Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 9, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN R-PZD 04-02.00: (Cross Keys, pp 438) Forwarded to City Council Page 2 CUP 04-06.00: (Fuddruckers, pp 173) Approved Page 15 LSD 04-03.00: (Fuddruckers, pp 173) Approved Page 15 R-PZD 04-05.00: (Hickory Park, pp 294) Forwarded to City Council Page 25 CUP 04-07.00: (Linda Doede, pp 524) Approved Page 37 VAC 04-01.00: (Michael Campbell, pp 60) Tabled Page 42 ADM 04-06.00: Preliminary Plat Approval Extension Approved Page 43 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Alice Church Sharon Hoover Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Craig Camagey Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 2 Hoover: Welcome to the Monday, February 9, 2004 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Hoover: Thank you. The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the January 12, 2004 meeting and the January 26, 2004 meeting. Do I have a motion for approval of the minutes? Allen: So moved. Church: Second. Hoover: Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the January 12, 2004 meeting and the January 26, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan and Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46`" and Persimmon Street. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 38.48 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District and to approve the development of a residential subdivision with 108 single family dwellings proposed. Hoover: Thank you. The first item of business is under old business, it is R-PZD 04-02.00 for Cross Keys. Suzanne? Morgan: Yes Ma'am. The subject property is located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46`h and Persimmon Street. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and a Preliminary Plat approval for a residential development with an R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use is single family residential with 108 lots proposed. Density for the entire site is 2.81 units per acre. Connectivity from this proposed residential subdivision is being provided west to 46` Street, south to Persimmon Street and east to a vacant tract of land for connectivity to future development. Street improvements include construction of Persimmon Street along southern property line and a recommendation from the Engineering Division to cost share for the developer to overlay the entire width of 46` street. Findings by staff include the applicant ha submitted a Bill of Assurance and Protective Covenants for this Cross Keys subdivision. The R-PZD is located on land identified on the General Plan for residential use and the Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 3 density will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The subdivision is also near the Boys and Girls Club and will be able to promote community for this area. Permitted uses, the applicant is requesting Use Unit 1, City Wide Uses by Right, Use Unit 8, Single - Family, and Use Unit 24, Home Occupations. Staff finds that a development with 2.81 units per acre is consistent with the General Plan and connectivity is being provided. Staff recommends that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning and Planning Commission approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to 14 conditions. Some of which include Planning Commission determination of appropriate fence material if desired and appropriate timing for installation. The fence shall not encroach upon any rights of way or easements. Condition five, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends 14' from centerline of the 46`h Street including curb, gutter and storm sewer and to modify condition seven to read "Allowed uses in this R-PZD will be restricted to Use Unit 1, City Wide Uses by Right, Use Unit 8, Single - Family, and Use Unit 24, Home Occupations. Staff has received signed conditions of approval. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward please? Jorgensen: Yes, my name is Dave Jorgensen, I'm sitting in for Chris Brackett who is on seminar all week long. We are here to answer questions and try to move this along in the process speaking on behalf of the owner. As Suzanne mentioned, we did sign all of the conditions. We are in agreement with all of the conditions. Hoover: Thank you. At this time I will open up this R-PZD 04-02.00 to the public. Is there any member of the audience who would like to address this Planned Zoning District? Yes Sir, please come forward. Adams: My name is Gary Adams, I'm a homeowner at 760 N. 46`' Avenue which is the feeder street that goes down to this proposed development. The only problem I have is the fact that 46`h Street was a feeder street, I suppose now maybe it has been changed, buy only by maybe definition. It didn't meet all of the requirements. It is still lacking in those requirements and yet we've got one new subdivision going in and we are asking for another one now to be ok'd and 46`h is going to be one of the major arteries for both of these subdivisions and it is going to cause a lot of potential traffic problems out our way. We've got that concern. We wish something could be done with 46`h Street. We were told when the other subdivision was going in that there wouldn't be a lot of dump trucks going down our road because it would be coming in from 54`h Street. If you take a drive down our road today it is mostly red clay where hundreds of dump trucks have been going up and down 46`h Street to the subdivision that is being built Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 4 currently. We do have a bit of a problem with respect to 46`h Street. We feel like it needs to be developed before we have additional units put in there. Everything Charlie has told me about the project does sound like a good project. It is just that I wish the city would do something with respect to 46`h Street. I know that originally Charlie didn't plan to have an outlet onto 46`h Street but the city apparently required him to do that and it is going to be a pretty major problem I think whenever we get all of those houses into our area. I wish something could be done on 46`h Street. Thank you very much. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address this Planned Zoning District? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Staff, would you respond to that question about street improvements on 46"h Street? Casey: Street improvements are being recommended and proposed due to development along 46`h Street but only the length of the project. The other streets involved with this entire construction, the entire width of construction of Persimmon along the southern boundary of the project and also the interior streets to the project. The thought behind this was with the next phase of development that we will hopefully see this year will connect Persimmon all the way to Rupple and Rupple will be one of the main thoroughfares. Also, Broyles Avenue to the west through the Persimmon Place subdivision that we saw last year, will be constructed all the way up to Wedington this year. It has already been bid. Construction should start at any time. We are looking at Persimmon almost 100% improved through that area all the way to Rupple, Broyles all the way from Persimmon to Wedington and then the section of 46`h Street along the project side. There should be plenty of improved surfaces for them to exit out to Wedington on in the near future. Hoover: Thank you. Subdivision, were there any specific items that we need to address or were all your concerns taken care of? Bunch: I think most of the concerns were taken care of There was one question, it is the interconnectivity with this and the potential subdivision to the east and I don't know if that has been addressed. We might have the applicant respond to that. Basically, we talked about street improvements, fence and that sort of thing. It is a pretty straight forward project. Jorgensen: Thank you Don. I will try to address this connectivity. By any chance do you all have in your packet a picture of this project and the project that is immediately to the east of this? It would be a large sheet of paper. I was thinking that you all had that. We have a version that shows these connections. In lieu of that, if you will refer to your vicinity map that is on the Preliminary Plat that will help us. It is up there in the right hand Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 5 corner of the Preliminary Plat. If you will notice the darkened area is the 40 acre project that we are talking about right now, Cross Keys. Immediately to the west of that in the audience they have mentioned 46`n Street. Immediately to the west of that is Persimmon Street. Matt mentioned that Broyles Street, you can see a dash going up to Wedington, that is going to be constructed starting this year. The connectivity that Don is mentioning is the project immediately to the east of that shaded area which is the remainder of Meadowlands Phase II and Phase III, it is also being referred to as Rupple Row, it goes all the way from this project to Rupple Road. This project right here has 2.3 lots per acre. The project to the east of this is I'm not sure what the density is, but it is definitely more than this, it is a completely different type neighborhood. I am not going to get into a dogfight on this connectivity issue but the developer of Cross Keys and also the developer of the project to the east wish that this connection not be made. I know it has been traditional that the Planning Commission has asked for connectivity for obvious reasons but there is two different types of neighborhoods. I will let Charlie Sloan address the differences in these neighborhoods. It was thought that there would be adequate connectivity by going down to the south down to Persimmon Street and then going east over to Rupple Road or you could go west and hit Broyles Avenue and I will let Charlie address that. He's got a better idea about that. Sloan: Hi, I'm Charlie Sloan, I'm the developer on this project and the owner. After visiting with John Nock on his project proposed to the east of us we really didn't want to make a connection. We didn't mind doing a pedestrian connection but we felt like that on my project if you count there are four lots down from where the connection is proposed, I'm building Persimmon Street. We are going to build a collector street there. We felt like we were still in the spirit of connectivity, we don't feel like you have to get out and drive around like some of the neighborhoods where you have to go maybe a mile around just to get to the next neighborhood. We are talking just a few lots over. We just felt like with that connection that we would have people cutting through. John feels like more through his project that there was more of a chance that my people would cut through his project than his would come through mine. One of the things that we talked about was traffic going through there with that connection was the fact that I attended one of the seminars here about uses of streets and street designs. One thing streets can be used for besides driving on is for children to play in. As long as you don't have traffic that doesn't belong in that neighborhood cutting through there those streets could be used for more than just traffic and that is the reason we just felt like that connection wasn't necessary. I know we discussed this twice in the Subdivision Committee meeting. I know the policy is connectivity, it is just one of those things that we wanted to address and see, we felt like maybe that was something since we are building a road right here beside us that we Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 6 wouldn't have to connect. We didn't mind doing a walking which would encourage