZD. The rezoning findings will be found on page 11.14. There is also included in your packets proposed Audubon uses should the lot 8 1 believe be utilized by the Audubon Society. A draft of covenants submitted by the applicant is found on page 11.21. Wetland delineation letter is found on page 11.35, we do have a copy of the wetland delineation report and staff comments on the conceptual layout specifically is found on page 11.41. Tonight's agenda includes two PZD requests, one of which is before us now with the Commercial PZD for springwoods and the item following that as well, which is a Residential PZD. Obviously, they are separate. You will undoubtedly notice that the two PZDs are very distinct, they vary in scale. One is approximately eight acres, the one before us now is almost 300 acres. In land use one is proposed to be primarily residential and this one before us is commercial. In level of development as well, one is engineered and designed with types of structures, parking spaces designated, number and density of residential units, square footage of commercial/retail office space all included. The one before us now is most definitely a master plan identifying the specific uses of the nine proposed lots to be developed in the future. Both are required by the PZD ordinance to file a plat of record along with the covenants that address the PZD as a whole subsequent to Planning Commission and city council approvals. The Planned Zoning District does allow for both of these types of review processes. The intent of the PZD as is stated in the packet that I handed out is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned developments who's purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single purpose or mixed use planned development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review to a simultaneous process. This rezoning may be deemed appropriate if it meets one or more of the following goals: flexibility, compatibility, harmony, variety, no negative impact, coordination of open space, natural features among others. Those findings have all been made and are included in the packets in the rezoning findings I mentioned before that begin on page 11.14. In terms of development, the ordinance states that generally the Planning Commission shall consider the proposed PZD in light of the purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 which I just went over. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 59 as to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning should involve a consideration of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities and protection of water portions from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To go specifically to the springwoods that is in front of us, the 289 acre subject property is being reviewed as a proposal for a Commercial Planned Zoning District. The applicant requests the rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a large lot subdivision within the Design Overlay District. The rezoning request, in conjunction with a development proposal, requires Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. The proposed nine (9) lots have been assigned Use Units and/or specific uses that are legally binding to each lot. If you will look on the first and second pages, staff has identified each lot's specific use. That is also identified on the plat, it is a little bit easier to read in the table. One of these lots will be used for conservation and preservation, potentially the Audubon lot. One lot ownership wilt be retained by the city for a lift station. Two lots are for multi -family residential dwelling units. Two lots are proposed for single-family residential dwelling units and three lots are proposed for office, retail, commercial types of uses. Each of the larger lots will require further review in the form of Preliminary Plat and Final Plat and/or a Large Scale Development review depending upon how the development occurs. More detailed comments regarding vehicular and pedestrian circulation, street improvements, buffers and screening, commercial design standards, and other typical review items will be provided with the future submittals for each of these lots. Numerous environmental concerns have been raised with the history of this particular site. The developer of the springwoods subdivision has indicated that the Audubon Society has particular interest in utilizing and preserving Lot #8, comprising approximately 124 acres, or 43% of the entire 289 acre site. This particular lot is required to be preserved (or enhanced) in large part in its natural state, thereby retaining the wetlands, tree canopy, and grasslands currently existing. Any future development on this lot, as with the others, through Audubon or any other entity, is bound to these restrictions and must be reviewed for Code compliance through the City of Fayetteville. Lot 8 for the Audubon has been referred to as Use Unit 1. A draft of the proposed Audubon uses to be permitted or omitted from occurring on lot 8 is attached. I will reference page 11.19. Listed below are the current uses associated with Use Unit 1 specifically under which that lot 8 falls and which are binding with the PZD approval. Those include a number of things including agricultural, forestry and fishery uses. Park areas, park ways, wildlife preserves, etc. Lot 9 is to be retained as a lot owned by the City of Fayetteville and utilized for a sanitary sewer Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 60 lift station. Necessary utility and access easements shall be provided to this lot with the Final Plat. Surrounding land use includes a number of uses. Residential Agricultural, Thoroughfare Commercial, single-family homes, a horse farm, I-540, Landers Auto Park, residential multi -family areas with the RMF -24 zoning, RSF-4 zoning. There are obviously a number of uses used in this area. The right of way being dedicated with this nine lot PZD includes Deane Solomon, a collector, 70' total, 35' from centerline. Shiloh Drive, a collector, 35' from centerline. Moore Lane is a local street on the Master Street Plan requiring 25' from centerline dedication. As we mentioned earlier, Truckers Drive is to be considered for a Master Street Plan amendment by City Council, that is one of the items that we are discussing tonight. As is Technology Blvd., which is to be considered for a Master Street Plan amendment. No street or infrastructure improvements are proposed with this Commercial Planned Zoning District and associated Preliminary Plat. Staff has made preliminary recommendations for street improvements and I will refer to those comments made on the conceptual layout plat which includes the smaller lot layouts within those nine larger lots. As per tree preservation, obviously, staff feels that the 43% open space should be considered as part of the tree preservation and parks requirements. However, it is the Landscape Administrator's understanding that most of the trees throughout the site will be preserved and as development occurs on each of these nine individual lots that individual tree preservation plans will be submitted with the Large Scale or Preliminary Plat as applicable. For a little background, the subject property was purchased by the City of Fayetteville in 1988. In the years following water and sewer lines, a lift station and fiber optic cable were installed in anticipation of a technology development site which never occurred. The site does contain a number of environmentally sensitive areas including delineated wetlands, grasslands, stream corridors and associated floodplain and habitat for the Arkansas darter and numerous other wildlife species. These factors have presented both a challenge and an ecological asset to the development potential of the site. A total of 165 acres of the property is proposed to be developed in mixed use residential and commercial uses with the remaining 124 acres to be set aside permanently for greenspace. Again, the Audubon Society has expressed interest in the conservation of this property and its significant wildlife habitat for the past two years as potential for an environmental education center for Northwest Arkansas. Responses from all adjoining property owners all reflect no objection to the project as described with one exception which states not enough commercial development. The proposed Commercial Planned Zoning District does go throu�h our typical review process at Technical Plat Review on August 27` and at Subdivision Committee on October 2°d. Discussion at that Subdivision Committee meeting included traffic circulation and connectivity. Proposed use compatibility, buffering and screening, and wildlife interfaced with residential uses. The applicant tonight is requesting with this Commercial PZD and with this plat to Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 61 establish specific tracts of land with specific land uses attached to them for future development. We are specifically looking at compatibility, land use and connectivity and with the information provided to us by Audubon the potential for a contiguous tract of land that is to be preserved for use as a natural ecosystem and potentially an educational tool makes a strong case for the associated Master Street Plan amendments. Both of which are currently slated to cross delineated wetland areas. With the approval of the PZD before us the city gains the knowledge of the proposed land uses for each of the tracts as they are indicated. Again, I want to reiterate that each of the land uses that are indicated on the plat are binding to that lot. To alter any of those specific uses the applicant is required to return to the Planning Commission and the City Council with a rezoning of PZD request. With that, the recommendation for this PZD is to forward it to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning. Staff is also recommending Planning Commission approval of the proposed development subject to the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district C-PZD 03-8.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2) An ordinance creating this C-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3) A Final Plat is required to legalize the lot configuration and allow for the sale and/or development review of lots. 4) Requests for Master Street Plan amendments to Truckers Lane and Technology Blvd. require Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval prior to final approval of the C-PZD. Staff is in favor of these amendments. 5) On- and off-site street improvements shall be coordinated with lot development. Staff has provided preliminary recommendations with Technical Plat Review comments, which remain applicable. 6) Each respective lot designated in the C-PZD shall be reviewed by Preliminary Plat and/or Large Scale Development in accordance with City Code for future development, requiring Planning Commission approval. 7) Covenants to be filed with the final plat creating the springwoods subdivision shall address the uses and restrictions associated with these lots. 8) Draft covenants shall be further refined to include information required by §166.06 and to address residential as well as commercial development standards at the time of final plat. Draft covenants for the springwoods C-PZD zoning district shall address the overall master plan and shall be filed with the final plat creating this 9 lot subdivision. Items nine through eleven are standard conditions of approval and I will be available for any questions. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Tarvin: Madam Chair and Commissioners, my name is Joe Tarvin, I'm with EGIS Engineering. Mr. Manual Barnes, Mr. Drew Holt, and I are here to represent Mr. Haynes, the developer. Mr. Haynes is also here and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 62 Hoover: Thank you. I guess at this point we will turn it over to the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address ADM 03-24, ADM 03- 25.00, the Master Street Plan amendments or the PZD 03-08.00? Please sign in. Earff: Hi, my name is Jeff Earff, I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road. I am a bit confused about the procedures for the Planned Zoning District approval and how that compares to Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development. What I wanted to do was read a section from the Unified Development Code, §166.06(P)(1), Development Standards Conditions and Review Guideline and then I have a comment after that. It says here that the Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features including project density, building locations, common useable open space, vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping and perimeter treatments shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety and amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications. The reason I bring that up is that I think what's been presented to you is a concept plan. It doesn't include streets or grading or any information that might be useful for you to determine what's going to happen to that site in the future. I guess my question is does this application contain enough information for you to make the proper determinations for a PZD as it is defined by the City Code. It looks to me like you have, it is a rezoning. Well, I won't go into that. I guess my question is is this how you do a PZD? One of the items that is later on in the meeting that Lazenby is proposing, they've got everything on there like a Preliminary Plat. They've got the landscaping plan, they've got a grading plan, they've got show where all the storm drains are, they show everything. This is just kind of a concept and I am a bit concerned about you all approving something and really you don't know what it is going to be. I was wondering for some clarification, how is a PZD different? Why is this one different than the Lazenby PZD? Hoover: What we usually do is take public comment and I'm keeping notes and we will answer all the questions at one time if that's ok. Earff: Alright, I will sit down then. Hoover: Thanks Jeff. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this project? McKinney: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, thanks for letting me speak this evening. My name is Tom McKinney, I'm representing the Ozark Group of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club was a member of the Wilson Springs Task Force and we promised our membership and those Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 63 who spoke at the public hearings that we had and the public meetings that we had that we would continue to be involved in this process to make sure that the Wilson Springs area was protected as much as possible. I will not get in to any of the specifics of our environmental concerns because I understand what the process is tonight. I do still have some very important and troubling questions. First of all, according to the rules and regulations, as far as I can tell a PZD can be applied for by the owner of record. The owner of record is the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Haynes does not own the property. It also says that the owner of record can have an agent to represent him. I think that usually means they are talking about an engineer or a lawyer or a landscaping company or something like that. I don't think that a proposed buyer of a piece of property would qualify under that definition. At least, I would hope not because that would certainly open up a can of worms. I am not sure this is even appropriate at this time since the owner of record is not asking for this rezoning. Second, is a lot of the conditions that are contained within the application for drainage, landscaping, greenspace preservation, a lot of those are going to be determined by the Corp. of Engineers through the issuance of a 404 Permit which allows the construction, replacement and filling in of wetland areas. As of this week as far as I know, and I am on the list to get notification, that 404 Permit has not been approved. It was never approved by the City of Fayetteville, which is the owner of record. It has not been approved, as far as I know, by the Corp. for Mr. Haynes. In fact, when we spoke with the Corp. last they were not aware that Mr. Haynes did not own the property. That might cause a problem as well for an applicant to ask for a 404 Permit when they don't own the property. Other questions I had was nothing in the application I saw mentioned anything about what kind of damage or what would be done by the new sewer line for the new sewage treatment plant that is going to be crossing the property. That is going to be a huge disturbance on the north side of Clabber Creek, which is the last time I saw where it was going to go. That is not talked about in there anymore. I would, I guess reinforce Mr. Earff s question is what is being submitted tonight actually qualify as a proper PZD? If you all pass, and I've seen this happen before, if you all pass something one time that is not specifically to the T of what the regulations for the City of Fayetteville say it should be it will come back and haunt you. People will bring that back again and again you did it for this guy, why can't you do it for me. It establishes a practice and a history. When you all look at this as a Planned Zoning District I would urge you to make sure it meets all the criteria. Those are my concerns for this evening and I appreciate you very much. Thank you very much. Hoover: Thank you. Young: I'm Cyrus Young. Planned Zoning District, when the PZD was proposed and approved by the City Council certain assurances were given to the citizens of Fayetteville about the process and one of the big things that Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 64 was repeated over and over and over again is that the citizens of Fayetteville would know what was going to be there when a PZD was approved. That was the whole thrust of it. Mayor Dan Coody consistently repeated that over and over again. The Preliminary Plat that I have seen has got a few lots sketched out on it. That does not tell you or the citizens of Fayetteville what is going to be out there if this is approved. That is the concern that I have. Especially if this sets precedence, which I assume it will. You should know what is going to go on out there, the lots, street, storm drain, sewer, water, all of that that's supposed to be on that Preliminary Plat when it is approved. The best I can figure it's not there. The thing that concerns me is that if you recommend approval of this PZD then you will have broken the trust of the people of Fayetteville. