Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 24, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN RZN 03-32.00: Rezoning (Troy Parnell, pp. 595) Withdrawn by Applicant Page 4 LSD 03-41.00: Large Scale Development (Bank of Fayetteville West, pp 40 1) Approved Page 7 PPL 03-20.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) Approved Page 11 PPL 03-19.00: Preliminary Plat (Wildflower Meadows, pp 321) Approved Page 14 ANX 03-05.00: Annexation (Rankin/Rankin/Bowen, pp 400) Tabled Page 16 RZN 03-33.00: Rezoning (Rankin/Rankin/Bowen, pp 400) Tabled Page 17 ANX 03-07.00: Annexation (PBS of Fayetteville LLC, pp 359) Tabled Page 18 RZN 03-36.00: Rezoning (PBS of Fayetteville LLC, pp 359) Tabled Page 20 RZN 03-35.00: Rezoning (Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) Withdrawn by Applicant Page 21 ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) Tabled Page 33 RZN 03-34.00: Rezoning (Schlegel, pp207/246) Tabled Page 33 RZN 03-37.00: Rezoning (City of Fayetteville, pp 608) Forwarded to City Council Page 44 Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 3 Hoover: Welcome to the November 24, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine commissioners present. Hoover: Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the November 10`h meeting? Bunch: So moved. Allen: Second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Allen. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 4 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`h 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 one on the agenda is LSD 03-41.00 for the Bank of Fayetteville. Warrick: Madam Chair, I have a procedural request. We realized that item number twelve was actually an item of old business since it was heard before the Planning Commission on October 13`h has been brought back. I would request that we hear that one first just so that it is procedurally addressed as an item of old business coming off the table. Hoover: Ok, so we are going to review item number twelve right now? Warrick: Yes Ma'am. Hoover: Item twelve is RZN 03-32.00 submitted by Troy Parnell for property south of Sixth Street on the northwest corner of Hanshew Road. Dawn? Warrick: Thank you. The applicant has requested that this item come back before you. As I mentioned, this rezoning request was originally heard by the Planning Commission on October 13`h. Minutes of that meeting pertaining to this item are included in your background materials. The request has not changed. However, the applicant did provide on page 12.17 a new letter describing the project on 12.19 is a Bill of Assurance and on the following pages 12.21, 12.22, 12.23 is some conceptual information about the project that he is proposing for this property. Staff has been meeting with Mr. Parnell on and off for the past few weeks trying to determine the best course of action and because the actual request for RMF -12 zoning on this 17.37 acre tract has not changed, staff is of the same recommendation that we were originally which is denial of the request. The reason for that has to do with compatibility with the surrounding properties and an understanding of how this potentially medium density multi -family residential use would fit into this neighborhood which is primarily small single family homes or very large tracts primarily vacant. In reviewing information with Mr. Parnell he understands staff's concerns. I believe that we have made a lot of progress. Staff, as I mentioned, is still recommending denial of this request but I believe that Mr. Parnell has some more information that he would like to discuss with the Commission and further explore his options on this particular site. With that, I think I'm going to just make myself available for questions and let you speak with Mr. Parnell about this particular project. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 5 Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Parnell: My name is Troy Parnell, 524 Gray. The proposal for this property is to have a kind of unique development with townhouses relatively densely placed but with a great deal of common area. I had thought from reading the zoning that RMF -12 was the way to go but we had originally discussed RT -12 and that wouldn't work as well. We have met several times with Dawn Warrick and have concluded, I want to be sure that I come to you with something that will be supported by staff. It sounds like that what I need to do is to ask you to table it and come back with a new definition of a PZD so we have hired an engineer. It is somewhat of a unique site in that although it has no trees that are actually defined as ones that would need to stay because it was cut over about 8 years ago it does have young trees that they left and some slope. I would like for you to leave it tabled if you will and we will represent it with something supported by staff. After my meeting with her this morning I think we have alleviated all of our concerns. We are putting a new street off of Sixth Street but they would like to see it more defined. We will have more complete engineering drawings for you so we would like it tabled. Hoover: Thank you. Staff, do we need to do any action on this or can we leave it? Warrick: In my discussions with Mr. Parnell we have kind of concluded that bringing this project back as a Planned Zoning District would allow for everyone's needs to be met and for us to get a better understanding of really how this is going to function. This particular request as a flat out rezoning I would say it is probably more appropriately withdrawn because the new request will be a full blown Planned Zoning District and will go through the development review process for the development part of the projects and then through Planning Commission development review and approval and through Council for the land use based on that development plan. My recommendation would be that this rezoning is withdrawn and therefore, no action would be required. I would ask the city attorney if he felt that is appropriate. Williams: I think probably only the petitioner can withdraw it. We can't withdraw it so it has to be up to the petitioner if he wanted to do that. Parnell: I was asking to be tabled because in my discussions with Dawn I thought maybe we wouldn't have to pay the fee again. Warrick: I think that we will work with you on how that is going to be applied for that Planned Zoning District process. There are different fees that go into that but it is above and beyond the rezoning fee itself. We can certainly work with you on that. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 6 Parnell: I suppose then that I will withdraw it. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. We appreciate it. I think that a PZD for this project is probably going to be appropriate and we look forward to seeing that. Thank you for withdrawing it. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 7 LSD 03-41.00: Large Scale Development (Bank of Fayetteville West, pp 401) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of the Bank of Fayetteville for property located between Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place on Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.14 acres. The proposal is to construct a 3,740 sq. ft. branch bank. Hoover: Going back to item number one, LSD 03-41.00 for the Bank of Fayetteville. Jeremy? Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. The applicant of course is the Bank of Fayetteville. They are proposing to construct a new branch for the Bank of Fayetteville on Wedington Drive west of I-540. A Large Scale Development was approved for this site previously back in 1999 but that has since expired so a new proposal is before us. There are two waiver requests with this Large Scale Development. It is within the Design Overlay District. The two waiver requests are a waiver of the 250' required from an intersection to a curb cut in the Design Overlay District. The lot is situated such that the depth is not possible for 250' to be located outside of that distance. A request has also been submitted to utilize metal halide lights as opposed to the sodium fixtures required in the Design Overlay District. As you can see, the architectural elevations have been submitted as has a material samples photo in your packets. The architecture should be exactly the same as the other Bank of Fayetteville locations. Pedestrian access is also being provided with a 6' sidewalk surrounding this site and one bicycle rack has been provided. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development with a number of conditions. Planning Commission does need to make a determination on several of these including Commercial Design Standards, the curb cut waiver and the waiver request to utilize the metal halide lighting. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Bunch, M.: Thank you. My name is Mandy Bunch and I am here representing the Bank of Fayetteville tonight. Garth Hudgens is here. He is with Ken Shireman & Associates who is the architect, to address any questions that you may have about building materials, etc. Basically, they have about a 3,700 sq.ft. branch bank that will be very similar in construction to all the other branches of the Bank of Fayetteville. The waiver requests Jeremy has mentioned, one was required basically because of the way the lot was configured. This waiver was actually approved with the Large Scale that was approved back in the late 1990's. The other request for the metal halide fixtures was something that came up with the lighting suppliers in the design meeting. They are real concerned about apparently the police department goes on patrol and looks in all the banks and they felt that the white light would provide a better environment for the visibility into the bank. I have also asked Renee to pass out an 8 1/2x11. I talked to Jeremy Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 8 and I am not one to really bring things up at the last minute like this, I don't like that. I know you guys don't like it either. We are also at this time requesting a 2' reduction in our front greenspace setback if at all possible. The bank requested an additional drive thru lane early in the design process and going back and forth and trying to get all of the sidewalks and everything to work we are running a little short there. The problem with this site is since we are in the Design Overlay District it is actually effecting all three sides by that 25' green setback and we also had to dedicate an additional 5' of right of way for Wedington so we have kind of gotten squeezed here. If we absolutely have to make it work we may be able to deal with the drive thru lanes but this is something that they have used over and over again and it seems to be successful as far as the width of the drive thru lanes and also the equipment area with the columns and the shoots. We are basically here to answer any questions. I don't think there is anything really extraordinary from the ordinances that we are looking for. Hoover: Thanks. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address this Large Scale Development for the Bank of Fayetteville, 03-41.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant. I guess would you repeat again where is it you are requesting a 2' reduction on which street? Bunch, M.: Wedington. Hoover: Can we have a report from the Subdivision Committee? Were there any particular issues? Bunch: This was a previously approved LSD and it would have been approved at Subdivision level. However, it was forwarded to the full Planning Commission because of the accompanying waiver requests. It was forwarded with a do pass recommendation. There is a change in the architectural design but the layout of the lot and the function are basically the same. The architectural changes are to a prototype that has previously been approved and used in Fayetteville. Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners? Ostner: I'm not a lighting expert but I wish we had a better ordinance explaining this to us. It has been told to me in passing that the sodium is brighter and safer and illuminates better than the metal halide. I'm not saying that as a fact, I'm saying that as I think I've heard it in passing. That is the only issue I have with this project. The curb cut waiver is fine with me. The site is being maximized. The curb cuts are pushed as far north as the site allows. I would personally be willing to reduce the greenspace setback on Wedington. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 9 Vaught: I would have staff kind of explain the lighting situation if you guys have any knowledge on that. Warrick: Not really much other than the sodium lighting is a more yellow light and the metal halide my understanding is that it is a more true depiction of the colors of what is being illuminated by that type of fixture. Mandy might have more information. Bunch, M.: I am not a lighting expert by any means but basically, the clarity of the light and actually how much light is on the property has to do with the photo metrics that are generated out of the particular fixtures. These are proposed to be full cutoff fixtures. They are basic boxes that project downward, it is just pretty much the color of the light. The intensity is all just a factor of how many fixtures are in there and how strong the light is basically. Like Dawn was saying, the metal halide, the difference is the color. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 03-41.00 with the additional condition of approval number thirteen to read a reduction in the greenspace setback along Wedington from 25' to 23'. Allen: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there anymore discussion? Shackelford: Do we need to mention as part of the motion specific findings on commercial design standards and the request for the waiver of the curb cut or are they as stated? Hoover: I think he stated subject to conditions of approval would be my understanding. Commissioner Vaught? Vaught: What was the finding on the lighting? I don't know. They requested a waiver. Are you going with the conditions as they are read? Ostner: As a condition of approval to allow metal halide as a variance from the Design Overlay District rule. Hoover: Are there any other questions? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-41.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 10 Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 11 PPL 03-20.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford for property located on Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, with 89 residential lots proposed. Hoover: Item number two on the agenda is PPL 03-20.00 for Salem Heights. Pate: The applicant tonight for this project is requesting a residential subdivision with 89 single family residential lots on approximately 31 acres. The land use identified by the General Plan is residential in this area and it is currently zoned RSF-4, which is appropriate for this proposal. The location is directly south of Clabber Creek and fronts onto both Salem Road and Rupple Road. The original Preliminary Plat came through for this site in March, 2003. The applicant was requesting additional lots and infrastructure, therefore, it was required to be heard by the Planning Commission. The streets within the development are primarily 24' in width with the exception of A and C streets, those will be 28' in width. Connectivity is provided through that A street I believe to the east and west and then to the south for future street connections. There are a number of recommendations for assessments for this project. Including staff recommendations for off site assessments for Rupple Road construction in the amount of $15,755; a recommendation for an assessment for the Rupple Road bridge in the amount of $20,169. The developer shall also pay $6,192 for connection to the water lines along Salem Road and $10,350 into the tree escrow account for tree canopy mitigation. Parks fees in the amount of $39,395 are also due prior to Final Plat signatures. Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions. We do have signed conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Gabbard: My name is Leonard Gabbard, I'm with Landtech Engineering and Mr. Pate has pretty much covered the long and the short of the situation. We had thought that we were in a floodway on the north. As it turns out further investigation proved that it was a floodplain. This allowed us to jump from sixty some odd lots in our first submittal to the 89 lots that you currently see in this submittal. That is the jest of why we are back before you tonight. If you have any further questions in regard to it I would be glad to answer them. My client has read the conditions of approval and he has signed them and faxed them back to me and on behalf of him I have signed those conditions tonight for him. Hoover: Thank you. At this time we will open it up to public comment, PPL 03- 20.10 for Salem Heights. Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 12 back to the commissioners and to the applicant. At Subdivision were there any particular comments? Bunch: Pretty much we reviewed the assessments and one of the items of discussion that I didn't see in the new drawings were the ability to line up with the proposed streets in the subdivision to the west of Rupple Road. Were you able to make any determination on that and does it alter the configuration of your layout of your site plan? Gabbard: Mr. Bunch, we did look at that. We went out and surveyed it and we shot the roads that are out there. One road is 200' away and the other is about 165'. That being the case, I think that may be in with this. Warrick: There is a drawing in your packet on page 2.6 that shows the offset. Bunch: I missed that, sorry. Gabbard: At any rate, this meets all of the requirements per your ordinances as far as offsets and I think it will work. I think I have concurrence with staff on that as well. Bunch: One other question was at what point in time do we add the finished floor elevations for the lots that are within the floodplain? Would that be after you have talked with the various federal groups and then it would be on the Final Plat? Gabbard: Yes. At the Final Plat approval from FEMA and the finished floors it will be required to be built to will be on that document. Bunch: Can we add that to the conditions of approval? I know it is inferred but it would just make it more specific to say that the finished floor elevations will be on the Final Plat. Just add it as item five on the conditions of approval. Gabbard: I absolutely concur with that amendment. Bunch: Thank you. Hoover: Are there other comments? Ostner: This is a question for Ms. Warrick. There is a collector on the Master Street Plan in the east/west direction and this A street is basically qualifying as that collector. One of these other streets to the west is another piece of that. Could you address that situation? I think a lot of us when we picture a collector we don't picture it offsetting. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 13 Warrick: Right. To a great degree that was predetermined. The collector that runs west between Rupple and Hughmount is the next major north/south street which moves to the south side of the creek with the Clabber Creek Phase I subdivision which circles around the middle school. It is on the north and west sides of the middle school and that collector street was moved south when the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary and Final Plats for Clabber Creek Phase I and the Preliminary Plat for Phase II of Clabber Creek. It does continue on further west and you will see in this next application another Preliminary Plat where that collector street does cross through the northern portion of it. It is very consistent west of Rupple but it was moved to the south in that previous action. Ostner: At Subdivision when this situation came up we were wanting it to all be in a straight line. Personally I think this is fine. I think these offsets are safe and I'm not sure but I think it might qualify as a traffic calming situation for a collector to offset. I'm not sure about that but I'm ok with it this way is what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Hoover: Other comments? MOTION: Bunch: I move for approval of PPL 03-20.10 for Salem Heights with the added item on approval five that the finished floor elevations in the floodplain area be shown on the Final Plat. I would comment that there are approximately $91,000 in assessments and this is quite a chunk of investment in the future of the City of Fayetteville and thank you very much for it. Shackelford: I will second the motion and the sentiment as well. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there more discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-20.10 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 14 PPL 03-19.00: Preliminary Plat (Wildflower Meadows, pp 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants on behalf of James Coger for property located west of Holt Middle School and North of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The proposal is to develop 48 lots on the subject property. Hoover: Item number three on the agenda is PPL 03-19.00 for Wildflower Meadows. Suzanne? Morgan: The applicant is requesting to create a 50 lot subdivision with 48 lots for single family residents and two for detention on 18.38 acres. The property was recently annexed into the city and zoned RSF-4. Access will be provided to the south to Mt. Comfort Road as well as to the east to Clabber Creek by way of Morning Mist Drive, a collector and will stub out to the west for future connection. Park land requirements shall be met with payment of $23,125 and the dedication of .15 acres. Tree preservation requirements have been met with preservation of 3.15% canopy. Staff is recommending approval of PPL 03-19.00 with fourteen conditions and Planning Commission needs to make the determination for offsite street improvements. Staff is recommending that Mt. Comfort Road be improved a minimum of 14' from centerline including curb and gutter, pavement, storm sewer and sidewalks across the entire frontage of this site. Secondly, Planning Commission determination of required offsite assessment for Rupple Road Bridge. Staff is recommending an assessment of $5,439 based on projected traffic volumes. Staff has received signed conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Bates: Good evening, I'm Geoff Bates, I'm an engineer with Keystone Consultants and I'm representing the developer tonight. Ms. Morgan pretty much summed it up pretty well. It is just a typical Fayetteville subdivision with 48 lots, two detention ponds and a lot of assessments and the owner has signed the conditions of approval. If you have any questions I will try to answer them. Hoover: Thank you. We will open this up to public comment now. Is there anyone that would like to address this PPL 03-19.00 for Wildflower Meadows? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Subdivision, did you have a comment? Bunch: Let me make one comment. First, the applicant is a distant relative and I do have no, nor do any of my immediate family, have any financial interest in this project or no financial dealings in common with the applicant. I just want that on the record. It is a pretty straight forward subdivision, it carries with it considerable improvements to Rupple Road Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 15 and to Mt. Comfort and it was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. I do believe it had a recommendation for approval from the Subdivision Committee. Hoover: Are there any other comments or questions? MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve PPL 03-19.00 subject to all fourteen 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 more discussion? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 03-19.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries eight to one. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 16 ANX 03-05.00: Annexation (Rankin/RankinBowen, pp 400) was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Wilbur Maurice Rankin, Mary Ellen Rankin, Raymond Rankin and Susan Bowen for property located on Rupple Road, 0.5 miles north of Wedington Drive. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.19 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Hoover: Item number four on the agenda is ANX 03-05.00 for property north of Wedington Drive. Suzanne, are we going to look at items four and five at the same time? Morgan: Yes Ma'am. Hoover: It will also be item five, RZN 03-33.00 for the same piece of property. Morgan: The applicant has requested that 17.19 acres be annexed into the city and rezoned RSF-4. Staff recommends that the Annexation and Rezoning requests for Rankin, Rankin Bowen be tabled pending the completion of a system wide waste water capacity study for the City of Fayetteville. The applicant has been notified and agrees to this recommendation. The request will be placed on the Planning Commission agenda once the study has been completed. Hoover: I guess if the applicant is in agreement do we need to go ahead and make a motion to table this? Warrick: That's staff's recommendation. Hoover: So we need a motion to table this. Anthes: So moved. Bunch: I would like to add one statement to the recommendation that once the study has been completed and reviewed by staff so that it does give time to look at the results of the study. If that is acceptable to the motioner I will second. Anthes: Yes. Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch, is there anymore discussion about this tabled item? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 03-05.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 17 RZN 03-33.00: Rezoning (Rankin/RankinBowen, pp 400) was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Wilbur Maurice Rankin, Mary Ellen Rankin, Raymond Rankin and Susan Bowen for property located on Rupple Road, 0.5 miles north of Wedington Drive. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: I am assuming that we just do it for the Annexation, next we have to do it for the Rezoning don't we? Williams: Go ahead and do that. MOTION: Hoover: We have RZN 03-33.00 is there a motion? Allen: I move to table RZN 03-33.00. Anthes: I will second. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes, is there any discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-33.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 18 ANX 03-07.00: Annexation (PBS of Fayetteville LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Richard Osborne on behalf of Eugene Nottenkamper, Manager, of PBS of Fayetteville LLC for property located on Jess Anderson Road at Sunshine Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.12 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Hoover: Onto item numbers six and seven that were going to be heard together. That is ANX 03-07.00 and RZN 03-36.00for property located at Jess Anderson Road and Sunshine Road. Jeremy? Pate: Yes Ma'am. This request by PBS of Fayetteville, LLC submitted by Richard Osborne for an Annexation and Rezoning for 29.12 acres to RSF- 4. Staff is also recommending that both of these items be tabled pending the completion of that city wide wastewater capacity study. It is the same recommendation as the previous item basically. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. MOTION: Bunch: I would move that we table ANX 03-7.00 with the added statement to the recommendation to allow for staff review of the sewer study. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there any discussion? Shackelford: Staff, obviously just for the record, is this something that we are going to ask that all Annexations and Rezonings do between now and the time this study is done? Warrick: This is something that staff is specifically recommending for Annexation requests. We feel that it is appropriate to have this information in order to analyze the impact of bringing additional property into the City to serve. We expect that this study will be completed in approximately 60 days and this information available so that we can bring these items back in late January or early February of 2004. Shackelford: As soon as the study is in and you have had time to review it you anticipate getting all of these back on the agenda at the same time is that correct? Warrick: We will be glad to bring them back at the same time. We will do that as quickly as we are able and we will make recommendations based on all of the information available to us at that time. Hoover: We have a motion and a second. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 19 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 03-07.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 20 RZN 03-36.00: Rezoning (PBS of Fayetteville LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Richard Osborne on behalf of Eugene Nottenkamper, Manager, of PBS of Fayetteville LLC for property located on Jess Anderson Road at Sunshine Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.12 acres. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. MOTION: Bunch: I would move that we table RZN 03-36.00. Allen: Second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Allen to table RZN 03-36.00. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-36.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 21 RZN 03-35.00: Rezoning (Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of David Chance and John Tuggle for property located at West Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 7.94 acres. The request is to rezone the property RT -12, Residential Two and Three-family. Hoover: Onto item eight, RZN 03-35.00 for property at West Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. Jeremy? Pate: The subject property for the rezoning request tonight is located in west Fayetteville. It is currently vacant. The proposed zoning, RT -12 would allow for development of two and three family subdivision containing a maximum of 95 units on this acreage of 7.94 acres. RT -12 stands for Residential Two and Three Family, Twelve Units Per Acre. Immediate surrounding properties are all single-family and agricultural in nature. The lot size and density for the surrounding neighborhoods varies from one to two acres to larger lots with the exception of an RMF -6 zoning approximately about a half mile to the west and RT -12 zoning consisting of single family homes on small lots north of Wedington Drive. Access and street frontage for this property is along Tackett Drive to the north and Genevieve Avenue on the western boundary of this site. Both of these streets are substandard and staff would recommend at the time of development on the site that improvements be made to both of these streets to bring them up to standards. The General Plan 2020 designates this site as residential and rezoning this property is consistent with that land use plan. However, staff finds it is not compatible with the surrounding land uses in the area. The proposed zoning for twelve units per acre is not compatible with adjacent and nearby single family and residential agricultural uses. The twelve units per acre would not provide that compatibility that we look for with these adjoining developments. The proposed zoning would also provide additional traffic on Tackett Drive and Genevieve Avenue along with other streets in this area. Several of these streets are too narrow for emergency vehicle access. Therefore, offsite improvements would likely be necessary. I've included comments from both our Fire Department and Police Department as well as our Engineering Division Design Review Team who have provided comments for your review. Staff is recommending denial of this request based on those findings and with the proposal before us. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Bates: Hello, I'm Geoff Bates with Keystone Consultants. I will be representing the developer tonight. I brought the Preliminary Plat that we are starting. The owner has no desire to have 12 units per acre. It is more a little bit over six. The large lots are 85'x110'. The problem is there is not a zoning between six and twelve to get the duplexes. That is what they are going Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 22 for. They have to have 50 units to make the project feasible. We thought RT would be the closest zoning to what we were trying to get to. This is 54`h and this is Tackett. I believe there are duplexes already on this side. Hoover: At this time we will open this up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address this RZN 03-35.00? Would you come to the podium and if there is a sheet to sign in on, sign in if you would. Wonnacott: My name is Melissa Wonnacott. I haven't seen the plat. There are three duplexes on Genevieve. I don't know if any of you have driven down through here. There is a blind corner on 54`h on Genevieve and there are three duplexes on Genevieve. I understand a duplex so I understand the need to make more money but we can barely see each other coming around the corner right now as it is. To put another six per acre, the letter that we got said that there were ten acres, has that changed? Pate: Staff has provided a revised map, it is only 7.94 acres. Wonnacott: There are several of us here I think that are concerned that if there were a good access road, if there were lots of ways to get around but like you said, a fire truck trying to come around Tackett to get on Genevieve could wipe somebody out if they didn't see them. That's pretty much my comment. Hoover: Thank you, yes. Is there another member in the audience? Haskell: I am Don Haskell, I own two parcels. One of them is 5709 there on the corner of Tackett and one of the duplexes that she mentioned, I own the third one on the south end. The duplexes that were mentioned, I don't think that anybody has stated that each duplex has a total of 1.5 acres surrounding it. That is plenty of land to actually give a little bit of space. It is not necessarily what you would consider a bunched up area. The road way right there is right at my front door step. I have seen several accidents right there. That road is so narrow that I've almost been hit several times pulling out of my own driveway. There is almost no way two automobiles can pass on Tackett Drive, there is just no way at all. I cannot see any way of having this kind of a set up at all. Wilkins: Good evening, I'm James Wilkins, I live at 5556 W. Tackett, it is right on the corner of 54`h and Tackett. The property that I'm on is 2.95 acres. It has a hill and a creek on the bottom portion of it with about a half acre on the other side. I shared everyone else's concerns. I whole heartedly agree with your staff for denying this. The reasons are the road, I have children and they ride on this road and it is extremely dangerous. Just on the way over here this evening to turn onto 54`h I had to wait for a car who let me out and then he was able to turn onto 54`h. When we moved there the Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 23 tractor trailer rig that moved all of our items into our home had to park onto 54`h and then move everything through my yard because they couldn't find a way to get to the front of my house and use our 100' driveway. I'm also concerned that turning this area into a parking lot will ruin it. There is a gradual slope there and it continues through my house and the slope increases down to Owl Creek so I have a concern there. Safety of kids, traffic and I think that it does not at all fit with what we presently have or could have in the future. There are some nice homes there and there are some really nice people there. I'm not saying that bad people would move in but I just don't think that it fits with the environment. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Smith: I'm Lee Smith, I just moved into the neighborhood. One of the reasons I moved there was because of the openness of it, the trees, the small lane, well the lack of traffic actually. It is very secluded in there and I like it very much. I can't see widening the road, it takes out all the trees. It takes out the ambiance of the entire neighborhood if you start widening roads and making the roads and so forth. I had no idea there was going to be anything like this when I came here or I probably wouldn't have bought the house in the first place. I am totally against anything like this in this particular neighborhood. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Helm: My name is Howard Helm and I live at 655 N. 54`h Avenue in Fayetteville. The idea of using this property for duplexes or triplexes is ludicrous. I would appeal to each member of this commission to make an on site inspection and to view the traffic hazards as they exist today. Before it was annexed into the city, I've lived there since 1959, Tackett Lane and Genevieve were nothing more than cow paths and even today two cars have difficulty in meeting. You will be told eventually I'm sure that there is another exit to this property slightly to the west. That is a private drive. It is a low water bridge, a private drive and the city has never maintained it so long as it remains as private property it will not be maintained by the city. The idea of erecting some 84 units, that's my understanding on this property, is an intolerable notion or idea. I would urge you to make an on site inspection and see for yourselves the hazards that exist today and which would exist even more so should this property be utilized to that extent. I have no objection to single dwelling units but 84 units, I would presume each unit would have an automobile, would cause a traffic situation that would be totally intolerable. Thank you very much. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 24 Denard: My name is Darrell Denard, I live at 651 Genevieve. I have been there for 11 years and my main concern, not to mention the over urbanization of this project, but also the roads which have yet to be improved since I've been there. I've not even so much to see the city come down and trim some of the trees out of the way to make a road that is an average 13' wide throughout Tackett but if you include the trees that have grown into the road in places you can barely get one car through. Imagine trying to get another 180 cars up and down that road during our rush hour that we do now have in Northwest Arkansas. The roads need vast improvement before even putting a project in. That is my main concern. Hoover: Is there any other member of the public? Christman: Hi, I'm Donna Christman, I'm at 607 N. 54`h. I also am here representing my mother at 625 N. 54`h. As the others have said, the streets are very narrow so to have that number of cars come in it is my understanding that 12 units per acre and with the acreage there, I haven't had a chance to actually see the plat so I'm not sure of everything but I did want to make it known that I do have some concerns also. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and staff. Staff, would you mind reviewing with us on rezonings what findings that we can base denial on? Warrick: The findings are in your report with regards to a determination of the degree in which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Secondly, a determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time that the rezoning is proposed. Third, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Fourth, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water and sewer facilities. Those are the findings that are set out for the Planning Commission with regard to rezoning requests. Hoover: Thank you. Bates: May I add something? Hoover: Yes. Bates: We went into this realizing that there were some problems with the streets. That is why we limited the access to only Tackett. The developer realizes Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 25 that if he wants to sell this product he is going to have to widen Tackett Road. I am sure that the developer is willing to develop Tackett Road to city standards so it would be wide enough. That sounded like the main concern that all the public had. Also, we are only doing 50 units, which is just a little over six per acre, not the 120 or whatever could be possible. There are only 50 units. There was another question about runoff, we are proposing a detention pond right in front so we won't increase the runoff from the site. The developer does realize he is going to have to improve Tackett Road in order to market his product whatsoever. Williams: For the commissioners that were not here in July, 2002 when I handed out a little memo about what else you can consider besides what Dawn has said for zoning considerations. First of all, the 2020 Plan objectives public opposition that is logical and reasonable, traffic considerations, safety and fire protection, good civic design and efficiency, adequacy of public facilities such as sewage or water, noise, litter, decrease in value of adjoining land, appropriate and best use of land and compatibility with adjacent zones. All of those things can be taken into consideration including what the City Planner told you are findings that her office makes. Hoover: Thank you. Bunch: A question for staff, is 54`h Street a collector on the Master Street Plan? Warrick: Yes it is. Bunch: At some time in the future when Persimmon goes in, is Persimmon a collector or is it a higher grade? Warrick: Persimmon is also a collector. Bunch: Do you foresee in the future an upgrade to 54`h when Persimmon goes through from the bypass all the way to Double Springs Road? Warrick: As properties develop we would expect it to be improved to collector standards, or at least to local standards and then eventually to collector standard is the City Council feels that it is meeting those demands. Bunch: Another question of the applicant, did you consider using RSF-4 with a Conditional Use for duplexes or triplexes? Would that not give you a comparable density and also have the opportunity to limit it? On the rezoning there is no guarantees that you would limit it to 50. People are always rather hesitant to say go ahead, we'll let you do it and limit it to 50. The question I have is was a Planned Zoning District considered and/or an Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 26 RSF-4 with a Conditional Use to achieve the same purposes and not have the uncertainty that an RT -12 would have. Bates: Would you be able to get 50 units with an RSF-4 or is that just four units per acre? Bunch: It is four units per acre. Bates: We backed it out at having to have 50 units to be able to pay for the street improvements and improving the subdivision with water and sewer and streets and everything else. That is where we came up with our magic number of 50 and not 120 or 80 or whatever else that we could get. That is all that we need. We have thought about a PZD. If this isn't successful that will be our next step. We would be coming right back with that same exact 50 unit design. To save everybody time that is why I went ahead and brought our plat that we wanted to turn in next week. Hoover: Can I direct discussion to compatibility with adjacent neighbors since that is one of the findings that we do make. Shackelford: As I looked at this deal I put a lot of thought into that exact thing on compatibility. One thing that we have to remember, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, typically you see larger tracts of land on the development towards the outskirts of town. A lot of these properties developed at an earlier time when possibly all of the utilities weren't available in those areas and that kind of forced them into larger tract development in the past. We see this not often, but every now and then, where there is new development going in in the outskirts area. I think we are going to see this over time where new development on these outskirt areas are going to call for density higher than what was feasible when the existing properties around it developed. I think it is kind of a double edged sword. We want to encourage development within our city boundaries and not keep expanding those but in a lot of these types of areas on the outskirts we are going to have developments that require more density than what was originally made there. That is just one side of thought. Church: One thing that we are really encouraging is that you meet with the neighbors ahead of time and I know that that is not required but it sounds like there is a lot of confusion about what is planned. I am just wondering if any effort has been or thought put into meeting with the neighbors ahead of time. Bates: No, that would be my fault. I got too busy and I just did not make time to meet with the neighbors and I should have. I apologize. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 27 Vaught: I would agree with Commissioner Shackelford and the fact that there is a lot of open space still out here and I don't think we want to limit all this area just to large tracts of land. As the city grows this is going to be really closer and closer to in town and then we will have the same issues that we do in some areas that used to be really outlying that don't have the dense development, we are trying to go back and develop them denser. I don't necessarily think that the compatibility issue is a complex issue. As far as Tackett Road, part of our desire is to provide street improvements with development and if we don't have development in some of these areas roads like Tackett Drive are never going to get approved. There are benefits and then there is cost as well. I concur with Commissioner Bunch on the PZD idea. It just gives us more assurance and more of a set this is what is going to happen, as well as the neighbors. Right now you are telling us 50 but if we approve this, you can come back and RT -12 allows for two and three family dwellings so you could come back and put more on there. We don't have any assurance at all of that. That is not that we don't trust you or believe what you are saying, it is just something that happens. The owner, something could happen to them, they sell the land and it is rezoned and someone else could come in and do whatever they wanted. That is why we are more tentative on the flat out rezoning. Especially in areas where the neighbors are more concerned, the PZD gives a better picture of what is going to be there. That is just something else to think about. I know that if it comes back as a PZD they have to go through the whole process again, is that correct? Warrick: They start the review process with the development, they do start again, that is correct. Shackelford: Just a couple more thoughts, I want to continue where I was going. If you look at the one mile radius of this property there is RMF -12, there is RT - 12, there is even RMF -24 within this area. I understand that it may not be a direct match with what is in the immediate area but it is definitely an area that we have seen a lot of development in some more dense housing types in this area. As Commissioner Vaught was saying, I agree completely with what he is saying. I kind of liken this to some of the development north of Mt. Comfort Road that we have looked at in the last year where we have allowed development and the fees associated with that development has paid for the infrastructure improvements that needed to be done in that area. Even tonight we have seen a subdivision that we approved that brought fees and assessments close to $100,000 for the City of Fayetteville to do the improvements that were needed to make that overall neighborhood as a whole better. I do have concerns with the density as it is requested at this point. Simply for what Commissioner Vaught said, once we approve it at this density we have no control over what happens from now to the time that it is developed. I think that the PZD would be a better way to go with this process also. I think that we Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 28 have to give some serious consideration to allowing development in these areas and allowing the fees and things associated with that development to improve infrastructure and make better neighborhoods for everybody concerned. Ostner: I appreciate the comments by the two discussers before me. It is important to promote development but there is a limit. I think this crosses the limit. There is a difference between single family development and duplexes that is separate from density. This just doesn't fit with what is around it. I understand on this map we can find other zonings that are more dense but when I drive around there it is a very out of town feel. There are trees, there are brambles. This area doesn't warrant this density. I am more interested in a PZD also but if you are going to take that drawing and just turn around and say ok, here is a PZD, I'm going to have to vote against it. I would have to refer to many of the people who have spoken here. It just doesn't fit. I think something should be developed there, it would help bring up the road standards but this is just too much. Instead of 50 lots if it were 40, I'm just giving an insight as to what I might be more inclined to vote for. If it were 40 for this whole development I might be more amenable to voting for it. In other words, it wouldn't take a complete reduction in density, cutting it in half or going all the way to four units per acre. This is just too much for me. Bates: What happens is we are going to have a lot of offsite improvements, I can see that already. We are going to have to extend water all the way from 54`h to get to there and then loop it with the 2" line plus I guarantee that we will probably have to improve the entire Tackett Road instead of just half like normal. Plus the land cost, that is what is really driving a lot of this up and that is what you all will probably see more in the future. As town builds out, that land cost goes up so you have to have more units to pay for it. We will do what we can do but there is a point where they can either afford to do it or they can't. Ostner: I understand. I am just saying that I have a point too. Bates: I understand. Bunch: Following the same line of thought that Commissioner Shackelford had on some of the other projects in the area and some of the other zonings. Just about a half mile west of this and to the east of Double Springs Road, there is a development that is mixed RSF-4 single family homes and RMF -6 and they went in with a brand new subdivision and built one segment of it as duplexes and the rest of it as single family homes and they had to put in a considerable amount of infrastructure with offsite improvements to Double Springs Road, contribution to a bridge in addition to the roads and everything in the various phases of the Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 29 subdivision. That is very close to this area so it speaks to the property values and to the returns on investment in that area. We are seeing that it is feasible to have lower density developments that are carrying their weight. I just might mention that to you in passing that we do have examples in the immediate area where a little lesser density has been shown to be possible. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Vaught: I guess as I think of this I also try to think of what this area is going to look like 10 years or 20 years down the road. Like Commissioner Shackelford said, the immediate homes abutting it, there are a few duplexes but it is larger lots. There are large tracts that are still R -A and undeveloped and to say those won't come through as something like that we don't know. It is still a rapidly growing area of town and there is a lot of similar densities around this. I agree with Commissioners Shackelford and Bunch on that as well. I understand the concerns of the neighbors on density. It is something everyone thinks about when something like this comes through but there is a trade off in the improvements as well. Hoover: Thank you. Allen: I would echo Commissioner Ostner's concerns about this area and hope that whatever you decide to do that it will be possible for you to meet with the neighbors prior to that. Since it is somewhat of a nonsequedor, I did want the neighbors to know that at least five of the Commissioners did go and tour the area and did see the street situation as we do on most of the projects that come to us. Bates: I will be happy to meet with them after this meeting if that would be alright and if anybody wants to stay to show them what we propose. Shackelford: A question of staff. We addressed it earlier. On Persimmon Street, once that is completed I think the overall outlook of this area changes significantly if you will look at what it is going to tie together as far as development to the west and the east of this property. Do you have or can you guesstimate any time line of when Persimmon Street is going to be completed? Warrick: It is going to be very dependent upon when property owners adjoining Persimmon choose to bring projects through the process and develop. I have heard about several proposed developments along Persimmon and just a guess, I would think that probably within the next 7 to 10 years it will be complete from Double Springs to I-540. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 30 Shackelford: That is going to tie together a lot of rooftops from the Boys Club all the way out to Double Springs so I think that is going to facilitate more change in this area of town than anything. As was said earlier, that is my two cents worth as well. I think we are going to see development in this area. I think densities are going to change over time over what is in some of these outskirt areas and quite honestly, the fees and assessments and the costs of doing development in the City of Fayetteville drives up the density requirements for these projects to work. I think that this is something that we are going to continue to see in these areas and we just have to continue to make sound planning decisions in allowing this growth. Ostner: A question for staff. I know that this is pretty difficult and not something that we keep track of. In our packets we have the basically legal zoning districts. Those are simply maximums. What would it take to find out what the actual built out densities are in this area? Warrick: We would probably have to overlay parcel information on aerial photography, count roof tops, drive around and assess number of units and calculate the density in a square mile or whatever the appropriate area would be to give you more than a thumbnail of what we think the density is. Ostner: That seems very complicated. Warrick: It would take some time. Ostner: From the tour I would bet that there aren't any built out densities surrounding this that are even close to the density that is being proposed. I would like to make a motion, unless the petitioner wants to withdraw it, I was going to make a motion that we deny this. Hoover: Is that a motion? Ostner: I am asking the applicant. I was going to make a motion that we deny this. Bunch: What about a motion to table? Shackelford: That would allow him to bring it back as a PZD. Vaught: He would have to start over. Hoover: He would have to start over anyway. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 31 Shackelford: A question for the City Attorney. If we make a motion and we do decline the rezoning request, what avenue does that leave the applicant as far as bringing back a PZD on the same property? Williams: I don't think there would be a problem with doing that. He also of course would have the option to appeal your denial to the City Council just like if you move to approve a rezoning they still have to go to City Council. He can't come back with the same rezoning for a year I think but if he substantially changes the rezoning request then he can come back. Shackelford: Thank you. Ostner: I am sort of asking for your feedback because I am about to make a motion to deny this request. Bates: Let's go ahead that way we can appeal anyway and we can come back with a PZD if it doesn't pass. Hoover: Ok. We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner to deny, is there a second? Allen: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen, is there anymore discussion? Vaught: I have a question. If we just table it that would give the applicant a chance to talk to the neighbors about this project and see if some resolution can be agreed on between them and the applicant. He can always withdraw himself and come forward with a PZD if he knows it is going to come forward and fail. I would rather just see it tabled to give him the opportunity to see if he can work something out, an agreement like some sort of Bill of Assurance or something, instead of just making him start all over. Hoover: I think right now, correct me if I'm wrong, since we have a motion and a second that we have to vote on this. Williams: Actually, he can move to table that motion if he wants to but it does require a second. Hoover: Ok. Are you making a motion? Vaught: I would like to hear feedback from our Commissioners. Bunch: A question for staff and possibly the City Attorney, if a motion to deny is successful does that jeopardize the fees that have already been paid? Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 32 Would he have to forfeit those and start over as opposed to a motion to table where he could apply those fees to a R-PZD? Warrick: If a project is tabled then this particular rezoning request is what is tabled and it is pending until this particular request comes back. Those fees and staff time and research goes into this action. If the motion is to deny and that is successful then the action is finished and it has run its course unless it is appealed to Council and then it continues running its course until definitive action is taken. Shackelford: Let me throw one more wrinkle in this. Tonight, earlier we allowed an applicant to withdraw his request and you said that you would work with that applicant to let those fees be applied to a pending PZD would you offer that same opportunity to this applicant? Warrick: Yes Sir. I will offer the same opportunity to this applicant if he should withdraw. Shackelford: Ok, so you have three choices. We can vote on it and appeal to City Council if we decline it, you can withdraw it and apply the fees that you've paid to this point towards a PZD if you decide to go that direction, or you can table it and try to get an agreement with some sort of Bill of Assurance I would assume that would at least outline and define the density that you want to try to come back with a rezoning request. Bates: Can you give me a minute? Shackelford: Sure. Bates: We will take door number two. We will withdraw and have the fees applied towards the PZD. Hoover: Do we need more official than say the applicant wants to withdraw? Warrick: No. Hoover: Thank you. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 33 ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Jeremy Pate RZN 03-34.00: Rezoning (Schlegel, pp207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to rezone the property RSF- 4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: We are on item number nine now, ANX 03-06.00 and I guess we are going to see together the Annexation and the RZN 03-34.00. Pate: This annexation and rezoning request was submitted by Milholland Company. The property is located north of the Crystal Springs subdivision west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is of course, in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. Staff's recommendation for this Annexation and Rezoning is the same as the previous annexations had. Staff is recommending that both of these items be tabled pending the completion of the system wide waste water capacity study. As you will note, staff reports are included with both of these items. That is due to the fact that in conversations with the applicant, they have not agreed as of this meeting to table this item. I can go over this in more detail if the applicant has decided to keep it on the agenda. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Milholland: Thank you very much. I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing my client. I understand Madam Chair that you are taking the Annexation and Rezoning at the same time? Hoover: Yes. Milholland: My understanding from the Planners is the Wastewater Study is why they are not recommending continuing on. My client would respectfully request consideration be given to this by the Planning Commission and make it subject to a favorable report from the professional firm that is going to do this prior to it going on the agenda for the City Council. In the comments from staff, we worked very close with them, there are not really any negative items brought up on either the Annexation or the Rezoning. It is in concurrence with the 2020 Plan. The number of 290 we feel is way above what would be put on this tract, there will probably be 200 or 220 lots instead of 290. We started this a year and a half ago and due to another study it was pulled back. We would just respectfully request if Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 34 you would just discuss it tonight and put it on hold as far as the Council agenda until the report comes out. If the report on the study is favorable fine, if it is not we don't go any further. That would save us from having to come back again. If you went ahead and discussed this tonight, my client is requesting that since there are not any negative comments pertaining to the Annexation and Rezoning by the staff, that you go ahead and approve this with the stipulation that it will not be put on a Council agenda until a favorable report from the professional firm doing the wastewater study is presented to the city. That is basically tabling it from the Council agenda is what we are doing instead of at the Planning Commission. Like I said, there are not any negative comments that I know of. Hoover: You have read this recommendation? Milholland: Yes Ma'am. Basically the only thing I read was the concern about the fire station which is being designed right now and will be constructed prior to the subdivision is complete. The other thing is improvements to Rupple Road which I think has already been done from where the site is. The other item on here is the wastewater study. As far as the overall concept being in concurrence with the 2020 Plan it is. Hoover: I guess if you want to keep this I think we should have Jeremy go ahead and present because I know you cut yours short, maybe you better explain. Pate: Certainly. To answer a little of the questions here. As part of the formal recommendations there is one paragraph that is based on legal descriptions, closure areas, etc., that has been resolved so that is no longer an issue of concern for staff. Annexation and rezoning requests as Mr. Milholland stated, was petitioned for this property in December, 2002. At that time staff recommended denial for both the Annexation and Rezoning citing concerns for fire response times and increased loading onto existing infrastructure, particularly the wastewater system. The recommendation for denial was based on the inability of the city to provide adequate services to this particular area. Staff does remain concerned with those fire response times and waste water systems capacity although steps are being taken, as we discussed tonight, to remedy both of these situations. The fire station number seven to be located on Rupple Road is in the design phase and hopefully development drawings will be submitted in the coming months and also, as we mentioned tonight, a system wide waste water study is currently underway and hopefully slated to be completed in the next 60 to 90 days. The subject property, we have received some letters of concern and I've also included the previous letters of concern from the Annexation and Rezoning request that was brought to you before in 2002. Discussion includes street standards in this area. As we drove out with the Planning Commission on agenda tour, part of the road to the Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 35 north is still largely substandard, it is a gravel road. There are some concerns with Deane Solomon as well because it does not meet our city street standards. Residences are located near to the subject property. There are several subdivisions to be located in this area. Some are under construction as we speak. With regard to findings for the Annexation, staff does find in favor of most of these. However, time is really the issue here. The fire department has listed their comments here. Response time could be as long as seven minutes from the current fire station. However, that reduces to approximately 5 minutes and 42 seconds from the proposed fire station so that concern has been substantially debated. The police department has reviewed this as well and has indicated that there will not be a significant impact in police services. However, it does also site the potential traffic danger with improvements and staff would recommend with development of this property that infrastructure, especially water, sewer, and street infrastructure be improved in this location. The proposed annexation and ultimate development on this site with the rezoning request of RSF-4 would create approximately 290 units if developed to it's maximum density. Surrounding land use as Mr. Milholland, the applicant, stated is in compliance with the General Plan for residential uses. Most of the zoning in this area is also RSF-4, Residential Single Family. It is compatible with zoning in this particular area. We are seeing development much like what has been proposed to us in discussions with the applicant. If there are any other questions I don't know how much detail that you want me to go into this. I have put the letters in the staff report as well as our findings based on the rezoning and annexation request. If you have any questions staff is available. Hoover: Thank you. At this time we will open up ANX 03-06.00 and RZN 03- 34.00 for this property west of Deane Solomon Road. Is there any member of the audience? Bassett: My name is Mary Bassett. My family has owned 80 acres