walking, bike riding or something like that between the two neighborhoods. His has rear entry garages is what he is proposing, which will have alleyways backed up to me. We will be more of a ranch style home, bigger homes. Technically you would leave my neighborhood and go right into an alleyway of his is what you would end up with. We just felt like we were two different type projects and we would just like to keep that separation so each one could sort of keep it's identity. Yet, we didn't feel like we were impacting. I think he has got three or four connections, two connections to the Meadowlands he has to make, two on Persimmon and I think one more on Rupple so he is going to have four or five connections coming into his neighborhood. That's all I can say on that particular reason. The other thing that I had talked with Gary Adams had been 46`h Street. We are improving 46`h Street on the south end of 46`h Street. I think that the problems they are having are up on the north end. Once again, we didn't have problems, I don't know if this is the forum to address it. Money that we would spend on the south end could be spent more or less on the north end to maybe widen that for so many feet so when people pull off of Wedington it is not a narrow road. I don't care where the money is spent as long as it is spent in the best place verses us curb and guttering the south end which the problem is really not at the south end, the problem is more at the north end. Whatever we can do, we are proposing, it's not on the plans, we are going to go ahead and extend our sidewalk up to the next street to try to make a connection so it would be easier for that neighborhood to get onto our sidewalks to come on down to hopefully be able to walk to the Boys Club and make it a little bit easier for pedestrian traffic. That's all I've got . Hoover: Thanks. Are there any other comments? MOTION: Ostner: I would like to make a motion that we approve R-PZD 04-02.00 to the full Council with the conditions as stated. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Ostner, is there a second? Allen: I will second. Hoover: Is there more discussion? Bunch: I would like to offer an amendment to eliminate the vehicular access to the subdivision to the east and have it remain as a pedestrian and non - motorized vehicle access way. Hoover: Does anyone want to second the amendment? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 7 Shackelford: I will second it. Hoover: We have an amendment by Commissioner Bunch and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to make the eastern connection pedestrian only, not vehicular. Bunch: Not motorized vehicle. It could be bicycles, scooters. Shackelford: For the record, that is the connection that lies between lots 10 and 11. Hoover: First we are going to vote on the motion to approve as is on the drawings? Williams: No, on the amendment first. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion about the amendment? Anthes: A question of the applicant. You say that Putting Green Drive if it extends to the east lines up with the alley in Mr. Nock's proposal? Sloan: Yes, he would have a street extending on. Once you leave my property the first thing you are going to hit is his alley. He will run an alley parallel with my property line. I guess I didn't make that plain. Obviously, if I put a street to my property line he is going to pick up the street. I'm just saying the first thing that we hit are his alleys feeding the back of his properties and stuff like that. Anthes: You would cross that alley but you would still be on a street? Sloan: Right. He would have alleys feeding into that street. We agreed to put a fence up between us and everything else. I'm just saying as you pass through there he has alleyways running behind is what he is proposing from behind his houses with all rear entry. I'm just saying that that is sort of what we would be feeding into would be his alley ways there. Obviously, it would be a street going into another street. One of the things John is wanting to propose is because he is going to rear entries is to propose the 24' wide street, the smaller residential street. Here again, that is not determined by the numbers yet but that is what he is proposing. He is going to have a little bit narrower streets so that is another reason for him not wanting my traffic cutting through his neighborhood. There is one little loop when he puts everything together there is one little short cut that people might have a tendency to take to get to Rupple Road verses going out Persimmon and taking Persimmon over to Rupple Road and coming around. That is one of the fears that he had was more traffic. I thought John would be here tonight but more of my traffic going through his project. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 8 Anthes: Staff, have you seen this project? Warrick: We've seen a concept drawing of this project. It is not in process. If there is a connectivity requirement or if there is not the Planning Commission will be asked to review the project to the east of this site and determine the appropriate connectivity and layout. Anthes: My question is have you seen the layout and are you satisfied that this connection can be met? Warrick: Yes. Anthes: Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion on the amendment? Graves: I just have a question on the conditions of approval number four and five have some Planning Commission determinations included and the motion was to accept those conditions or include those conditions, we need to make a determination even if it is the staff is going to decide that or whatever, we need to make some kind of determination on that I think. Hoover: Can we do that after we vote for the amendment? Williams: Before the amendment but not before you vote for the whole thing. Hoover: Right. Graves: I think the amendment has to be voted on first. Hoover: Is there any other discussion on the amendment? Bunch: I would like to make one comment from the General Plan 2020, and this is in your packets on page 1.15, 9.817, it says "Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation modes, community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services." Having an alternative transportation mode connection does promote alternative transportation and possibly would discourage people from just jumping in the car and driving over to the next door neighbor's to encourage walking and that sort of thing. There is still, if the amendment is approved, there is reasonably close access for vehicular traffic and I think that by changing that connection to an alternative transportation mode that it is in keeping with our 2020 Plan directives. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 9 Ostner: We've discussed this at Subdivision, as might be apparent at this point. The reason I think that we should approve the drawing as drawn is that when we start doing little sidewalk cut throughs, which is what we are talking about. Changing this street connectivity, driving connectivity, to everything but driving, I believe quite the opposite happens. I believe it becomes for kids. I believe it becomes mostly for people who cannot drive or who are not driving. I think connectivity has a certain status. I think we are living in a car culture. We wrestle with that a lot but this is a car culture. If we start to let subdivisions enclose themselves without street connections, driving connections, like we did in the old days, our other streets get traveled more heavily by cars because there are no other options. That is really the point of connectivity is people say well, I have no choice, I have no other way to go, I have to get out on this street. We started doing connectivity to give people options because people do drive a lot. With a full street people have all of the options. They can drive because that is just what we do but they can also do everything else. They can walk on the sidewalk, they can take bikes and alternative transportation and that is the thing about connectivity that I believe is important. Our whole town becomes, for lack of a better word, a cut through, but we don't want it to be a fast cut through. If you have to get through and you have to take another way there is another way. I believe it should be a driving connection as it is drawn. That's it. Allen: How would we proceed with this voting because Commissioner Ostner was the one that offered the initial motion. Hoover: All we are going to vote on is the amendment right now not to do the vehicular eastern connection. Then we will proceed to the next level. Shackelford: Obviously, I seconded the motion for the amendment so I'm in support of this. I agree with Commissioner Ostner that this will be a place that kids are going to use. I, on the other hand, I support that. I think this is going to make this area safer for the kids in both neighborhoods. This is an area that there are going to be a lot of kids walking and riding bikes with the close vicinity to the Boys and Girls Club. Whenever I looked at this I thought that was a good idea simply because there is pretty close connectivity to the south and east on Persimmon if you had to take vehicular transportation through here that this might be a safer alternative for the children of both neighborhoods by cutting down on some of the interior traffic on some of these smaller roads. That is kind of the thought process that I went through in my decision of whether or not I would support this. Vaught: I have just two quick questions. It is my understanding that if we go to pedestrian only the right of way remains the same, we are not going to Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 10 shrink that down to like 6' wide that it is going to be a wider connection of some sort? Have you guys had that conversation with the developers? Warrick: We don't require a right of way for a pedestrian connection. Usually it is an access easement. Vaught: I would like to see it remain the width it is so you don't shrink it down and have fences on either side so it is a small little alleyway to get through between the two. Also, my concern is the connection on the other side that it remains of the same character getting them to the streets and sidewalks in the next addition. You could build alleyways all down there and that could dead-end to the back of houses if it is just a little access easement. I would like to see that continued through in the next development. I do like the idea of making it pedestrian only, or non- vehicular only. I do think kids will primarily use it but I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that could be good with the vicinity of the Boys and Girls Club and some of the other things going in this area and the heavy residential development in this area. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? We have an amendment to do no vehicular access on the eastern connection, that would be a yes vote. Bunch: That would be the eastern extension of what is shown as Putting Green Drive between lots 10 and 11 and east of Mulligan Drive. Ostner: Yes means for alternative transportation only? Hoover: Yes. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend the conditions of approval to eliminate the eastern connection of Putting Green Drive was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Ostner, Hoover and Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion passes five to four. Hoover: Thank you. Looking at the Planned Zoning District as a whole. We have a motion but we have two discussion items. Item number four, staff would you respond to this? Is there a recommendation on what kind of fence? I thought usually that would be decided on before it got here. Warrick: The applicants presented a proposal, you should have drawings in your packet. The question is should there be a fence and should it look like what they are proposing. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 11 Anthes: On page 1.15 of our packet, calling from the General Plan 2020 regarding community character, 9.19d clearly states "Discourage perimeter walls and guard houses around the perimeter of new residential developments and promote "connectivity" to increase accessibility and provide more livable neighborhoods." We have a strange condition here in that we are building three streets where we really should be building two. These backyards could easily adjoin each other without the street and creating this alley condition going through with a raceway with fences on either side. Can you tell us, at Subdivision when this was seen we didn't know what was happening on the other side of the street from this development, do we know now? Warrick: We know now that the applicant for Persimmon Place Subdivision, the Bill of Assurance that they provided when they were zoned for that property to be developed for the single family subdivision, Persimmon Place, one of the conditions in that Bill of Assurance was that they construct a masonry wall adjacent to 46`" Street on the edge of the property. Part of that had to do with concerns of the neighbors with regard to noise and the appearance of the subdivision. They have in house submitted to the Planning Division a request for the Council to consider reconsideration of that Bill of Assurance to provide a more aesthetic fence wall that is more consistent with what is being proposed for Cross Keys. I have asked them to bring us that information so that it can be provided to the Subdivision Committee as well as the Planning Commission before it is forwarded to the full Council because it does have a lot to do with what happened through the Planning process on the Persimmon Place project. One of the reasons that I believe these two developments ended up backing up to 46`s Street, which is not necessarily, a desirable condition based on the information that you just sited out of the General Plan, is that when Persimmon Place came through the Preliminary Plat process 46`h Street was designated a collector on the Master Street Plan. As that project was approved and shortly thereafter in timing, that street was downgraded from a collector status on the Master Street Plan to a local street and the collector status was then granted to Broyles Road which is on the opposite side of Persimmon Place west of the project. That had to do with a better connection getting from Wedington Drive all the way south to 6`h Street but it did affect what had already been approved through the Preliminary Plat process for Persimmon Place. That is kind of where we are with that process. These two projects, you are right, we do have that section of the General Plan that discourages perimeter walls. There is concern that with both of these subdivisions having large tracts of land just walled off on either side of 46`h Street that we will have a condition that is not as conducive to community as we would prefer. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 12 Hoover: If I'm understanding the plans correctly, because they have all their backyards facing the street is the need for the fencing. That is not the preferred way but I can see the reasoning behind it. Anthes: It is because of the fact that we have this three street condition instead of a two street condition which you would normally see in this instance. Knowing that and knowing that the people that purchase these homes would probably rather have some sort of screening, the idea that that would be as they are shown masonry with a wood infill that might have a little bit more transparency to it, seems a little nicer than a huge masonry tunnel going down between those two properties. Sloan: Precisely. I just wanted to address it. We started out trying to only duplicate what had already been passed before just for compliance sake. We didn't want to fight or do battle again. Once we sort of designed it and looked at it and went and looked at some fences, a masonry fence is pretty stark. It wasn't what we wanted. We were trying to figure out some sort of textures. You do have the back of the houses looking at you and I know in my home you don't want to see my backyard. You want me to have a fence up so that is the reason we were trying to figure out what we could do. Basically, do partially brick, partially shadowbox fence of some design and the main thing was landscaping. We talked to Commissioner Ostner about having trees every 40' or 50'. We went back and talked to the owners of Persimmon Place and said could we not work something out that compliments each other so we don't have one side looking like one thing and another side looking like something else and so they were gladly in agreement to do it. I said put a little bit more emphasis on landscaping and everything. Across the street we are coming back with a proposal that on the south side of Persimmon Street all the way from Broyles Road possibly almost to the Boys Club that will all be white wrought iron fencing. We don't want to block the view of everything to the south. We are trying to do something with this one that sort of fits that project that will come forward later on that compliments it and that is the reason, one of the things for the curved wall at the intersection so we don't have a square wall. Create more visibility and landscape that corner so that although it is not the entry. What you are seeing is perspective of a drawing sitting at 46"' Street and Persimmon looking east on a road that hasn't been built yet. We are trying to make that a focal point on the corner so it is not as stark and just a square box and not just boxed off so we were just trying to look at some different products to use there. We told staff we didn't mind working