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Alexander: Fran Alexander, Mr. Haynes has offered some of the land for preservation to the Audubon Society. There are 165 acres that will be developed. The question is not if and can Mr. Haynes build structures and streets but after that how is the land going to drain? How are the actions that are taken on this 165 acres going to affect the remaining 124? Also, the seasonal wetland which is part of the 165 he will be building on. What is also not known is how are the uses of innumerable chemicals on the landscape, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, as well as the pollutants come off construction whether you are dealing with roads or houses or buildings or whatever how that will, the drainage patterns or the capture techniques that can be utilized to continue to protect that 124 acres, which let me again remind you, is billed protected. The how of how that is protected is a tremendous concern. This was a concern of the task force that Mr. McKinney eluded to and we don't have these answers because although they were requested over and over again there was essentially a refusal to get an evaluation of this property, how it functions with the water, how it functions with the interaction of the different ecosystems and the wildlife and how the seasonal wetland actually functions as part of the wetland itself in this interaction between dry part of the year and wet all the time type of land. In spite of assurances that environmentally sensitive techniques will be used to develop this property, it doesn't leave those of us in the environmental community very peaceful at night knowing that shortly after Mr. Haynes was approved to put an offer in with the city that the city went out there and mowed many, many, many acres down which contain emerging vegetation that would indicate whether or not it was wetland. This is a real sticking point. One of the things that this young man read to you about no negative impact, already the city has taken negative impact upon that land numerous times and that mowing was one of the more recent ones. Also, another recent example of the city not really understanding protection of watershed is the channelization of already a channelized creek off of Joyce. The city is in there to create a Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 65 drainage situation and has not taken into account. Also, Clabber Creek, for example was channelized but it is returning to its natural species condition. After a number of years creeks, if left alone, will try to reestablish their old ways. It takes a long evolving of plants and animals coming in there and the water coursing in such a way that it will return to a natural condition. This was not allowed on Kitty Creek because of a drainage issue. We have to decide whether we are draining land or whether we are allowing land to function as wetland sponge condition that wetland provides. There is not a lot of precedence in the last few years of understanding that delicacy. At the Subdivision Committee meeting Commissioners Hoover and Ostner talked a lot about connectivity and I believe Mr. Barnes mentioned to them that they were trying in the way they had laid out the plat to emphasize the environmental aspects of this development in such a way that the connectivity would be for the wildlife. I think that this is a very important part that you need to really keep in mind is where we're setting the priority. Whether this is going to be an environmentally protected area that has development around it or whether it is going to be a development that what's left in the middle of it, the 124 acres is really a roll of the dice of whether it is going to survive or not because of what is going on in the development outside of it. It is really a crap shoot because without knowing what is actually functioning on the outside you will not know what affect it will have on that inside. The task force did recommend a 600' buffer along Clabber Creek and the plans I've seen sometimes it looks like it is as narrow as a couple hundred feet. That is another major concern. Slowly in this town we are beginning to understand land use. You've got committees studying slope development, for example, which is great. There is detention ponds to slow down water speed. What we have not understood is the roll of wetlands and how we have to have areas where land is absorbing water and is returning it to the water table. It is not racing it off of the land as fast as it can get. That is old school thinking about how to handle water. The plans before you show you how money will be spent, they show you how money will be made, but what they are not showing you is how the protected designated lands will actually be protected. I respectfully request that this Planning Commission tend to this question of land protection and function before you approve this development. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Ramsey: My name is Bill Ramsey, I am the President and CEO of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. I would like to speak in favor of what is presented to you tonight. It has the recommendation of staff. You have before you an offer on a file that goes back 13 years. Thirteen years worth of work on a piece of property that the city paid 1.3 million dollars for. You've got an opportunity here to turn that into a 5.2 million dollar return on that investment. Not only that, the sell of that property will return the property to the property tax rolls thereby benefiting the Fayetteville school system. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 66 The City of Fayetteville then can use the proceeds of that fund to fund a variety of critical needs. It is just a win/win and kind of a no brainer as I see it. Maybe I see it a little bit different than some but I think it is opportunity. There is also lost opportunity in delay. If you go back to day one and I know many of the members of this Planning Commission have not been in on some of the previous debate. I have only been at the chamber for a couple of years but I was a consultant to that chamber for eleven years prior to that so I have been involved somewhat the entire 13 years that this has been going on. We actually were successful in obtaining a couple of grants from the State of Arkansas for infrastructure development. In the beginning the Corp. of Engineers identified, and I've got it right here, eight acres of the 289 acre tract for wetland preservation. Later on a couple of years ago or a year and a half ago when discussions arose again there was an offer of a hundred acres to be preserved. The Corp. of Engineers said at that time you are going above and beyond what is required. I think we have been sensitive to preserving the wetland and I concur. I want us to be a little different than some other folks that just accept any development that comes along. Mr. Collins Haynes and I hope he doesn't mind if I share this, I've got some quotes and some recommendations from other folks in the area, notably the City of Rogers who, the Mayor of the City of Rogers, says "I have witnessed first hand Mr. Haynes commitment to quality and environmentally friendly development. There are numerous examples of his work in our city out at Pinnacle Point he was one of the developer's there. Overland Park, and several historic downtown projects to name a few. As I have followed what's happened in the last few months I think Mr. Collins Haynes has worked with the city, with the staff, with the Audubon Society and folks, I thought we had the best of both worlds here. I thought we had something that is finally a win/win for everybody. I guess I didn't anticipate some of the concerns that I am hearing here tonight. I would just urge you, and particularly as we look at what's going on in Northwest Arkansas and what our mission is and what our mission should be as far as attracting high quality knowledge based jobs to the City of Fayetteville. I think we have an opportunity with what Mr. Haynes is proposing here to do that and stop some of the brain drain. Stop sending our graduates somewhere else, whether it be further north of us or to Austin or other areas. We can do that but we have to have a place. We've got an opportunity because we have got the University of Arkansas. You don't get those kinds of jobs without an institution of higher learning and research capabilities and we just have an opportunity to at least be in the game. I can tell you the State Director of the Department of Economic Development told me not 60 days ago that we lost a perfect fit on a knowledge base industry that was a perfect fit for the City of Fayetteville but they were concerned about the fact that they couldn't get it approved, the difficulty of getting it approved. I would just urge you to look at this. Our chamber passed a resolution several months ago in support of this land purchase and going ahead with this project so please look at it. It is not just a brain drain we've got, Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 67 we've got a lot of Northwest Arkansas dollars that are going elsewhere that we need to capture in Fayetteville so that we can have business paying for some of the other things that we would like to see happening in our great, great city. I would just urge you to give a favorable recommendation. Thank you very much. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other members? Milholland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering. I am not involved with this project but I've been involved in City of Fayetteville development for over 30 years as a private engineering firm. Very seldom in Fayetteville have we had an opportunity to have someone come in and plan something, a footprint for a development as large as this. I am in favor of master planning. Our ordinances used to ask for concept plans for large tracts to come in and let you review them and then come in and bring in Preliminary Plats for sections of it. I've only done that one time in 30 years and when I came back to use it, it was very little use. I feel like what has been proposed here tonight is something that would be a master planning and also giving some development direction to the northwest area of Fayetteville, an area that is sitting there just waiting to be developed. Normally this type of planning of a footprint for such a large tract is rare in Fayetteville. This allows the city and not only the city, but other approval agencies to get a handle on the development process way ahead of time and then when it comes through for review in sections this makes much better sense. You already know what is happening. The governing agencies know what's happening up stream in Clabber Creek, especially the upper basin. Although this is establishing a direction for use of this tract it is a great step forward for future use and for developing this area of Fayetteville and particularly this upper basin of Clabber Creek. This method is much better than the developing procedure we've had, which is what most people do with smaller tracts and not always real smaller tracts. In planning from an engineering perspective with the City of Fayetteville and planning for traffic flow and for sanitary sewer service, water distribution, our land use and collection even of storm sewer, which has been mentioned here tonight, if you have more than just a small tract to deal with in the beginning you can plan for downstream what's going to happen in the front end. You can begin to know what's going to happen when they come in with a plat. This way every tract that comes in, every section of this, I don't know how many they have, but you already know what's going to happen as the Planning Commission, City Engineering and Planning staff knows and the government approving agencies already know. I am in favor of this. I am glad to see it here in Fayetteville and I'm glad someone has the fore sight to do it and the finances and I think it would be a plus for the City of Fayetteville. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you Mel. Is there any other member of the audience? Seeing none, Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 68 I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. I guess let's start with the staff could start out by telling us why they believe this is a PZD, what we've been presented. Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission, I am Tim Conklin with the City of Fayetteville. I believe Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner, outlined the PZD process and compared two PZDs that are on your agenda this evening. Let me take a stab at explaining this process and what we are attempting to bring forward to you tonight. The City of Fayetteville is the owner of the property. The City Council earlier this year agreed to sell this property and it is currently under contract with Mr. Haynes. Earlier this summer Mr. Haynes approached the city and talked about changing land use. As we all know land use is regulated through zoning. He talked about developing this 289 acre tract with different land uses. That was the first question that he asked. How do I go about changing the land use or the zoning of this 289 acre tract. It is currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and also has a small area that is zoned RMF - 24, Multi -Family. The second question that Mr. Haynes had for city staff was with regard to how do I establish property lines? Property boundaries for these areas to be developed. As you are aware, we do have a lot split ordinance in the City of Fayetteville. That allows an applicant to split a piece of property three times. Anything beyond three tracts of land is classified as a subdivision. We had two questions, we had changing land use and subdividing property. Last year we adopted an ordinance that allowed the combination of changing land use or zoning and the subdivision of property into one process called the Planned Zoning District. That is what we recommended to Mr. Haynes to bring forward. We asked him to identify how the property would be subdivided and how each of these tracts would be utilized. He has shown a nine lot subdivision with one of the tracts being for the lift station and another tract being for the preservation area. There are a couple of tracts for single- family homes, a multi -family tract and some commercial tracts. What you are considering tonight is a large lot subdivision. Each lot has frontage on a street. Staff is bringing this forward because we are able to set the land use within each of these areas and restrict the types of uses that occur within the preservation area. Mr. Haynes has informed staff that he is working with Audubon and we did include a letter from Audubon in your packet that there was a desire to create this 125 acre area for preservation. We also looked at what uses would be appropriate within that and worked with Mr. Haynes and Audubon to establish that. To answer your question with regard to why is this coming forward to the Planning Commission as a PZD because we are changing land use, we are subdividing the property. That's my response to that question. Hoover: Can I ask a few more questions within that? Conklin: Sure. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 69 Hoover: Typically in a PZD we have the infrastructure delineated. Conklin: This is a 289 acre tract. At this time they are very large tracts. We are not considering the actual development of each of these tracts of land. That is why this PZD is conditioned that each of these tracts after they are split out, subdivided, that they come back through either through a Large Scale Development or subdivision process. I think it would be very difficult to require someone to engineer an entire 289 acre tract of land when at this time he is asking the applicant, Mr. Haynes, is asking to establish where these tracts of land would be located within the 289 acre tract and establishing the land use. Hoover: When they do come back I think that some questions that have come up is are we going to be able to require connectivity or locate where these easements should go? Conklin: That is why also what you are considering this evening are two master street plan amendments. They requested that the master street plan be amended in order to keep the preservation area as a contiguous tract of land as part of this subdivision. What you are considering this evening are the lots that are being created for each of the land uses that have been outlined. Hoover: But we should not be looking at streets, roads, infrastructure? Conklin: Two items on your agenda this evening are Master Street Plan amendments to streets. Hoover: So we are supposed to look at eliminating two master street plan streets but we are not looking at any additional roads? Conklin: At this time the tracts are not being considered for development. They are not being approved for an actual physical development. That will have to come through an additional process through another Preliminary Plat process. It is very similar to other large subdivisions that we've looked at in Fayetteville. Hoover: Would these come in individually or as a group? Conklin: That will be up to the owner of the property. Hoover: I guess my general question here and I'll ask for comments along this line, we have an overall master plan and I'm not understanding how all the pieces fit together at the moment. Conklin: Also shown on that was a concept to help the commission understand how Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 70 the pieces would fit together in the future. That was also something that was submitted. What the request is this evening is a nine lot subdivision and rezoning that is combined as a Planned Zoning District. Ostner: The part where I fall apart is since we are not just rezoning, we are rezoning to a unique once in a lifetime zoning district, we are custom writing the zoning district. Conklin: That's correct, for each of those tracts. Ostner: It is titled PZD 03-08.00. When it comes time for Large Scale Development it will come through and our little packet will say zoning: PZD 03-08.00. I go to this lot number two and it is Use Unit 26, Multi - Family apartment buildings. In the zoning regulations that we have no under RMF -24 I have things like units per acre, lot width minimum, lot area minimum, setbacks. None of that is addressed in that future point when I'm looking at that LSD and I have a unique zoning district. There are only a few ways that we approve or deny Large Scale Developments and the zoning that they come to us with in hand has a lot to do with what we can approve or deny. That's why I don't understand how I'm supposed to look at a Large Scale Development in the future. Tonight, just giving Use Unit 26. Conklin: I will