that adjoins this property directly to the west, it is the Zaccanti property. I represent my family, my brothers and my sister as well as my parents tonight. I would like to start with everything that staff has just said as far as infrastructure, as far as the water, the sewer, the roads and I certainly hope that all of you have been out to this property to look at the dirt road to the north. It is called actually West Salem Road. I was raised on the 80 acres that my parents own. I went to all the Fayetteville public schools and so did my brothers and sister as well as the University of Arkansas. I am very familiar with this property and growing up riding horses all around it including this acreage, which was known as the Cassett farm at that time and they were friends with my parents. There are quite a few low lands in there. Some of that has real low areas where water has collected and especially off the golf course where the creek is. That is one concern. Basically, everything that staff just said, the infrastructure, the water, the Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 36 sewer, the police, the fire, the schools and highest regards to Mr. Milholland. We think the world of him and if we ever do develop this 80 acres we would certainly go to him with our thoughts as to what we would want to do. The Crystal Springs subdivision is at the bottom west corner of my parent's 80 acres. They have been very good neighbors. My parents are farmers. They are retired but they are farmers. We do have cattle on this property. My father raised chickens and the chicken houses still remain on his 80 acres although they are not active chicken operations. Like I said, my parents own this 80 acres and have lived there for 50 years. If you look at the 80 acres that my parents have that joins this 70 acre tract, as it goes up the hill we have beautiful views of Fayetteville. We can see Ole Main from my parent's house and it has been a beautiful setting there for of course, all of these years. Someday my brothers and sisters do hope to develop these 80 acres. Our thoughts are keeping with the integrity of the land and with the adjoining property owners. For example, a subdivision similar to Crystal Springs at the very bottom 40 acres, somewhat like what they have requested today with 1,600 to 2,000 sq.ft. minimum homes. As we developed up the hill we would have from half acre to an acre and some parcels would have to be larger than that as you go up the hill we expect to go up to five acres at the very top where my parent's home is. Houses would be the top 40 acres would be a minimum of 3,000 sq.ft. The number of concerns that we have is like I said, right now the dirt road that goes in front of my parent's house on East Salem Road is a major problem. As I grew up there and started driving the road was so narrow then that you had to actually back up all the way to your house to wait on a car to pass. You couldn't even pull over on the side of the road. It is a little better today but not much. You have to actually pull over onto the other part of the curb or the road I suppose, for another car to pass right now. Also, there is a very sharp S carve on Deane Solomon Road that my mother had a wreck five years ago and totaled her vehicle on the S curve when another car veered on her side of the road and with the sharp S curve she missed the road and obviously went off and totaled her vehicle. There is no water and sewer on my parent's property. As a matter of fact, my mother has called for the past ten years and has been promised water, no one has showed up, no one has advised them on exactly what to do to hook up to city water. Therefore, they remain on a well and of course a septic system. I would like for our wishes as the Zaccanti family, would be to consider the adjoining land owner's desire for development. My parent's home is 3,500 sq.ft. The Butcher's home, Perry Butcher, which was formally Jim Bob Wheeler's home is over 3,500 sq.ft. and that is directly north of this parcel and it is on about 10 acres. Jim Bob Wheeler and Joan Wheeler developed Lindley Estates. The property right across from the Kendall's property has at least a 4,000 sq.ft. home on 10 acres. We would request and ask for the city to consider possibly a joint, some type if you do annex this and you do go further with their rezoning, we would like to request that you do in the Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 37 integrity that the neighborhood is right now, possibly with something that would work with the Crystal Springs type subdivision but as you go up with the 40 acres going north from south but perhaps something else that could be more with the working of the homes that are existing now. Please allow the property values to remain stable in this area. Please do not push out farmers and livestock which are obviously, there now, for a faster, smaller, busier world to live in. Thank you so much for your consideration. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Annexation and Rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: I have a couple of questions. Gypsum Drive, for Springwoods are they going to complete that out to Deane Solomon? Warrick: Gypsum Drive is north of the Springwoods property. Vaught: Does it not connect all the way to Gypsum Drive? I am trying to remember. Warrick: Ok, Gypsum east of Deane Solomon is the extension of Truckers Drive and that through the action with the Springwoods project was removed from the Master Street Plan. East of Deane Solomon between that and the built portion of Truckers was taken off the Master Street Plan. It is built in a portion through Crystal Springs further west. Allen: I have no difficulty in any kind of discussion that we might want to have as a Commission about this but it is extremely problematic to me to consider moving it forward to the Council without the information that the Council will have in determining the use of this property. Ostner: I would tend to agree with Commissioner Allen. I just want to be sure Mr. Milholland, that you've seen this Department of Health letter from August 11, 2003. Milholland: Yes Sir, I have. In response to Ms. Allen's statement, we are not asking that you send it all the way to the Council. We are asking just to go through the process and if you could make a recommendation to the Council subject to a favorable report by the professional on the waste water plant. Allen: I guess I would like to see that report before I would feel comfortable making that recommendation. That is just my personal thoughts. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 38 Milholland: I thought I understood you to say to go onto Council. That is what we are asking is to put it tabled at that point until a favorable report comes and then we will know where we are and either move on and if not, drop it. Thank you. I know the Planning staff made comments in 2002. The reason that it was recommended to deny at that point was the capacity of one lift station. That was resolved with another study. This one here, I understand it is the city wide system at the request of the Health Department. We are not talking about the same thing that happened in 2002, that was resolved. Before we initiated an application for Annexation and Rezoning we asked if there was a moratorium on Rezonings or Annexations and we understood that there was not. That is why we submitted it at this point in time. Then we found out that there is a professional study being done at this time at the Health Department's request. We would like to go onto the next step and then just wait and see what happens. Anthes: A question for the City Attorney. Is there a mechanism in place to do what Mr. Milholland is asking to hold a recommendation from the Planning Commission on an Annexation request until a report is in before it goes to the City Council or does it have to go in a certain number of days? Williams: I don't know if there is any procedure like that. I know that uniformly it is placed on the City Council agenda when it leaves with a recommendation from here. I don't know that there is any way where it would be able to be stopped and not forwarded to the City Council. I know if it was denied that there is a 10 day limit on appeals which then goes to City Council. I don't know if there is any procedure that would allow holding a recommendation. I don't know what would give you the right, or anybody the right, to hold the recommendation and not forward it to the City Council. The City Council wouldn't have to act immediately, they can always table it themselves if they wanted to. I am not aware of any procedure to do what Mr. Milholland is suggesting. Ostner: I believe it is part of our job to have these issues addressed and considered before we pass an issue. We would be remiss to pass this issue with the caveat that it is not quite ready. It wasn't quite ready yesterday before we voted on it, if we voted and it is still not quite ready we haven't done our job. Mr. Milholland, I would be willing to make a motion to table this waiting for the report to come through. That's what I'm about to do. Ms. Warrick, what is the estimation completion date of the sewer study or is there an estimated? Warrick: The contract calls for 60 days after the engineering consultant has the information they need, the data that the city was providing. I received an email this morning stating that this week or the beginning of next would Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 39 be the time that they have the information or knowledge in hand to act on that 60 days. Ostner: So we are looking at mid-January as a probable completion date. Hoskins: My name is Tracy Hoskins, I'm the developer of the property. I'm not very good at public speaking but I'll give it a try. What we are asking for here is the opportunity to move this thing forward. I believe the only issue by talking to staff, Jeremy and Dawn, I believe the only issue is waiting the answer on the sewer report. What we are asking is to go ahead and move the thing forward so that we don't have to come back before you again. Once those reports come out, which is basically my understanding, the only issue here, if we have a favorable report we are not put however many weeks it takes to get back in front of you again. Jefcoat: If that report is not favorable then our option is to come back to you. In other words, if the report is favorable it will be moved forward. If it is not favorable then it would be denied. All we are asking for is to be forwarded to the City Council on the condition that the report is found favorable. If the report is found favorable then you have no choice, you would move it on anyway. Hoover: Staff, just to clarify again, what they are asking, would that actually work or would it go immediately? Is there anyway that we can do that? I know that we just asked the question of the City Attorney. I'm sure you have thought about this in the beginning, was it possible to go this direction. Warrick: The process for an item to be forwarded from the Planning