with them on what we came up with between the two projects, something that is pleasing with the neighborhood. We are visiting with the neighborhood. This started from one of the neighbors saying look, I don't really want that wall. The person that wanted that wall is no longer really there, I've bought him out. Now Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 13 maybe we will have an opportunity to relook at the thing if everybody is willing to come up with something that is a little bit better of a plan. Anthes: Will your P.O.A. maintain this wall? Sloan: Yes, just as it would the walkway space and we have no problem leaving the same spacing on the walk way between the two projects. Anthes: That is item four right? Hoover: Yes. Is there any other discussion about the fencing? Onto item number five, staff's recommendation for improvements 14' from the centerline of 46`h Street. Warrick: I would ask that as the Planning Commission is making those determinations that you also determine that Persimmon Street on the south be fully constructed. It is not listed on there but is listed in the findings. Hoover: Do you want that to be item fifteen or include that with item five? Warrick: It is pertinent with item five that it also include the construction of Persimmon Street along the south property line to 28' with curb and gutter. Hoover: Are there any comments about staff's recommendations. Are we in agreement or does anyone have a problem? Vaught: I would rather see the road next to this fully developed instead of having half of it developed on the other side of 46`h and leaving the other side next to this addition not fully developed. I would like to see the whole road finished out rather than take the money and shift it further north on the road as the developer mentioned. I think that that will come in time as well as more development comes through. I would like to see the road completed. Hoover: Staff, do you have a comment on that? Warrick: I believe that is consistent with our recommendation. Bunch: In that same view, a question for staff. Is the other side of this being comparable improvements being put in by Persimmon Place? Warrick: Yes, along 46`' Street they have the same requirement. Shackelford: Did we get a second to the original motion? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 14 Hoover: We did but I can't remember who it was. Thomas: It was by Commissioner Allen. Hoover: I guess we need to ask the first and the second are you in agreement with Persimmon Street on the south being constructed? Ostner: Yes, to change condition number five to include staff recommends 14' from the centerline of 46`h Street including curb, gutter, and storm sewer and 28' along Persimmon along the south edge of the property. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 04-02.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 15 CUP 04-06.00: Conditional Use (Fuddruckers, pp 173) was submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Joe Hudack of AMJO Properties, LLC for property located at Lot 13A of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, and contains approximately 2.81 acres. The request is to allow additional parking at the restaurant. LSD 04-03.00: Large Scale Development (Fuddruckers, pp 173) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Joe Hudack of AMJO Properties, LLC for property located at Lot 13A of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.81 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 7,073 sq.ft. restaurant with seating for 254 and 124 parking spaces proposed. Hoover: Onto item number two on the agenda. It is a Conditional Use for Fuddruckers, CUP 04-06.00 and are we also going to hear the Large Scale Development at the same time, can we do that together? Warrick: Yes. Hoover: LSD 04-03.00. Pate: Thank you Madam Chair. The proposed Large Scale Development was submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on Lot 13 of Steele Crossing. A Lot Split has been approved in association with this development proposal to divide Lot 13 into Lot 13A and 13B. The subject property has frontage onto both Van Asche Drive and Mall Avenue. Part of the site is located within the Design Overlay District and only that portion within the Overlay District is subject to those requirements. That is just a little background as to how staff reviews this. The entire structure has been removed outside of the Overlay District. I believe at Subdivision Committee level a portion of the structure was within the Overlay District boundary. It is now located without that. Also, in tandem with this request is a Conditional Use for additional parking at the restaurant. If you will look on page 2.2 there is a parking chart at the bottom of the page outlining the request. There are 93 spaces permitted with the 30% overage allowed by right by ordinance and proposed is 124 spaces. I think one of the big issues with this project that we have had through the process is the signage. Right now the plans before you show three different types of signage. There is a pole sign which is a freestanding sign, a projecting sign which I will show you. Then there are four requested wall signs, two of which are on the east elevation. I won't go too much into it because I believe the applicant has decided, the conditions are drafted in such a manner that basically there is only one of these, either a freestanding or a projecting sign allowed. Staff is recommending either a monument sign or the projecting sign in accordance with ordinance requirements. We have signed conditions of approval on both of these items and I would like for Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 16 the applicant, if it pleases the Commission, at the appropriate time, to state for the record which one of these options that they would like to pursue. The four wall signs are allowed by right and staff really has no