let the applicant respond to that question with regard to the more detailed question that you just asked. Haynes: My name is Collins Haynes, I'm the applicant on this project. I would like to explain a few things if I could. I don't know if my explanation will suffice. We approached the City of Fayetteville with an offer to purchase 289 acres of land. That 289 acres of land was called at the time Wilson Springs or Technology Park or whatever. It was a piece of property that the city had bought probably 12 or 13 years ago that it still had. It had been sitting insitu for that long. We made a proposal to buy it. That proposal was based on two things happening. We were able to develop the property and the property would go through the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval for the anticipated zonings that we would request for the property. Right now the property sits as a singular piece of property, 289 acres zoned one zoning. It has been a source of much contention in the past as to what was wetlands, what's not wetlands. That's a federal issue. That's not my issue. That is something the Corp. of Engineers is going to tell us and confirm what we have on our drawings or not confirm. What you have in front of you now is a concept plan for this site indicating specific areas for specific zoning. We have indicated proposed actual lot lines on these things. Street infrastructure, vehicular transportation corridors and so forth on these individual lots. What the goal is by what we're submitting here is to identify what areas of the site we can use for what different functions. As such, we were told by the city Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 71 that this qualified under the rules and regs for a PZD. As such, we have gone back to the PZD regs and identified anticipated uses of those particular pieces of property within that singular lot. What you are looking at is a 289 acre piece of property that several areas on that site have been identified as to potential uses for commercial, single-family residential and multi -family residential. The reason the lots take the shapes that they do and we have asked for a PZD is that we have been working to try to identify through the application for the 404 and working with the Audubon Society on what area would be best suited for a potential nature center on this site if Audubon was to express interest in doing one. After discussions with the local chapter of Audubon and the state chapter, that area that is shown on the plan as green, which is the anticipated donation area, was designed not by our staff and not by EGIS but by a concerted effort between all three of us to develop a continuous area by which Audubon could get some utility out of the site for a potential nature center. We could develop uses of the part of the property that was not part of that area and come back to you with a PZD that asks for specific zonings for those areas. We have pretty much been I think forth coming in everything we've done. I don't own this property yet. You own this property. The citizens of Fayetteville own it. I made an offer to buy it. My offer was contingent on being able to do something with the property and being able to identify what those uses were that I could develop the property under your zoning ordinances. To me it's not a procedural question. I have an offer and acceptance. It is extremely common, if not normal, for a potential buyer for a piece of property to make that purchase contingent on receiving either rezoning or development plan accepted by the city. That's totally normal. We are here tonight to really present what we consider is a viable alternative to letting the land sit, as I said, insitu. Allowing a combined, concerted effort between a development and a non-profit environmental organization to work together to present what really will be a model project, not just for the city of Fayetteville but for the state of Arkansas and for the Audubon Society in general. This is unique I will tell you. I don't normally develop projects and the first thing out of the gate give half of it away. That's not normal. I knew going into this project that this project had some very environmentally sensitive areas and there was going to be issues. I think we've made a more than fair gesture here. I think we've exceeded what will come back to us as a 404 requirement for wetlands. As such, I ask for consideration of that plan. Also, I'm a little confused on one aspect of this thing too. When we asked for eight big tracts of land and so forth, it would sure simplify my life if the eight big tracts of land were considered not as developed areas as far as me having to develop water, sewer, streets and the rest of my infrastructure design but at least my vehicular access to these sites. It is going to be very difficult for me to purchase the property and develop probably 120 days to 180 days worth of engineering work to even get back to you with these engineered drawings without owning this property. I don't want to own this property until I at least know that the Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 72 concept of vehicular access inside of these individual sites, concept is acceptable at this point. I realize that I don't have detail but I do tell you that that drawing represents what will come back to you as a design development drawing with complete details of the site on it. I hope this works. I'm really excited about the project. I hope that innuendo and so forth about procedure and what could happen and what couldn't happen finally ends and we are able to move forward with something that is good for the city and for our firm. With that, I'll let Joe address some issues. Tarvin: Thank you. I think if I say it again it will be saying it for the third time but you can understand the difficulty of coming to you with a project of this size with the details that it takes to build it when we're not even sure the zoning is going to be accepted or the use, do you understand that? In order for us to assume that you are going to agree with the areas to be commercial that we are showing commercial, for the areas to be residential that we are showing residential and that the densities of the residential will be all approved and go and spend the money and put the efforts it takes into developing detailed construction drawings for all of those facilities assuming you will allow those uses is quite a risk. To come to you with a master plan for development that shows you enough detail for you to see what is in mind so that you know where we're going, you have the road map for the master plan, and yet gives the developer some level of security that when he comes back that you are going to accept it. That enables you to understand what's going on as well as the developer. That's why this procedure has been brought to you this way. There is a big difference in an eight acre PZD and a 269 acre PZD. If I can answer any questions I will try. Hoover: Commissioners, I guess I would like to stick to the question out there is this enough information if there is anymore discussion on that item. Ostner: If I could request a question from our City Attorney, I'm still trying to fast forward in my mind, no offense, not even looking at your project right now. This is our issue. Whitaker: It's a generic question about Planned Zoning Districts? Ostner: Exactly. Whitaker: And your understanding how they work, ok. Ostner: I am imagining looking at an LSD and under zoning it says PZD 03-08.00. I am trying to determine if I like a lot of things. The layout, the drainage, the parking, many of which in the old days I would just look at the zoning regs. I have nothing to look at. How do I approve or deny based on that? I thought that PZD, since it left out verbiage, referred me to a drawing. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 73 Whitaker: I guess I'm not really certain why you are saying you will have nothing to look at because you will have, if I recall correctly, eight specific uses, eight specific parcels with the uses that are acceptable there. That will give you actually a more fine tuned idea than the broad zoning district would have under the previous regime where you would've just had R, or I, or C. Each of these lots as I'm understanding it, have actually had their acceptable uses minimized and customized to each lot. If anything, I think it gives you a much more restrictive view of what would be allowed when they come through for development. My reading of the ordinance is at this point is that what's before you for consideration is a hybrid. Should we recommend the rezoning and is the subdividing of this property under these lots proper? I don't see anything in here that it says at this point that you should have specific development building footprints or infrastructure or anything of that nature. If you see that in there that's fine. I don't see that. It looks to me like what has been presented from the sections of the Planned Zoning District requirements of §161.25 and the procedural §166.06 looks like it is operating the way it's supposed to. I am not sure I'm understanding what your confusion is. Ostner: I don't think I phrased it properly. I am trying to understand, we can look at lot 2 for example. They have called out Use Unit 26, multi -family, which is basically apartments. Here again, in the old days it would have a zoning assignment, it would say RMF -24. If we can fast forward and we're sitting here and they've already got their PZD and they've got their Preliminary Plat and they've got their everything set up. There are only a few ways to turn down a Large Scale Development. With the zoning already in hand those few criteria which are safety, neighborhood compatibility. Whitaker: You are not constrained by those necessarily. If I can direct your attention to § 161.25 F, that starts talking about residential density, lot and area yard requirements. I think what's happening here is the very essence of the PZD, the concept, the theory behind adopting this was the very flexibility it gives you and staff and developers to look at these things as they come and look at specific things when it comes back through if you feel at that time that the specifics are being brought to you for that lot don't meet the requirements of the PZD or any of the other development requirements then at that time you can object and say this doesn't meet the requirements. Haynes: This is not going to come back to you in the next step as a Large Scale Development plan. The next step for us is to give you a subdivision plan of each one of these individual lots. The lots will have numbers, dimensions, acreages shown, they will have utilities shown and so forth. Each individual lot, as it is developed, will come back as an individual Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 74 Large Scale Development plan to you. The PZD, if we can put that over here for a minute, this is essentially a rezoning of a lot into multiple zonings. I don't know, to me it is that simplistic, maybe it shouldn't be. I have a big piece of land here. This is an enormous piece of property, it is almost 300 acres. We are giving up 125 acres to a conservation easement for lack of a better word, in the center of it. That conservation easement is determining a meets and bounds of my property that I have left over. I have to determine a use for that property that is left. The property that becomes the negative in my space here. By doing that I have to go back to you now and say this property is zoned Industrial now. I don't want it Industrial, I want it something that I can develop. By defining the area within my site that I am going to give either to Audubon or another group then I come out with residual space that has to have a zoning. PZD was the vehicle by which I bring that back to you to give a zoning so that I can use it. This is not Large Scale, this is simply put, a definition. These pieces of property have meets and bounds on them. They are actually described with acreages. Those acreages hold in tact as subdividable areas that I will take back, engineer, and subdivide and furnish you streets, water, sewer, infrastructure, mitigation efforts. The things that Fran was talking about. How we are going to deal with storm water runoff. All of those things will come back as these are submitted but I can't utilize the land now zoned industrial and do a singular project in the middle of this site. It just won't happen. In keeping with what I felt were the wishes of the community, both from the economic standpoint and the environmental standpoint, we came up with a plan allocating an area within the site, almost half the site, as a conservation easement back to an environmental concern group. Ken Smith is here tonight from Audubon to speak to that. So develop and leave out the subdividable areas and ask you to allow me to get this zoning approved by the Planning Commission so my next step was to go to the City Council and then ask them if they will hold and approve that same zoning. That allows me to come back to these guys. I am not an engineer, I'm an architect. These guys engineer these individual subdivisions for me and provide all the documentation necessary for staff to give me approval as a subdivision. The individual lots come back as they may to you as Large Scale Developments, single family houses, whatever. I didn't mean to jump in but it just seems very pragmatic to me to say it the right way. Ostner: I appreciate it. It seems like a rezoning to me. It seems perfectly thinkable to do a multi -rezoning. That's where I don't see the Planned Zoning District. I see a multiple rezoning, I see the use units, it's terrific. We are getting an idea of what you all want. The difference to me is in the Planned Zoning District as some people have said, we get a much more intense idea. We almost get a Large Scale Development. This is way too big for that, I'm not asking for that. That's where since we are doing a custom zone I don't feel secure giving a custom zone without any Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 75 drawings. If this were a multifaceted rezoning I would almost feel like we had more to work with when it came time for subdivision and Large Scale Development. This isn't your fault. This is a new process to us and maybe I'm just not understanding. Tarvin: Is your concern individual setback requirements, densities, what is your main concern? Ostner: Yes. Anthes: Yes. Ostner: Parking, drainage is going to be very unique. Tarvin: Let me address each of those individually if I may. As far as densities go, the densities that are proposed at this time, I'll just go down the list. Lot 2, 18 units per acre; lot 3 two units per acre; lot 5 two units per acre; lot 4 four units per acre; then you can see the lots on five and three that I just told you what they are. The commercial areas are divided up and you can see the size of the lots. As far as setback requirements go it is my understanding in the PZD ordinance that those things are all set by the PZD, they are not set by other ordinances. Ostner: Which we would do tonight? Tarvin: You would have an opportunity to look at when we come back. Ostner: I don't understand it that way. Whitaker: That's the way it's written. Ostner: When it comes back we would determine it? Whitaker: What they have done here in conjunction of asking for a subdivision and a rezoning, is they have also submitted voluminous paperwork guarantees, promises, covenants, assurances and I believe that's exactly what the PZD ordinance speaks of. It doesn't necessarily speak of specific plans. It says each rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district with distinct boundaries and specific design and development standards, not specific design and development. It goes on to say each district shall be assigned a project number or label along with the designation PZD. The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan and development standards, not specific development. You just haven't seen the whole thing yet. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 76 Tarvin: That's right. As far as the details as far as the drainage plan, the street design, the water and the sewer, those are all conditions of your approval that those will all be in accordance with other city ordinances. The street widths, the drainage report, all of that has to come back as part of the regulations that you already have. Ostner: If I am understanding it correctly, when the Large Scale Development... Tarvin: It will be a Preliminary Plat for the single -families and it will be Large Scale Developments for the commercial and multi -family. Ostner: Right. When that comes back through let's just imagine for example on the commercial they have a building setback 50' from the road and as a Commission and as a city it just seems better if that building is brought up to a zero setback, in my experience that flexibility is available tonight, not at the subdivision process. Whitaker: It is going to remain a PZD throughout the entire process. Ostner: Right. Whitaker: As long as it does it is subject to all of the provisions of the PZD ordinance which speaks of flexibility in setbacks and in building heights and in densities, etc. What you are doing tonight wouldn't be the end of any process, it is the front end, it is the beginning, it is the opening chorus in how to do a very large PZD. It is by no means you saying go forth and do whatever you please. It is the beginning of a long process, a very long process. Ostner: Ok, I didn't know that. Hoover: Can you just repeat that again one more time? Whitaker: Which part? Hoover: That part about when they come back we are going to refer back to the PZD ordinance. Whitaker: If you recommend it and Council concurs and it becomes a PZD it will remain a PZD until dooms day or subsequent action of the Council to change it. That means that it will thence forth be a PZD and subject to all of the PZD regulations, both process oriented in the one section and sustentative in the other section. This was bound to happen. This is a radically new way of looking at this process. Yes, there are parts that are like this and there are parts that are reminiscent of that but it is really a Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 77 different animal and it is when you actually have to do a few that you start seeing how different and the ups and down in flexibility. Hoover: Thank you. Anthes: Mr. Whitaker, I guess what we're all struggling with is once you grant the rezoning that is sort of like the big enchilada in a lot of ways. What we are being asked is to look at this. The other few PZDs that have come before us have very specific plans attached and we understood what we were getting. We understood what we were approving, we knew that once we approved it we had the assurance that they were going to build exactly what we saw on the paper. I understand that this is different. I guess what I would like to know is from what you just said it seems like what you are telling us is that we are not giving away anything that we will no longer have the right to question tonight when it comes back. Is that true and if not, what are we limiting ourselves to in terms of our requests on the applicant in the future? Whitaker: To clarify something, your action as far as the rezoning goes will be a recommendation one way or the other to the Council. Yes, those specific lots would then have the proposed restrictions on them as far as use units. When and if the Council concurs with your recommendation one way or the other if they were to approve it yes, the zoning map would then change and each of these lots would have the specific use unit restrictions placed upon them. That would stay the same. The specifics when it comes down to it when specific projects are brought in and my understanding from what I've heard tonight is that the next step from this particular one is more in line of what you would expect to see in the subdivision process. If these lots are split off in the configuration that they are requesting and if each of them is given the specific kind of custom made zoning that they are asking for tonight then that is enough assurance for the developer to then spend the next big chunk of money and say ok, where are we going to put the roads? What kind of building do we want to put here in our overall visual scheme and our internal traffic scheme, etc.? That is what you will be seeing next. Those things you would then have to approve when they get here. You are not giving a blank check at this point. Tarvin: If I may, let me add to that. I sense that some of the concern that you have is if we approve this we don't know what we're approving. If you will look on sheet one and if you go to sheet three, sheet three has the same information as sheet three, it is just that it has the conservation area colored green and it makes it a little bit easier to see the development. These street layouts that you see as Mr. Haynes said a while ago, are what we are going to propose to you and these lots that you see here, you will notice that the areas are calculated to the nearest hundredth of an acre. You see what we are going to come back with. If you can also understand Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 78 though that the design standards will be in accordance with city ordinances. Anthes: I find it easier actually to say tonight that we are looking at the basic use units that are assigned to these parcels and that we are not actually approving the street patterns shown on this plan tonight because that is a whole other level of discussion. It sounds to me like you are actually asking us to approve the connectivity and street patterns this evening. Haynes: The issue to me is very simplistic. In order to establish, number one, the conservation area we have to alter your Master Street Plan two times in order for that conservation area to happen the way it is drawn here. This conservation area was delineated in concert with the Audubon Society working in our office to come up with this layout. What we are asking for is that the Master Street Plan be modified twice to allow this interior street plan to take its place. If this happens you've got to replace it with something. I am not asking for approval of street details, curb and gutter, drainage, nothing. I can't design and avoid. In other words, if I have a piece of land that is 20 acres and it is a big square, I can't engineer that. I have to know where my lots are, where my streets are. I am not asking you to approve this drawing other than in concept. That's it. This is not an engineering submittal. This is a model by which we can get particular areas of this site rezoned to a new zoning and propose what they will be used for by the use units we've identified with these areas. What I did looking ahead two steps is I said if I am going to cut their streets off and I don't show them how I'm going to get from A to B they won't approve it so I designed with the engineers the street patterns within the individual lots. Hopefully what I was going to get tonight was an approval whether we call it a PZD or a shooting star, I don't care, it was a rezoning of the 289 acres and the individual lots shown on this document with the zonings that we request and as a concept only at this point, the interior circulation patterns of each one of those lots. That is concept only. What that allows me to do as potential owner of this piece of property is to take that to the City Council next Tuesday. If the City Council votes to accept it then I am the owner of the property. The risk is mine at that point. I come back to you over the next 90 to 120 days because it will take that long to develop the engineering documents on this. It is a huge site. I will come back with streets, water, sewer, everything imaginable. Right now we've got Southwestern Bell pounding on our door, where are your lots, how can we serve the area? They want to bring this fiber hot again.. They are anxious. Audubon is anxious to work with us now on helping us write covenants for the residential areas so that we don't what Fran is talking about, pesticides, herbicides coming into the area. In order for me to get to that next step I am suggesting a rezoning and a concept only of my vehicular patterns within those zoning areas. That's it. What I am going on here and by the way, again, you have a great staff here. They are the Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 79 professionals. They are the ones that are working this PZD. They told me that was an available choice to present this. I did that. I believe that they are correct on that so that is what I did. To me, it is a concept that you really have to look at with an individual application. Whether it is 300 acres or whether it is 8 acres it is still the same thing. Eight acres you get a hell of a lot more detail than you are going to get on 300 acres, I can tell you, that's what will happen. That being said. Anthes: Mr. Pate in our packet included a letter that he wrote to you about a lot of the issues regarding the circulation and vehicular patterns. I believe there were about 14. There were numerous points in the letter. With Attorney Whitaker's comments I am a lot more comfortable with what it is that we are doing in terms of looking at the use units for this. I think we are going to need a lot more discussion and looking at all of those points to understand about approving, even in concept, your internal vehicular patterns. Haynes: That's fine. The logical step tonight, as I was told, was to come in front of you and to show as much detail as possible so that you were able to evaluate what the ultimate intended use of these individual parcels were. If tonight if the PZD and what I was told the PZD would warrant tonight is the rezoning of these individual parcels to this new zoning, I'm good with that. Anthes: You are good with that if you can get that far? Haynes: Oh yeah. This is what you do, this is what I do. Shackelford: I just wanted to go back and address, you asked the question specifically do we have enough information to proceed and you wanted some feedback on that. We've heard a lot of feedback and I thought I would go ahead and throw my two cents in at this point. One thing that I keep going back to is that each one of these lots are going to come back before us as either a Large Scale Development or a subdivision. With that being said, they are going to be required to be subject to all city ordinances as they read now. My understanding after listening to Mr. Whitaker's comments and everybody else's comments, that whether it comes in as a PZD or as a specific normal zoning there is no lessening of the burden as far as requirements for setbacks, easements, any sort of development requirements because it is coming as a PZD verses in as a traditional zoning. If I am incorrect in that somebody please correct me. My understanding is that if anything this is just an additional layer on top of the other requirements that we have had on those given specific zoning issues. We are not, if anything, we are not looking at lessening the burden on the developer going forward on these lots, if anything we are setting another layer of guidelines that they are going to have to meet. They are Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 80 going to have to meet the PZD as the ordinance reads and then on top of that they are going to have to meet the ordinances that are stated as far as specific development requirements as well. Is that incorrect? Haynes: No, that is correct. One thing as a quick example, commercial, if you go to the zoning book there are probably 150 uses that you can use in commercial. We have identified six. That's it, that's all we are going to do. It is a much closer descriptive of what the property's final use will be than you have with a blanket zoning. That is where I think the PZD is a great benefit. Bunch: I think one of the problems we are looking at here is we are getting multiple levels simultaneously. You are telling us concept, Commissioners are asking specific questions because of their past experience with other PZDs and your engineer is giving specific examples saying we have lots designed down to the hundredth of an acre and people are going wait a minute, which one is it? Are we looking at a Preliminary Plat PZD or are we looking at a Large Scale Development type PZD? One of you is telling us one thing and one is telling us the other thing. Haynes: The burden of proof would be on me as the submitter because the two key issues here tonight are amending the Master Street Plan and getting it rezoned. Those two issues require more than a sketch to get that done. I have been running the engine full boar to get to this point. If I get zoning and amended Master Street Plan for this area I'm done. I take it to City Council, the City Council approves it, I come back with subdivision plans, everything that you get in the process of the City of Fayetteville will be returned by our firm to you. You are right, there are a lot of lines on paper here but trust me, there is a lot of money at stake. Bunch: Yes, I understand that and I understand the concept of the risk. I was on the committee that helped draw up the PZD. The idea and what we used to sell the PZD ordinance was that the risk would be assumed by the developer and that was the reason for bringing the rezoning request and the development plans through simultaneously. The previous procedure was to bring a rezoning request through, often times they failed because there could not be the proper guarantees on what was happening and people in the community said we don't want to give a blank check. The PZD was developed. We have had very little opportunity to use it and to find out how poor of job we did at writing it or how good of a job we did at writing it. Haynes: The PZD as I see it is almost a morph shape that you can take, push, or pull back and keep modeling. It is actually a great vehicle for a developer to utilize to really find the true concept of the property whether it be as small as 5 acres or as big as 1,000 acres, it still works. That is the Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 81 difference in it and say a PUD, which other cities have. It is a much more specific ordinance than the other ordinances in other municipalities are that I've dealt with. It is much more of a metro approach than it is a small city approach. Bunch: Right. The way ours is written it is a zoning district by itself. It does not have elements of I-1, C-2 or anything like that. It is a district by itself. That was our intent. However, and there are no lot lines or setbacks or anything like that, they are only recommended. I think if I read the language correctly it is a recommendation and that is what is giving some of the consternation to the Commission is that we are supposed to set those types of things as we approve the PZD because there are, when you start calling out use units there are no setbacks, there are no rules. We are supposed to establish, in conjunction with city staff and with the developer and subject to City Council approval we are supposed to establish those based on our existing ordinances. Haynes: We expect scrutiny. We expect scrutiny not only from governmental organizations but from financial institutions for potential users. I guess this project due to the legacy of this project it comes under even more scrutiny. I am not here to tell you today that I am expecting any windfall out of this project. The notion keeps coming up that he is in it for the money, he is in it for this and he is in it for that. This project has turned into something that is worth doing just to do it to be very honest with you. It is going to make some money. It is not going to make near what other projects make. This project I think is a classic example of something that will work with a developer and an environmental concerns group working hand in hand from the conception rather than the developer giving them the drags at the end of the project and saying here, you go do something with it. They've agreed to come in early stages with us and co develop this project from the beginning, which I think is truly unique. Bunch: What I am looking at here is that we are getting an information overload that the request for what you want to do is submitted to us on a drawing that is cluttered up with what should be on other drawings. It should be that this is the additional information that I'm giving you to show you my dedication, to fill out a few more details of my concept. Haynes: Again, being the realist, you are not going to allow me to modify your street plan unless I show you how I'm going to get from there to there. Bunch: The basic thing that you are asking for cannot be seen on this drawing without putting a microscope on it. In other words, a Preliminary Plat PZD each lot is supposed to have utilities, it is supposed to have access. I can't really tell if those conditions are met on this drawing because there are so many other things on here that is wonderful information and helps Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 82 us look at the overall picture. We don't have the very basic PZD readily apparent. Haynes: Keep in mind, this is a hyper site. You have got a lot of stuff going on here. You've got another engineering firm you hire to do a boundary on this thing which gave us an overload of information on what's going on. It is covered in easements, covered in easements. Just the fact that it closed is a miracle in itself. You have got that going on and then you have got other areas on the site that you want me to come back and now I've got Southwestern Bell in the middle of the site that can't find engineering drawings, where the hell is their stuff? Nobody knows so I'm dealing with that. Then you've got right of way dedication so what I've done is I've come back and if you will look at sheet number two, it is the most simplistic sheet you will find. Bunch: If this were looked at like a simple subdivision of land. Haynes: That's as simple as it gets right there. Bunch: Ok, where is access to lot seven? It's a simple subdivision of land, if you are not worrying about all of the wetlands or any of this kind of stuff and say somebody was going to buy lot 7, where do you get utilities to it, where do you drive up to it? Tarvin: It is shown on sheet one. Bunch: I am trying to look past all of the complications here and get down to a simple drawing with a simple line for each lot and shows where each lot has access just like we were doing a lot split or a simple subdivision of land. Haynes: There is a dedicated right of way shown on the sheet prior. That piece of property that the right of way is on is not part of what you are zoning. Bunch: Who owns that property that the dedicated right of way is on to lot 7? Tarvin: The City of Fayetteville owns lot 7 right now. Bunch: But you are showing the access to it is coming across from Truckers Drive, is that correct? Haynes: It is coming across me, yeah. Bunch: Do you own that land on either side of Truckers Drive? Haynes: Not either side, no. The side where your road is, yes. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 83 Bunch: From Truckers Drive to lot 7 and from Truckers Drive to lot 6, how do you get there? How can you drive a car through there? Haynes: Truckers Drive goes all the way to the back to lot 6. It dead ends at that point. There is actually a fence post back there and a gate in it. Bunch: I can't tell from this drawing if it is the proposed turn out that goes to the north or it doesn't show me where existing is. If it is going across somebody else's property. Haynes: No we're not. I'm having a hard time with not viewing this as a very simplistic, this is a rezoning issue right now is all it is. Bunch: I'm trying to look at it that way and I'm trying to say ok, let's get it down as simple as we can, how do you get to lot 7? Haynes: Truckers Drive goes to lot 6. Bunch: How do you get from lot 6 to lot 7? Haynes: I own the property that you are transversing to get to lot 7 already. You don't own that. Bunch: Will somebody show me this on a drawing? Haynes: You own from here up. Bunch: That's what I've been asking you, if you owned it on either side of Truckers. Haynes: I don't own it on either side, just the south side. Bunch: Ok, so this right here you are dedicating across your property and that is described in the documents? Haynes: Yes. Bunch: Ok, that simplifies it a lot, thank you. Hoover: Were you done Commissioner Bunch for the moment? Bunch: For the moment yes. Allen: I was just going to say that I think that a lot of our anxiety here is that the PZD is new to all of us and because this is such a significant piece of land Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 84 in terms of size and controversy in our community. We are just trying to make sure that we are not letting go completely of something before we've done everything that we can do right. I wanted to ask David when he was talking about the flexibilities of a PZD in terms of some of them being down, maybe you could explain to the Commission what you see as being the down side of the PZD? Whitaker: Not of the PZD but of the whole concept of the PZD and this is just a generalized statement and not in anyway in offense of this PZD or the PZD ordinance. Anytime in a process regulation when you attempt to introduce flexibility, you necessarily have stepped away from rigidity which means you have divorced yourself from some nice list, A, B, C, D, check, check, check, they did all five, pass or wait a minute, they only did three, reject. When you bring in flexibility into any regulatory scheme you then give up some of that predictability. I understand that's a concern. That's a tradeoff between flexibility and predictability. If you did this and said ok, I'm coming in and I want this half of the 200 some acres to be commercial and this half to be residential well we would use the old formula and that would seem familiar and easy enough to us. Then we could come forward later and say well, I need to go ahead and cut it into eight pieces. We put that into the old traditional subdivision tract and we would be comfortable with that too because we know all the parameters there too. My comment about a down side to it is that yes, you lose some of that predictability when you introduce more flexibility into a process regulation. Hoover: Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: Commissioner Bunch, since you spoke earlier about the fact that you were part of the group that wrote the PZD and you see one of the requirements being as part of the PZD that we specifically set the setbacks, density, that sort of thing as part of a PZD, when you guys were looking at this did you anticipate that being done at this point whenever a PZD comes forward that we set all parameters or did you look at it as ok, we are going to set this as a PZD knowing this piece is going to come back to us, we want to regain the ability or maintain the ability to set those specifics either in our LSD or a subdivision type setting? Bunch: That's a real good question Commissioner Shackelford. Shackelford: I may be over simplifying it here but I view it as we're putting in place, and I don't want to go on forever about this, but as a citizen of Fayetteville I love this concept. This is property that we own. We have two choices, we either sell it as an industrial zoned property with little value or we give the developer some bill of assurance that he is going to be able to do what Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 85 he wants to and the city is going to maximize the value that they receive for this property. Bunch: There is another choice, we could keep it and keep doing what we're doing. Shackelford: Answer my original question. When you guys sat down to do this and put this in place for both sellers and developers of property to use in our city to better define the overall development process did you intend for the specifics of a PZD to be set at this point or would they be addressed more in a Large Scale or subdivision setting? Bunch: First off, we did not write it. We proposed it to the City Council and through their Ordinance Review Committee wrote the ordinance. Shackelford: Unfortunately they are not here so I'm asking you. Bunch: I cannot speak for them. Our intent as we reviewed it was to build as much flexibility in as possible. My understanding at the time that we did it if we did a Preliminary Plat type PZD then we could say that we would come back later and put some of these things in. It is just that most of the ones and the way that we sold it was that it would give community and the developers time to get together and have meetings and to discuss the various wants, needs and desires through a series of meetings and to put this into a proposal and to bring through a development simultaneously with the rezoning request. Knowing that the risk is in doing the engineering up front. The other alternative was to come through with a rezoning request, take your chances on whether it gets voted up or down and then come back and do the engineering if the request was granted, which extended time. The purpose of a PZD was to save an awful lot of time knowing it was a bigger roll of the dice. There are a lot more risks, a lot more engineering had to be done up front. As far as having a Preliminary Plat type PZD, which is what this is, I'm really comfortable with the concept, I just want to be able to break that out so it is easier to see and for people to grasp and to understand. As it comes through people have to understand that there needs to be a statement that says all of these things have to come back through. This next layer will be applied at the next round. There is no guarantee at this time for the developer instead of everything coming through at once and he knows exactly where he is it could come through in concept just hypothetically if it were to run through just like it is and it could come back through and it could get hung up because people could say we're not going to agree on those setbacks, we are not going to agree on that interconnectivity, we think those easements ought to be somewhere else. Just because as it is presented tonight, if it goes through like this it is not nailed down. All this is is a lot split and an assignment of use units. It is almost like it is a PZD in stages is the way it Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 86 has been presented. What I want to know from the developer are you comfortable spending the money to bring it through knowing that it may not be as tied down as you think it is. You think you're getting assurance but you're not. Haynes: No, I'm getting zoning. Bunch: You are only getting one zone. Haynes: The individual parcels are assigned uses. I'm cool with that. Actually, that's even better than getting them individually zoned. Shackelford: That's what I'm trying to get to because I think we are operating somewhat in good faith here. We've got full disclosure with the developer, this is what we anticipate, this is what we want to see happen. I've got a lot of confidence in our staff. I think our staff does a great job. I don't think they are going to come back before this group, before the City Council, before the citizens of Fayetteville and recommend anything that is a detriment or less than what we would expect to see this development be. I'm struggling with why we are talking about what we're giving up, what flexibility we're giving up, what hammer if you will, that we're giving up that we can swing to get this thing where we want it. First of all, the city staff is going to have recommendations. They do a very good job in protecting the citizens of Fayetteville by enforcing their recommendations. Second of all, us as a Planning Commission will have another chance to look at this and see if their recommendations are in line with what our anticipations were. I think that we've had a lot of conversation about how this PZD is a blank check to the developer. I don't see it that way at all. I think it is an operation in good faith that this is the parameters in which we anticipate you are going to develop the property oh by the way, the city staff and the Planning Commission is still going to get another crack at this deal to make sure it's what the citizens of Fayetteville want. Haynes: The way I look at it is you are going to ask for somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million dollars from me to take this property down. I'm not going to give you 5 million dollars unless I know that my PZD, you've approved it and the Council has approved it. That identifies to me immediately what I can use the property for, what I'm going to be faced with as far as regulations and hurdles. You are no different than Rogers or Bentonville or anywhere else. It is the same thing. This is no tougher than doing something somewhere else. If anything, it makes it more simplistic as trying to do an economic model of the project because I know where I'm going to have to be. The only variable here for me is the wetlands issue. I've got to get a 404. That is my burden. I've filed for it, it is forth coming, I don't know when but it will come through. It will be either Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 87 what we say it is or it will be different. It is a federal decision. It is not a local, state or personal decision. It is somebody else going to tell me that. I'm good with that, I'm good with the PZD. The one thing I would like to do though is I would like to have someone come up here and reiterate the issues behind the delineation of these particular zones. This is not something I pulled out of the air. This is not something that is just a line on paper. Ken, would you come up here and maybe Don. We had almost a blank canvas when we looked at this thing because if you trace the history of the job or the project you go from 8 acres of wetlands to 70 acres to 89 acres, 160, 180, there is this number floating in the sky. We worked with this organization to come up with what we thought would be the best way to utilize what was the minimum and then add to it to add to his future goals for the site. I will let you talk. Smith: Hello, my name is Ken Smith, I'm the state director of Audubon. Of course we began looking at this piece of property over two years ago with Don Nelms, who is my board chairman who is here tonight. We've gone through quite a bit of time, spent a lot of time looking at the property, talking with the city about it. Of course I find myself here tonight looking at a project for which we, Audubon, see some opportunity to establish a Audubon nature center in Northwest Arkansas. We began essentially with nothing in our first conversations with the city. Essentially, that is where we started with when the city made the decision to pursue selling the property with a potential developer in Northwest Arkansas. We started from zero. The zero has grown to 120 acres more or less. What was important to Audubon from the beginning, as Collins said, a lot of the development on the edges have been shaped by what we felt was essential in the center. What was essential to us in the center was a contiguous area. To the best of Audubon's ability and the fact that we had very little leverage on this project from the past two years ago to the present is we asked for a contiguous area. The contiguous area mostly composes of the so called wetland areas that have been discussed more or less in the past. The second thing that we wanted to see was corridors, protective corridors for migration of wildlife, birds, small mammals, fish, reptiles, etc. to the adjacent property to the north and to adjacent property to the west, that that was important. In a letter of support that we sent dated August 10, to Mr. Haynes, those were the first two things that we asked for was contiguous property and then corridors to the north and west. The third important thing that we asked for in this if we are dealing with this and the need for a contiguous piece of property with corridors, migration corridors to the north and west, we didn't want to see that habitat fragmented with roads so we asked that there be no roads that would fragment further the contiguous piece of property that we are striving for. Fragmentation of habitat is very, very important and I am a biologist by training and ecologist and have been working at this profession for 25 years more or less. I know the detrimental impact when you fragment wildlife habitat Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 88 and that has been a concern of mine from the beginning. We have really tried to keep the habitat from being fragmented and tried to maintain a large enough size that we could attract and hold wildlife species. The fifth point here I believe was that the adjacent habitat or adjacent development had to be, or should be, designed in a way that would not further cause detrimental impacts to the contiguous piece of wildlife habitat. I understand that's still to be resolved through the bill of assurances that we would be working with Mr. Haynes and his engineers on and this is where Audubon really needs to spend a lot of time and effort working with the developer on the bill of assurances to make sure that some of the basic things that we need such as storm water, retention basins, storm water protection concerns that Fran mentioned earlier, we are somewhat concerned or very concerned about the use of pesticides or herbicides on adjacent properties, what affect that could have on the property. We are also concerned about lights, night lights. We would like the area to emphasize state of the art lighting directed toward the ground that would maintain as dark of an area within the natural area as possible. That was an important issue for us too. The last issue had to do with a sufficient site for us to build on. We did not want to build on wetlands and violate our own principals. We want to be above the wetlands so we have asked for land along Shiloh Drive that can be used for a future Audubon Center. The vast majority of the things that we have asked for in our conversations with Mr. Haynes and his engineer have materialized. To say that we are completely satisfied with the present configuration, maybe not completely satisfied. As you remember, we asked for more than 200 acres from the city about a year ago. We're not there. My nature center planners who work out of Springfield, Missouri who work out of Sacramento, California, who work out of Austin, Texas, have assured me that we can have a viable Audubon Nature Center on a configuration of 120 acres more or less. That's where we are today contingent upon these other factors that were addressed in our letter remain vital. That is a concentrated acreage with little or no fragmentation, protective wildlife corridors to the west and the north that would link up to other city properties or Audubon properties in the present or near future. That there would not be any roads that would criss cross, bypass, dissect the Audubon nature center area, that's extremely important. That the adjacent development is not to the size and extent or using methods that would impact the Audubon Nature Center in the present or in the future. That's where we find ourselves today. With that said, we submitted a letter of support with this application that said we would be interested and consider taking ownership of all or parts of the balance of the undeveloped land. This is all dependent upon approval of my state board headed up by Don Nelms and by my National Audubon Society Board of Directors that represents the entire country. That is the essence of my thoughts and comments to you tonight. I really wanted to wait until now or later should you have questions of me or of Mr. Nelms. We are here to answer any Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 89 questions regarding the integrity of this piece of property that we are concerned about and what we see as being possible uses of this in the future. Thanks a lot. Hoover: Do we have any questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you. MOTION: Anthes: I am getting more comfortable with this now that we have had this discussion. I appreciate everybody sitting through this with us, it is new to us. As I understand it, we have a PZD process that allows incremental approvals of things so tonight we would be looking at basic tracts and use units only and then we can go in and that implies no approvals of anything until we look at that level like setbacks, density, etc., etc. Until those are approved and become part of the PZD record they are completely open for discussion. With that said, I would like to move to recommend ADM 03- 24.00 amendment of the adopted Master Street Plan to remove Technology Blvd., and forward it to the City Council. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes for ADM 03-24.00, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion on this Administrative item? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 03-24.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0 with Commissioner Vaught abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 90 Hoover: Item number ten, ADM 03-25.00, is there a motion for that? MOTION: Anthes: I move that we recommend ADM 03-25.00 amendment of the Master Street Plan to remove the westward extension of Truckers Drive and forward it to the City Council. Hoover: I think this one is Technology Blvd. Anthes: Sorry, wrong side of the sheet. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Anthes for ADM 03-25.00. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 03-25.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Vaught abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 91 Hoover: Item eleven, PZD 03-08.00, do we have a motion? MOTION: Shackelford: Based on the conversations and the multiple angles that we've looked at this knowing that we are basically taking approval steps a little at a time, we will be looking at this again. I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council of C-PZD 03-08.00. Hoover: We have a motion, is there a second? Church: I will second it. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Church, is there discussion? Bunch: Some questions for the City Attorney or the designated representative of the City Attorney. On the conditions of approval, item six, each respective lot designated in C-PZD shall be reviewed by Preliminary Plat and/or Large Scale Development in accordance with city codes for future development. Could you explain to us, also requiring Planning Commission approval, legally what is that saying as far as what is city code since we know that a PZD can be rather flexible and open, what is that language telling us in that condition of approval? Whitaker: It says that you are going to have to come back and that based on the review that you are going to subject each of your lots to are those set forth under Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development as the case may be. Bunch: They will be set forth as use units. Heretofore we have looked at zonings with use units that can be in different zonings and a particular use unit 8 could be in several different zonings and in each of those zonings might have criteria applied to it. Just for the record, could you tell us exactly what process we will go through to determine the specifics for city code of these various use units that are ill defined now because they are in a PZD zone, they are not in a C-1, C-2, I-1 or whatever? Whitaker: Yes, but I can tell you that the PZD ordinance does give broad guidelines on when you look at the commercial component of even if it were an R- PZD it could have a commercial component and it says this is how you will look at that and then for a C-PZD it then goes and talks about things, residential considerations in those things. You hit the nail on the head. It is a hybrid. You are going to have to look at the use unit that that lot that you are recommending be allowed for that lot and then restrict. It's not really different than saying ok, it is C-2 except there are a whole lot of things that you can do in a C-2 that you are not going to be able to do on these lots. In the PZD process the developer has already sacrificed those Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 92 and said ok, here is a more specific. We will drill down to another level of detail and here is the only thing. I don't think that necessarily changes the overall process. I think it just gives you a much more specific limitation on what can be brought to you in that LSD for that Preliminary Plat. Bunch: One of the things that is a danger that I see in this is that it becomes very arbitrary that these are guidelines and they are broad based but there can be zero lot lines, there can be zero setbacks and that sort of thing. It may not fly and everybody may get tarred and feathered for doing it but it is within the realm of possibility. Whitaker: It is, if in the considered opinion of this body and the City Council those zero lot lines, etc., etc., that you mentioned best achieve the goals of the PZD ordinance. You wanted flexibility, you got it. Bunch: Yes, the flexibility is there and it is an awesome responsibility and it also is an awesome responsibility for the developer and the community to coordinate and to communicate and for the Planning Commission and the City Council to take those presentations and run with them. It is not going to be an easy process. Whitaker: It is an entirely different mindset, it is an entirely different relationship. Unlike traditional approval scheme was more adversarial where an applicant came, requested/demanded that the body do X,Y,or Z. The PZD actually requires a give and take relationship where the government and the applicant are partners in the development process. I think that's a better way to look at it. Not every partner always agree with the other partners so there will be times, and certainly in a lot of partnerships one partner has a little bit more humph than the other as far as what the final say on things are but it is a very different way of looking at the development process and I think all of us are trying to get a handle on that. Bunch: I have a couple more for staff. On item five of the conditions of approval, on and off site improvements shall be coordinated with lot development, is that specific to these nine lots as presented in this plat? When do off site improvements have to be done, as each lot comes through to develop or since this is a PZD when do we widen Moore Lane, when do we widen Deane Solomon Road and that sort of thing? What does number five condition of approval tell us about that at what time do these things occur? Warrick: When the amount and nature of the development merits or demands the type of improvements that you are talking about Planning staff and the Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation, and a requirement in your case, to have those improvements applied to whichever project it is appropriate for. We are looking at new projects coming forward in the form of a Large Scale Development or Preliminary Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 93 Plat depending upon the impact of that project we will necessarily attach certain on and off site improvements. Just as we do for any standard subdivision or Large Scale that we look at. Based on that development proposal the impact of that development, those improvements would be applied at that time. Bunch: According to item three of the conditions of approval where it talks about a Final Plat and then sale and/or development review of lots. Theoretically a Final Plat could be turned in that all it is showing is that it is divided up into nine pieces of ground. At that time that shows no demand for anything to be done. Then as those lots are sold and developed theoretically. Warrick: The demand is created through those development requests. Bunch: If we have nine different owners. Warrick: Potentially. Bunch: Then are we looking at piece mill work on the various off site improvements rather than looking to one developer which is what you normally would do with a PZD to do the off site improvements? Warrick: I don't know that you would normally have a 300 acre PZD. That is unique. Normally we would be looking at development of a tract of land that is more in tune with one of the sizes of lots that this overall tract is being broke out into. In that regard, we would be looking at a relatively large development, either a single-family subdivision or a large commercial subdivision or multi -family development and based on the amount of traffic generated the amount of impact of that development, certain on and off site improvements would be made necessary and we would apply them and make recommendations for them to be required at the time that the development is being requested for approval. Bunch: What relationship will lot number eight have in this process since it will not be developed? How will we go about discounting the impact of lot 8? If you look at frontage on the various roads I don't want to get into a finger pointing contest at some point in time that says well, we just have this little bit of frontage over here because of the way that everything is laid out and the Audubon Society has all of this big frontage, look at them to do the improvements. How does that wind up being accommodated? Warrick: Again, the amount of improvement and the type of improvement is required to be based on the impact of the project. If there is no development then that project, or that parcel, is not making an impact on the infrastructure. The adjacent parcels very well may have a large impact Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 94 on the adjacent infrastructure and staff will need to develop some formulas and some methodology for the application of improvements on this overall property and how to allocate that to the various projects. Bunch: Thank you. I just wanted to have these issues brought up and on public record because it is a considerable concern when you have land that is dedicated to be preserved and it has in holdings so to speak and borders of land that is to be developed. It is a meticulous question as to which group will bear the responsibility of the various improvements. Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? I believe we have a motion and a second. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward C-PZD 03-08.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Vaught abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 95 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby, pp 560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west side of Razorback Rd. between Baum Stadium and the State Revenue office. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, and contains approximately 8.79 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential PZD (Planned Zoning District) to allow for the construction of 112 Multi -family residential units with 168 bedrooms and 168 parking spaces and 15,400 sq.ft. of office/retail space with 57 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Item number twelve on the agenda is R-PZD 03-04.00 for Lazenby for property on west Razorback Road. Pate: This project was submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west side of Razorback Road between Baum Stadium and the State Revenue Office. The property currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 8.79 acres. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Large Scale Development approval for a mixed use development within a R-PZD zoning district. The majority of the proposed use is multi -family residential with 112 units and 168 bedrooms proposed. Commercial office space is also proposed along Razorback Road and extension of the warehouse storage facility to the northwest has been requested. This is to be separated from the Residential PZD and we can discuss that a little more in detail later. The development currently wraps around, the proposed development wraps around existing wetlands and a large tree canopied area on the site, most of which is being preserved in its existing natural state and utilized for storm water detention purposes. All tree mitigation required is being planted on site providing for a significant amount of potential future canopy coverage. A draft of covenants have been submitted for Planning Commission review. This item must also be heard by the City Council pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. To the north again, is the State Revenue Office, to the south is Baum Stadium. To the east is I-1, Light Industrial, Heavy Commercial, distributing warehouse and to the west is industrial warehouse and storage, part of which is owned by the applicant. Right of way being dedicated is 55' along Razorback Road, which is Arkansas Highway 112 to comply with principal arterial right of way requirements. The State Highway Department has indicated both to city staff and to the applicant that no improvements to Hwy. 112 in this location be made at this time. Staff is recommending that the applicant do install 6' sidewalks along the property's frontage onto Hwy. 112 to be installed at the right of way line. In addition, the required street trees and a continuous planting of shrubs is proposed to screen the parking adjacent to the right of way. Existing tree canopy is at 19.5%, preserved canopy is at 12.2%. The mitigation therefore, is 96 trees and all are to be planted on site as proposed by the applicant. Such property is currently vacant land and this proposed R- PZD was heard at Technical Plat August 27`h and Subdivision Committee Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 96 on the 2nd. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included building elevations, the office retail structure location, which has been revised, commercial design standards, parking and street alignment. We do have signed conditions of approval. Again, there are a number of findings for the R-PZD with regard to development and zoning. Those are in your packet. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning as well as Planning Commission approval of the proposed development subject to the following conditions. 1) Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district for R-PZD 03-4.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2) An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3) Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards for the commercial/office structures. 4) All utilities shall be placed underground. All utility easements shall be verified by utility representatives with the easement plat process, to ensure adequate easements have been indicated on the plat. 5) All signage proposed on site shall comply with Chapter 174 Signs of the Unified Development Code and shall be permitted accordingly. 6) Covenants shall be filed which provide for maintenance of parking areas, private streets and greenspace. 7) Interior street names shall be approved by the City 9-1-1 Coordinator. 8) A lot line adjustment shall be processed, removing the Contractor Storage use, a use not permitted within the R-PZD zoning district, from the legal boundaries of the proposed R-PZD, prior to City Council hearing. The additional storage units, if pursued by the applicant, shall be reviewed through the Large Scale Development process for Use Unit 21 Warehousing & Wholesale, a use permitted by right in an I-1 zoning district. Items twelve and thirteen are standard conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Hillis: Thank you, I'm Don Hillis with Landtech Engineering representing Bill Lazenby. I am here with Ronnie Ball who can give you information about the elevations that we have here. We will try to make this short if we can. I would be happy to answer any questions I could. Thank you. Hoover: At this time is there any member of the audience that would like to address this PZD 03-04.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant. I guess would you go ahead and describe your materials? Hillis: Ronnie will do that. Hoover: Which building is which number and all of that so we fully understand. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 97 Ball: You have got your revised plat that we went through, this is building eight, an office complex that will be directly, both sides of the buildings will have this same front. We moved it up to Razorback Road, moved the apartments behind it and made the fronts the same on both sides. That will be the front, both side views are the same also. It is mainly glass and hardy siding, this stucco type hardy siding, the brick is this brick here. It is going to have glass retail type frontage. That will be that building. The next two buildings on your plat are on the side, they are basically the same buildings. Again, we have tried to heavily landscape and made the sides the same. The difference is the back area will be facing west and to the back of the complex so it is not going to be dressed up like the one on Razorback Road. In the apartment complexes that are in there have the same type scheme, the same brick and same type siding. Instead of using the stucco siding it will be this lap type siding. Architectural shingles. Wrought iron on the balconies to try to dress them up to give them a little better look. Bunch: We threw this one out? Ball: Yes. Before we moved them around there were some sides that you could see. There were some sides we didn't believe were going to be visible much from the street so they were mainly brick. Now with moving the buildings the way we have we feel like there is going to be more exposure so all side elevations now have the glass retail front. You get rid of a lot of those side elevations which were showing mainly brick siding. Bunch: You've eliminated the small office building? Ball: The small office building we've eliminated to allow for better access and some of the things that we discussed at one of the meetings. Shackelford: Do we have signed conditions of approval on this project? Pate: Yes Sir we do. Hoover: Can I ask at Subdivision were there any important issues? Bunch: I believe you and Commissioner Ostner wanted building eight moved and it wound up getting moved with two fronts on it. Ball: The only other major issue was the entrance, and we have centralized that. Bunch: Traffic circulation and another issue was the industrial area and also the appearance on Razorback Road and I think you've accommodated that with the elimination of the one office building and the relocation of the other one where the parking is away from Razorback Road. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 98 Hillis: Right, there was also an issue about separation between drives too and with the centralized drive it gave us a bit of a separation from the driveways. Ostner: I was just going to add to that that the old plan had two curb cuts but the southern curb cut immediately fed into the northern so what they have done is combine them into one central as he just said, one central access. I think this is a better drawing. Hillis: We think it worked out pretty good really overall. MOTION: Shackelford: I concur that the new drawings address a lot of concerns. I like the way that it is designed there. I think that a lot of the revised elevations really address some of the commercial design standard questions that we had coming into this. Overall, I think it is a good project. I think that they have done what we asked them to do in the overall development of it. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve R-PZD 03- 04.00 subject to all staff findings and the fourteen conditions of approval. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, is there a second? Vaught: I will second. Hoover: Is there more discussion? I guess I just have one question for the applicant or staff. How much greenspace do we have in the front here along Razorback Road? Hillis: Along Razorback Road we do have a 15' greenspace designated there plus we have a little bit more on the one building that got moved forward so we've got the 15' with all the landscaping, the trees every 25'. Hoover: Is that all that is required? Pate: Yes Ma'am. Basically there is a requirement off of a right of way of 15' of landscaped greenspace and screening from a parking lot. The landscape plans indicate that there are street trees being planted and a continuous row of shrubs that are screening that parking lot as well as I believe that landscape plans also indicate 25' in front of that proposed building is also being landscaped. Hoover: This is a utility easement along the front, is that for Southwestern Bell or what's in that utility easement? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 99 Hillis: That's going to be strictly for telephone, cable. The water and sewer easement is already into the right of way and won't be encroaching into that. Vaught: I do have one question on signage, especially on the building we've moved forward. Having two fronts I imagine they will want, the people with space in that front building will want a sign on each side so it can be designated from the road and also from inside the complex. Do we need anything special to accommodate that or recommendations to accommodate that or can they do that currently? Warrick: I think that it would be appropriate to address the amount of signage that is being proposed because this is a PZD, it is a R-PZD which means primarily residential and therefore, we need to ensure that the applicant understands what the Planning Commission is expecting with regard to signage on those commercial structures. There are three commercial structures, they are proposed to be multi -tenant structures and as you stated, the one that is closer to Razorback Road is expected to have visibility from both sides and access from both sides. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to address that and if it is the desire of the Planning Commission that these commercial structures be allowed the amount of signage that a commercial structure in a C district would be permitted for wall signage that can certainly be applied and that gives staff enough direction to issue sign permits. Vaught: Would that allow signage on both sides of the one building that is moved forward? Warrick: It would. Vaught: I guess I would like to propose another condition of approval specifying signage on the commercial buildings be compliant with commercial standards in a C district for wall signage. Warrick: I don't believe that a free standing sign is proposed so it would be wall signage only. Vaught: Would that be acceptable? Shackelford: Absolutely. That was my intention. I would assume that there is wall signage allowed in accordance with what would be allowed in a regular commercial zoned district for each one of these commercial spaces. Yes, I like that. Hoover: We have approval of condition number fifteen by both the motion and second, is that what happened? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 100 Vaught: Yes. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Bunch: Yes. On signs since this is a PZD and the question always comes up what about the buildings on the ends? What does the motioner and seconder wish to have for the sign condition on the ends of the buildings? Shackelford: What do you say one sign per commercial rental space and they can decide if they want to put it on the front or the end. Bunch: We already talked about the front and back issue on one since it has you might say two fronts. Hoover: Let's get staff to tell us what the code says. Warrick: Under Chapter 174, Signs of the Unified Development Code Wall Signs, the number of signs for multiple tenants. Where a building houses more than one business wall signs shall be limited in number to one wall sign per business on each wall with a limit of four wall signs per business per building. Basically, what that contemplates is that each tenant could have a sign on each wall of the structure with a maximum of four. That is consistent with what the ordinances allow for a commercial district, for any multi -tenant structure. If that is the wish of the motioner and the second, that is consistent with the condition that you've crafted. Vaught: That's fine with me. Shackelford: Sure. Hoover: Are we all clear on that? The sign ordinance gives them the right to do that that we just added as condition number fifteen. Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve R-PZD 03-04.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries seven to one. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 101 RZN 03-30.00: Rezoning (Williams, pp 524) was submitted by Christopher Williams for property located at 288 Knerr Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 3 acres. The request is to down -zone to R -A, Residential Agricultural. Hoover: Item thirteen is RZN 03-30.00 for the Williams property. Dawn? Warrick: We are handing out two new pieces of information pertinent to this item that will hopeful further define some of the map information and also give you some information on a similar case that was processed in 2002. This rezoning request was submitted by Christopher Williams for property located at 288 Knerr Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and RMF -24. In the new document that you received that looks like this with the map on the front, I hope that this gives more easily readable information with regard to where that zoning designation changes and how that affects the subject property. Also, in this information this request is to rezone three acres of land. That is highlighted in the shaded area on your new map and also in the maps in your packet. The request is to downzone from Residential Single Family and Multi Family, currently zoned, to R- A, Residential Agricultural. The dark boundary on your new map defines property that the owner owns that is contiguous to the three acre tract that is under consideration for this rezoning request. Attached to that is parcel information, which is where we gathered our data to put together the boundary map for you. The subject property, as I stated, is located on Knerr Road, which is accessed at the eastern end of Rock Street on Mt. Sequoyah. It is part of a large homestead, which has been part of the Williams family for many generations. On the site there is a single-family home and a barn with other accessory structures. The property is served by city water and by a private septic system. Sewer is not accessible to this property. The subject property is surrounded by additional property owned by the applicant as defined by this map, which is also part of the historic homestead. Further surrounding properties are large lots containing single-family homes. The proposal, the applicant proposes to bring horses back onto the property from a remote location that had been leased for many years. The existing barn will serve this activity and a pasture will be reestablished north and east of the home site. The request is to downzone the subject property to R -A, Residential Agricultural in order for the applicant to be able to keep horses on the property again. Staff has found that the requested zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives and policies. It is consistent with adjacent zoning and adjacent land uses. A portion of the subject property is identified as having a slope 15% or greater. Preservation of this hillside area can, in part, be achieved through this down zoning which would reduce the amount of allowable density should the property in the future desire further development. The proposed zoning, with regard to whether it is Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 102 justified or needed, it is justified and needed in order for the applicant to be able to enjoy his property in a manner consistent with the history of the land as well as adjacent properties. The proposed zoning will not increase or create a dangerous traffic condition. The proposal does not contemplate further development, it would not result in additional traffic on adjacent or nearby streets. Findings from both the police department and fire department indicate no additional needs for services. Response time with regard to fire is actual drive time, one minute fifty seconds from fire station number one located on Center Street. Staff is recommending in favor of this down zoning request. I believe that the information that the applicants provided in your packet further defines their intent. The other piece of information that I handed out this evening, as I mentioned, is a similar request for down zoning on property that is located in the Markham Hill area and this request, like I said was similar. The applicant wanted to bring horses back to the property. They had existing barn facilities and pastures and they had run horses for several years. The property as rezoned with the 1970 master plan zoning of the city when we adopted new zoning regulations and a new zoning map. The applicant at that time had horses consistently on the property and then for some reason or another, that basically phased out and they were no longer grandfathered in. It became a non -conforming use for them to bring back. That was the condition that this project was heard under. The question that some commissioners had asked me was what uses would potentially be objectionable in the Residential Agricultural district. I think that this particular application is pertinent because it did address conditions where the uses that are permitted under the agricultural designation expand more than just allowing livestock or horses on a property. There are other uses of course that are listed under those use units that are permitted by right in that district. This applicant offered a bill of assurance to restrict the intensity of the uses that were being proposed with that down zoning. That is not what is being proposed tonight. We don't have that before us. As an example, I was asked by commissioners to put that together for you so there it is. As I said, staff is recommending in favor of this downzone of three acres from single-family and multi -family residential to Residential Agricultural. I believe that the applicant has a representative here who can address you further or answer questions. Hoover: Thank you. Williams: I am Emily Williams and I'm here to answer questions. I hope not too many. Hoover: I will now ask the audience if there is any member of the public that would like to address this RZN 03-30.00 for the Williams property? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 103 Shackelford: Do we need movements on each of these separately or can we handle them as one issue? They are two separate tracts, is that correct? Warrick: It is one legal description, one three acre parcel. It is currently split zoned but it is one description and one action. Shackelford: Thank you. Allen: Is the bill of assurance applicable for both? Warrick: There is not a bill of assurance being offered for this project. That was a separate item that was past approved, handled through the Planning Commission and council in 2002 and some commissioners asked me to bring that information before you because it was a similar action so that you could use that as background information. Allen: Not that this would be particularly foreseen, but would this allow you to have horseback riding lessons and such as you wished? Williams: I'm going to tell you honestly, I haven't looked at that very closely. I know that a number of years ago it would've allowed that so my assumption is that it would still allow that, that would be a city attorney question or stand in for the city attorney question. Whitaker: I would have to look back at R -A, which I believe used to be A-1 before we renamed it but unless there is some sort of specific restriction. Williams: At one time it did allow that, if it hasn't been changed it did allow that. Warrick: It falls under the use units that are number six and seven that are further described under the use units chapter. Use unit six is agriculture, it is described as Unit six consists of agricultural uses and services and certain other uses suitable for location near, but not in, a residential district. That includes farms, services such as hay bailing, smoking, curing or selling of smoked or cured poultry and livestock, sorting, packing and selling of fruits vegetables and flowers and brushing. Use unit seven is animal husbandry. Unit seven consists of livestock raising and related activities which are ordinarily objectionable to other uses and require therefore a buffer strip when abutting a C or an R district. Animal farms for show, breeding and training, farms with livestock, a kennel, livestock services, animal hospitals, shipping of livestock, training of horses, veterinarians, treatment areas or recreational uses consisting of things such as a guest ranch, riding stable, rifle range, and rodeo ground. Expanded, those are the lists of uses that could be applied to an R -A property. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 104 MOTION: Shackelford: I would like to recommend that Ms. Williams and the Parnells get a metal for sitting through this marathon. I would also like to recommend that we approve RZN 03-30.00 subject to all city staff comments. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: There is a motion and a second, is there anymore discussion? Ostner: Even though I'm in favor of developing our core and leaving the perimeter of our city vacant for pasture land there are instances on remote hillsides that are difficult to develop that pasture is a terrific use and it's a great thing to have in the city in limited portions. I think this is a great thing. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion for forward RZN 03-30.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 105 RZN 03-32.00: Rezoning (Troy Parnell, pp. 595) was submitted by Eric Johnson on behalf of Troy Parnell for property located south of 6`" Street on the northwest corner of Hanshew Rd. The property is zoned R -A, residential agriculture and contains approximately 17.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RMF -12; Residential multi -family 12 units per acre. Hoover: Item number fourteen, RZN 03-32.00 for property south of Sixth Street on Hanshew Road. Warrick: Thank you Madam Chair. The subject property is located south of Hwy. 62, Sixth Street, west of the Lowe's PZD, which is currently under construction and the property is also south of the Magnolia Crossing subdivision. Surrounding properties are primarily large acreages which are vacant or sparsely developed with single family homes. The 17.37 acre site is heavily wooded, somewhat remote. Access from Hwy. 62 west onto Hanshew Road to the property is not improved to city standards and would require full street improvements should a development occur on the subject property. Water and sewer would also have to be improved and extended to the site to provide utilities. The applicant proposes to develop a subdivision of townhomes on the subject property. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to RMF -12, Residential Multi -family, twelve units per acre to allow the townhomes. With regard to infrastructure, I did mention that Hanshew Road is the access off of Sixth Street. It is a narrow asphalt lane. Improvements, as I mentioned, are necessary for any type of development. Water is available with a 6" line along Hanshew. In order for any development to be served there would need to be a looped system developed and installed to connect with the 12" line which is located adjacent to Hwy. 62 north of the site. Again, sewer service would have to be extended. There is currently a 6" line that runs along Hanshew on the eastern boundary of the subject property. With regard to the land use plan, the General Plan 2020 designates this site as residential. The RMF -12 is consistent with the land use plan because it is a residential designation. However, it is not compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. This is the primary concern of staff. The proposed zoning is not consistent in that the efficient use of infrastructure and reasonable access to improved roads and utilities provide challenges for this particular site. While improvements could be provided at the time of development review and approval, the amount of density that is being proposed is also something that is not compatible with the very sparsely populated lands that surround the site. I did provide in your information some traffic generation counts. Under your finding that is required with a determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion I did run traffic generations. It would result in the increase of the average trips per day from approximately 80 vehicle trips per day, 8 single-family homes on the 17.37 aces to a maximum of 1,219 vehicle Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 106 trips per day for a maximum of 208 townhomes, which would be the density allowed for the requested RMF -12 zoning. From the police department, I did receive comments stating that police department representative states concerns about traffic density on a narrow road, Hanshew, with no shoulders. Further, these vehicles would have only one outlet from the neighborhood. All of these vehicles would be dumped onto W. Sixth Street at an intersection without any traffic signals and in a 55 mile per hour zone. That certainly would be something that staff would have to address should a development proposal be brought forward for this site regardless of the zoning. The applicant I believe is going to address that. I've already talked about the increased potential as far as the density. Right now the density for an R -A district allows 8 single-family homes and the proposed 12 units per acre would allow up to 208 units. We've talked about infrastructure. Based on the findings that are included in your report, staff is not recommending in favor of this request. We feel that it is not compatible at this point in time. It is too dense and too far out to be consistent with the adjacent zoning districts and developments that are currently in place in this general area. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions and turn it over to the applicant. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward? Johnson: My name is Eric Johnson, I'm here representing my grandfather, Troy Parnell. As you can see, the property we own, or we actually have under contract, is south of Hwy. 62 just west of Hanshew Lane. We have since applying for the rezoning acquired an easement and contract to allow a city street, a public street, that we would dedicate to the City of Fayetteville that would conform to all city standards as a main exit onto Hwy. 62 that would alleviate the problem of having one exit to Hanshew Lane. We would actually only have an exit to Hanshew Lane for emergency purposes only unless you required or would like to see a secondary exit just for traffic purposes. It is our intention to build private development of town homes and duplex configurations on this piece of property with considerable common area and greenspace. These town homes will be sold individually for people looking for a nice and affordable place to live. This type of single family town home development should present a good alternative to the large multi -family projects that have become so unpopular. Since we have no intention to build apartments at this location we would be willing to reduce our zoning request to RT -12 if the Commission feels that this would better suit the development. We also believe that the location of the property is perfect for this type of development because it is very close to area shopping, to the University of Arkansas, to I-540 and to both downtown Fayetteville and downtown Farmington. Allowing this townhome project would create a mixed use area between it and any commercial development that occurs along the highway frontage. As you all know, Lowe's is going in out Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 107 there as are quite a few other businesses along that stretch. This mixed use is exactly what the 2020 plan is calling for. As I mentioned, to address the concerns of infrastructure, we are willing to build an extension of Camellia Lane, which is the north and actually goes to a subdivision that is zoned RMF -24. I believe they've only built, I don't know what the exact density is but they've only built a subdivision of single-family homes but it is zoned RMF -24. There is some land to the east approximately 1,000 feet zoned RMF -24 and there is land to the west zoned RMF -24 as well. I have prepared some maps to show you where these zonings are located. With those zonings and in their areas, we think that it is in conformance with the surrounding area. We think that with growth in that area it would definitely bring the quality of development up. They will be far superior in quality to any of the surrounding properties and would become an attractive visual element to those entering and leaving Fayetteville. The higher quality could also raise the value of the surrounding properties by setting a higher standard for development than is currently in place. Currently the adjoining property is developed mostly with single-family houses and mobile homes. We want to emphasize that none of the surrounding neighbors, to my knowledge, have objected. We have contacted personally all of the adjoining residents. Of all the adjoining property owners we have had no objections. That's all I have for now. I do have a few other things just to address the fire and police concerns. As you know, growth in Fayetteville is going to happen. We think that with adding that street and conforming it to public street standards we would be able to address all of the fire and police concerns as far as entry and exit from the development. We would be willing to work with the city and staff to arrange it however it needed to be. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this RZN 03-32.00? Beard: My name is Warren Beard. We own property adjacent to the proposed zoning change there on the south side of Hanshew. I received a telephone call last night from Mr. Parnell and he asked me if I had any concerns about the proposed development and I didn't have any questions because I didn't have any information. I don't know that you do either. I don't know what these structures are going to look like, I don't know how the subdivision is going to be laid out. I don't have any information so how can I object? There is one mobile home up there that happens to be on my property. My home is not a mobile home. I don't know how the town homes are going to increase the value of my home personally. I think my home where it sits right now on the acreage that it sits is much more valuable to myself than it would be to have town homes. Mr. Parnell called me last night and said they were going to be single dwelling homes, said nothing about townhomes. That's all the information I had from him last night. As a matter of fact, I thought he might be here tonight so we Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 108 could address some of those issues personally. However, he is not here. The road is very narrow. That has been R -A for a long time or A-1. It just so happens the property adjacent to ours, this piece of property right here, my daughter and her son are going to build a nice home up here. This will not be subdivided or anything of that nature. To give you an idea of what's taken place here, this right here has been designated as wildlife, it is actually managed by a wildlife corporation. I own this area here, all this area here. My daughter owns this. You can see what we've got up here on this hill. It is pretty much agricultural really. Beard, J: Hi, I'm Julie Beard. My family has lived up there for over 20 years on that mountain. I have some issues. Not so much about anything being built down there. I know that things are going to happen and growth is a necessary part of life. My issues with it is that whole mountain, if you've never been up there you're missing it. If you go up Finger Road Kessler Mountain is beautiful up there. It is full of natural springs. In the spring time there is so much water coming off that mountain when it rains, if any of you have to drive 6`h Street or Hwy. 62 it is a wash down there. We are going to have big erosion problems with all the building. Another problem that I have personally with it, we've got two spring fed ponds on our property. I am concerned about kids from any subdivision or townhouses that close by wandering over and getting into my ponds. How am I going to protect myself from that? Am I going to have to change my property for progress? We don't know how far their townhomes are going to come back onto Hanshew, how much space is going to be left there. The wildlife up there is abundant. We don't have the resources now, the police department doesn't ever patrol up there now. Every year we have people coming up there and hunting. We are in the city limits but they come up there and hunt. This is just going to push them more up on the mountain and we are just going to have a bigger problem up there. It is not a good solution to me it's not. Not with all of the water problems that we've already got. The road is so narrow now. In fact, there are big cavities all the way down that mountain where the water runs every spring. I just don't know how you are going to fix that problem. There's more issues than just that. Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to address this rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and staff and the applicant. Shackelford: A question of staff, when you looked at this project or this proposal as far as density, obviously looking at the one mile view there is RMF -24 zoning on three sides of it. Can you go into a little more depth on how you determined that this specific requested density was not in line with the other uses in the area? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 109 Warrick: On the south side of the property there is Residential Agricultural zoning. On the east side there is Residential Single Family, on the west there is Residential Single Family. North of the property, as was mentioned, the Magnolia Crossing subdivision is zoned Residential Multi Family. It is a single family subdivision with smaller lots. It was developed about the time, just prior to the time that the city adopted a residential small lot zoning district. It was zoned for multi -family use with the restriction of single-family homes so that the developer could create 60' lots instead of the minimum 70' lots which an RSF-4 district would provide. There is some zoning but the land use itself is actually single-family. I was looking more specifically at the property on the south side of 6`h Street because that is different in nature than the property on the north side. Other considerations that did go into this recommendation and my consideration on this particular request included the nature of the property. The fact that it is heavilZ wooded, the fact that it is somewhat remote. It is still very close to 6` Street but it is off the beaten path. It takes a little bit of understanding to get there. You are driving past some existing established residential areas that are much more sparsely developed than what's being proposed with this density. The amount of canopy coverage on this site is very dense. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 80% or 90% or even more percentage wise as far as coverage for the tree canopy. Considering that, and in reflection of Mr. Beard's comments, this is the kind of property that lends itself to a better understanding of how the development is really going to occur and what it is really going to look like. It may be possible for this type of development to work itself into this nitch, into this location, but just a zoning of multi -family, 12 units per acre, doesn't ensure that the features of the site can be preserved appropriately and that the amount of density can be handled appropriately through infrastructure. There were just too many uncertainties with that number as far as 208 units, over 1,200 vehicle trips per day and the impact that that would have on the adjacent infrastructure and on the immediately surrounding properties. Shackelford: If I could ask two other questions, I'm sure it's in here somewhere but we've been doing this six hours and my brain is a little fried. The property between this property and 6`h Street, is it currently zoned C-1? Warrick: It is zoned Residential Agricultural, it is designated on the Future Land Use map as mixed use but it is currently zoned Agricultural. Shackelford: So the entire tract is zoned mixed use on the 2020 plan? Warrick: Only the property north of this is designated mixed use. This subject property is designated residential on the land use plan. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 110 Vaught: I have two questions. Does the addition of the new road to eliminate the use of Hanshew affect your decision in that? Warrick: I don't think for a density of 208 units it would eliminate the use of Hanshew Road. I think that for adequate access we would still be looking at access points for circulation and appropriate access to the site. I think it does improve the situation because it would be desirable to have more than one location for people to come and go from this site. Vaught: Also the applicant stated that he would be willing to change to RT -12, how would that weigh into the decision if we wanted to go that route? Warrick: It would provide for some additional understanding of what the configuration of the development would be. The density would be the same. We are still talking about 12 units per acre. RT -12 limits the type of structures to single-family, duplex or triplex. Vaught: Does it affect lot size, the way it is laid out, greenspace, is all of that affected as well? Warrick: Setbacks are very similar if not the same. The greenspace and the tree preservation would be the same percentage requirements. Lot size, in the RMF -12 district you can adjoin more than three units. If you wanted a townhome configuration where even if you were creating lots for individual sell of connected structures you could connect more than three. In the RT -12 district, three would be the maximum number of units in one overall structure. You'd have to have a break. Johnson: If I could just clarify, we are going to sell these townhouses individually. We are going to adjoin them as duplexes but the townhouses are going to be sold individually. The density is not so much our concern. We want to make this a community to provide greenspace, common area. We wouldn't necessarily be using all the 208, whatever the maximum density allowed would be. We went with RT -12 just because there is no middle ground really between RT -12 and RMF -6 and we are not doing apartments so we were trying to stay away from RMF anything. Shackelford: Staff, if we decline the project they are not allowed to bring it back before us for a 12 month period unless there is significant change. If they approached you with a zoning of RT -12 instead of RMF -12 would staff see that as a significant enough change? Warrick: The Planning Commission has the ability, as does the City Council, to make a change in the request. If that were what's being contemplated instead of the applicant resubmitting a whole new process that certainly Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 111 can be considered by this board and if you choose not to, by the City Council, if the applicant wanted to appeal if that were the route that it went. It wouldn't necessitate a new application if you wanted to consider a different zoning designation. The density is still the same, some conditions really don't change in that. I understand the applicant is proposing a project that doesn't necessarily fit within any of the nice neat little boxes of zoning districts that are defined in our Unified Development Code. What it would lend itself to, in my opinion, is that thing that we've been talking about all night, the Planned Zoning District, because that does define the project and it does allow the neighbors to understand it, it does allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to understand it. It provides a distinct specific zoning district to the project and it allows the flexibility for the greenspace and the configurations that the applicant is talking about. Of course the risk and the responsibility in that situation is on the applicant and I've talked to Mr. Parnell about that and he has chosen to pursue a standard traditional method of rezoning and then follow it up with development should the rezoning be approved. That is certainly his choice. Staff s preference would be the ability to review this as a PZD. Anthes: Is the PZD a substantial enough change that you wish to see it prior to the 12 month time period? Warrick: I believe it is because we would be looking at a development proposal that we would be able to work with the applicant on. I feel like that is a change enough to merit bringing it forward earlier. Shackelford: I'm normally one of the louder voices for growth and development in this city and I really look for ways to get projects done. This project, as it is presented, I'm not sure is a good fit with your surrounding area. I don't know that we've done the work that we need to do getting with the people that live around you and own property around you. I am going to give you the opportunity or would recommend that you consider tabling this motion and taking the opportunity to get with the people who have property around you, maybe doing a little more thought in the development, the zoning, possibly a PZD, get with staff and see what they would support coming forward instead of proceeding with this with a recommended denial from our city staff. That's purely an option, I'm not saying you have to do that. I'm just saying that I'm going to ask that we stop and give you that opportunity. Johnson: I think that that would be ok. Vaught: Would we need to table that? If he pulls it, we need to table and not have it pulled? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 112 MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we table this pending conversations with adjoining land owners and with city staff regarding additional rezoning requests. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Ostner this RZN 03-32.00, is there anymore discussion? Allen: Does that pull it back at the next meeting or is that an indefinite sort of thing? Hoover: Whenever it gets resolved. Whitaker: If it is an indefinite thing then no discussion is allowed under the rules of order. Indefinite tabling goes directly to a vote. Hoover: Ok, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-32.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 113 ADM 03-23.00: Administrative Item submitted by the Community Planning and Engineering Services Director to amend the Unified Development Code (UDC): To require minimum and maximum front setbacks for property within the R -O, C-1, C-2, C- 3, and C-4 Zoning Districts. Hoover: Item number fifteen on the agenda is ADM 03-23.00, I would personally like to table but since I see Rob Sharp here, if Rob is going to speak to this item then I suggest we don't table it. Tim, do you need to present? Conklin: This is a proposed amendment to our zoning ordinance for the non- residential and mixed use zoning districts establishing minimum and maximum setbacks. Attached on each page is outlined existing setbacks and the proposed setbacks. It is a quarter to 12:00, I was not asking for Planning Commission action this evening but please review this, look at this. This is addressing the issue of where do we want buildings built on individual tracts of land in this community, where do we want other types of land uses such as parking. This is a significant change. I think it deserves a lot of public comment. It is something that the Planning Commission deals with on a regular basis. Thank you. Hoover: Excellent Tim. Is there any public comment on this Administrative item? Sharp: My name is Robert Sharp. I commend you all for your heroic stand tonight. I just wanted to pass out this brochure that I've made out that is a letter to the Planning Commission on this issue. This is a very important issue and I hope we get to talk about it for several meetings. Hoover: Thank you. Tim, what do you want us to do? Do our homework, read this, do you want us to direct comments to you by a certain time? Conklin: Yes, if I can hear back from the Commissioners prior to agenda session at least to get those comments back to the Commission I would appreciate that. I would also like to remind the Commission or at least the sub committee on the hillsides, if you can contact me, chairman of the hillside committee and let's set a meeting up and bring that ordinance forward also. Bunch: We are talking about bringing this back at the next Planning Commission meeting, I'm looking at Subdivision agenda, which is as lengthy as it was last time, which means our next Planning Commission meeting may be a repeat of tonight. Hoover: I will not be at the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 114 Bunch: I just thought I might throw that out to say that we may have a long agenda. Hoover: Just one note, there is no hillside meeting tomorrow. I don't think we need anymore meetings. Another issue is we want to thank Commissioner Church for her serving on Subdivision Committee for a six month run, she thoroughly enjoyed it. Nancy Allen has graciously accepted to take her place. Now we need a sub for Nancy because occasionally, hard to believe, she may not be able to be there. We need a volunteer to be her sub. Anthes: I will volunteer. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Warrick: I have two more things to give you. Ostner: Is there an administrative item on the table? Hoover: That was just a discussion item. Warrick: We will be glad to slate that on your agenda as soon as comments are back to us and we are ready to bring it forward again for further discussion and action from the Planning Commission. Real quick, the two pieces of information that you are getting address an upcoming Planning Commissioner training session. Many of you have been to the Planning Commissioner training, which is a one day session offered through the Arkansas Chapter American Planning Association. This upcoming session will be local for anybody who has not been able to make it yet. It will be in Bentonville on November 5th. It is a 9:00 to 4:00 lunch provided. Anybody who is interested in that, please contact Renee so that we can get you registered. The other is a response to the Commission's request that we look into timing on Subdivision Committee and agenda session dates and times. There is a memo from me on the front with a flow chart and then there are our own bylaws and some additional bylaws and additional information from various municipalities that have been compiled for your review as back up information. Take your time and read it whenever you're ready. If you have comments get back to me and I will look for your lead of how to further address that. Hoover: Thank you for the flow chart. Bunch: What is the procedure for replacement of our Vice Chair? Hoover: I think we have to have a nominating committee. Staff? Planning Commission October 13, 2003 Page 115 Warrick: I just passed out the bylaws. If you will read them I will do the same and we will figure it out. Vaught: Who will be in charge next time when Sharon is not here? Hoover: Don is the next in line and will be chairing the next Commission. Is there anymore pertinent or salient information? Bunch: I may be gone the next meeting. Hoover: What are the dates of the next meetings? Warrick: October 27"' and November 10`h are the dates of our next meetings. Hoover: We stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 11:57 p.m.