Commission to City Council is that as soon as the Planning Commission has acted on the request if it is an affirmative recommendation staff prepares an agenda request and follows the procedure set out by the City Clerk to get an item placed on the City Council agenda. It is typically the Friday following the Monday Planning Commission meeting is our deadline to get those items sent forward for the City Council and then it is slated approximately three weeks later so that it gets in their packets. It is staffs responsibility to forward items that have been heard by the Planning Commission to go forward to the City Council. I can't recall in the past having an item pending any particular action before it goes up to City Council. Our effort always is to ensure that the project is complete when you hear them so that you can do what you are required to do and that is to make a recommendation to the City Council on an Annexation and a Rezoning. Our recommendation is to table so that staff can make a recommendation to you and that you can therefore, make a recommendation to the City Council, which is what we are required to do and what you are required to do. We didn't feel that we could make an adequate recommendation with this piece of information lacking. Being that it is 60 days out or in that Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 40 general time frame we know that we will have information that can answer some questions with regards to sewer system and whether or not there is capacity for adding additional land onto the city that can be developed and impact that system. That's why we have made the recommendation that we have because we felt that it would be appropriate. We feel that your recommendation to Council is an important recommendation. You are the Planning Commission, you are supposed to be determining what is appropriate with regard to land development, city limits and other issues with regard to development. You are the future thinking team in all of this process. I think that it is very important that you have a definitive recommendation for the Council when you send an item forward. Jefcoat: I guess that's our exact point. That is our point that the report will either show that there is capacity or there is not capacity. That's the question at hand. If the report shows there is capacity it moves forward. If it shows that there is no capacity then it is a dead issue. MOTION: Bunch: There is one other alternative. The report could show that there is marginal capacity which would mean that we would have to make a determination. It might be that there is capacity for a limited amount. Since we have not seen the report we don't know that. Often times from Subdivision to the full Planning Commission we do forward things pending additional information coming in with the understanding that it would come back to Subdivision if that information is not present. However, that is a little different process with a recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council. With that thought in mind I will move that we table ANX 03-06.00 with the understanding that it will become an item of old business which will move it up on our agenda. Ostner: I will second that motion. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there more discussion? Shackelford: This is the direction I started when we looked at this about an hour ago for the first time. As I was thinking, as I read through this process. What this applicant is asking to do I see a lot of logic to. There are a lot of points of interest that we as Planning Commissioners make judgments on and make decisions and definitions on regarding rezonings and annexations. My concern is we owe a developer a system of due process in these requests. I would support this if it was possible. I am obviously concerned that the City Attorney is telling us that, this is not a structure that we have in place for the City of Fayetteville so we have a struggle there, but I am concerned with the amount of time that we are delaying applicants in this process. I Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 41 am also concerned with the work load in which you are going to have once this report is done a whole lot of people are going to want this done really fast. Can you give us a little more specific indication, say that we get the report on January 15`h, the process of these tabled items, where will they stand as far as the applicant? What process will they have to come back through? What will the time frame be for an applicant at that point to proceed assuming it is favorable? Warrick: As soon as the report is available and staff has reviewed it to determine that it is appropriate, that we have an opportunity to make a recommendation, we will immediately slate any item that has been tabled based on that pending report on the next available Planning Commission meeting that we can make proper notification for. It is required that we notify 15 days prior to a public hearing. Because these items will be tabled for a significant amount of time I think it is appropriate that we go ahead and make that notification as best we can before they come back because these decisions will impact many. We will make every effort to ensure that we do proper notification and meet the time frames that we are required to meet to get these items back to the Planning Commission in a timely fashion as soon as we do get those slated, they will be items of old business that we will present to you for your recommendation. At that time we will be able to make a definitive recommendation with regard to all of the information. Shackelford: I wish that there was a facility in which we could do all the work on these requests that we could possibly do up to the point for the pending information that we need to have to make a final decision. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that we do not specifically have that avenue to go to with this. Warrick: That is correct. Vaught: On that, basically what he is asking to do is for us to approve and then them to ask for City Council to table pending the report but there is no assurance. We can't force the City Council to table anything and that is where we are limited. Hoover: I think in general since I've been on Planning Commission we have never sent something to City Council that was an either/or. If this happens then this is ok, if this doesn't happen it is not ok. We always have a definitive answer and recommendation which I think makes it a stronger voice than if we start doing that. Unfortunately, they have gotten in this situation but this is something that has been questioned on and on and on again and I'm glad to see that we are addressing it at this point finally. Is there more discussion? I think we have a motion and a second. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 42 Bunch: Just one item of clarification. Jefcoat May I ask a question? In other words, you do not have a mechanism for a conditional approval? Hoover: No. Bunch: Just one item of clarification, I'm not fully aware of the extent of the wastewater treatment study but we are aware from past experience that some areas of town have heavier loadings. Some lift stations are under loaded and this information has been presented to us in Subdivision Committee and in Planning Commission and I think that with that past experience that it would behoove us to take a look at this. This survey may not be a city wide deal up or down one way or the other. It may say this drainage basin needs attention, this drainage basin is alright. We don't have before us anything about which drainage basin this particular project is in or if it is in possibly two or three different drainage basins so without that information I think it would be prudent on our part to table it and wait for that information. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Graves: I would just note that at this point we have asked a number of people in a similar situation to table their proposals as well and it doesn't seem fair or balanced to move forward on one just because they protested maybe. In addition to that, I would also note that the waste water report would be a pretty critical item anyway. To move forward without having that information and make an equivocal recommendation to the City Council, I think part of the charge of the Planning Commission is to make a definite recommendation, not an equivocal recommendation. Hoover: Thank you. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 03-06.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 43 Hoover: Onto RZN 03-34.00, is there a motion? MOTION: Ostner: So moved. Hoover: A motion to table I assume. Ostner: Motion to table. Hoover: Is there a second? Allen: Second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Allen, is there any discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 03-34.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 44 RZN 03-37.00: Rezoning (City of Fayetteville, pp 608) was submitted by City of Fayetteville for property located off Goff Farm Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Hoover: Item number eleven on the agenda is RZN 03-37.00 for property located off Goff Farm Road. Suzanne? Morgan: Thank you Madam Chair. The subject property is 1.95 acres zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and this tract of land is dedicated to the City of Fayetteville as park land for Stonebridge Meadows Phase I. The Preliminary Plat for Stonebridge Meadows Phase II was submitted on September 22, 2003 and with this submittal the applicant requested that this park land dedication for Stonebridge Meadows Phases I and II be combined into one 5.45 acre tract. The 1.95 acre tract is proposed to be deeded back to Meadows Enterprises, Inc. with the Final Plat approval for Stonebridge Meadows Phase Il. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles and policies with the land use and zoning plans. Surrounding properties are residential and agricultural in nature and the subject property does provide an extension of an existing single family subdivision and a larger tract of park land for the surrounding subdivision. Also, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified because it is consistent with the surrounding property recently rezoned RSF-4 and the city's adopted General Plan 2020. Based on these findings, staff is recommending approval for the requested rezoning. Hoover: Are we the applicant? Warrick: We are. Hoover: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this RZN 03-37.00 on Goff Farm Road? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Bunch: Since this is a housekeeping item of a project that has already come through I would move that we recommend to the City Council RZN 03- 37.00. Hoover: There is a motion by Commissioner Bunch. Shackelford: I will second. Hoover: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Planning Commission November 24, 2003 Page 45 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 03-37.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:26 p.m.