problem with that. It does meet our ordinance requirements. Staff is recommending approval of both the Large Scale Development and the Conditional Use for excess parking with conditions. For the Large Scale Development, Planning Commission approval of the associated Conditional Use for excess parking. Also, Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards with both the signage and the elevations as submitted. Again, we are recommending either the monument sign or the projecting sign. Additionally, on CUP 04-06.00 staff is recommending approval as well with the determination of the appropriateness of the signage. Hoover: Would the applicant come forward and would you be sure to address us on which signage you would desire to have? Koch: Good evening Commissioners, my name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing AMJO Properties' proposed Fuddruckers. We do have signed conditions submitted last week. The sign that we intend to pursue is the projecting sign on the face of the building. Therefore, we won't have a pole sign or a monument sign, it will be a projecting sign. Hoover: Thank you. Do you have anything else to add at the moment? Koch: No. Hoover: At this time I will open both of these up for public comment. CUP 04- 06.00 and LSD 04-03.00 for Fuddruckers. Is there any member of the audience who would like to address either of these items? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners and the applicant. I just want to clarify when you say you are going with the projecting sign, is that projecting in accordance with our sign ordinance and not projecting over the eave height? Koch: Yes, absolutely. We will modify the eave height and the square footage of that sign to comply with the spirit of the ordinance. Hoover: Great. Subdivision, were there other comments? Bunch: One of the things that I've noticed since Subdivision is that the building has been relocated on the property to eliminate the condition where part of the building was in the Design Overlay District and different rules had to apply to different wall treatments. The applicant has modified the site plan to where the building structure is outside of the Design Overlay District. One of the things that we did discuss considerably at the Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 17 Subdivision Committee of course were the sign issues and wall treatments and of course relocation of the building. That changed a lot of that. One of the things that doesn't show up on your drawing package is in the language of our packet is that there is a considerable portion of this property that is included in a deed restricted area and the tree preservation for the site is within that deed restricted area. It doesn't show up on our drawings in a chart like we normally have but it does from our Landscape Administrator's comments, all the conditions for tree preservation have been met by the deed restricted area. A few of the other things we discussed were access, interconnectivity, where the driveways were. Since the driveways are not within the Design Overlay District everything is pretty much straight forward and meets our regulations. Hoover: Thank you. Can I address the discussion to the parking Conditional Use? Would anyone like to comment on this? Ostner: I have a question for Mr. Koch. I believe this is more parking than we saw at Subdivision. Koch: Yes, that is correct. Originally my letter asked for 124 parking spaces. Due to some of the elements of the design change we were unable to get that number of parking spaces with the change from an initial review that we had. We made some adjustments to the site plan, we added a row of parking around the perimeter of the front that is in the actual Design Overlay District and instead of going above what our initial request was, which we could've done, we kept it at that 124 spaces, capped it off. I didn't ask for anymore than what my original letter had requested. Ostner: At Subdivision we talked about how that original letter was wrong. I believe 111 was what we discussed at Subdivision Committee. Koch: That is correct. We made significant revisions to the building following that review and this is what has yielded from that. Ostner: I see. Hoover: Are there any other parking comments? Bunch: Also from Subdivision, when we were looking at the 124 verses the 111 we compared it, we didn't have a chart in front of us but in general we had some numbers that staff provided us and the Commissioners remembered from projects in close proximity where the parking numbers as opposed to square footage of the building and seating and that sort of thing was in line with some of the developments that were within the immediate vicinity. In fact, if I remember right, it was a little less than some of the projects that were approved right across Mall Avenue. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 18 Koch: That is correct Don. To speak specifically about the Olive Garden for example, they have 155 spaces in their development. Smokey Bones had about 120 spaces, Red Robin has 125 spaces. Marriott Courtyard, which hasn't moved forward with construction, had 113 spaces. I think that what we are asking for is something that has actually been previously approved for other restaurants in the area. Ostner: This always confuses me because our ordinance allows a 30% overage on the count or whatever we have a building square footage and we come up with a number and we allow 30% over that and we allow 30% under, that has happened believe it or not. It concerns me that restaurants say well, that 30% over isn't what we need, we need another 30 and then another 30%. Our ordinance doesn't really direct us as to when to say no or when to stop and we tend to go with the development with what they say they need. Also, many discussions have come around to the fact of if we fill up there is nothing else developed around here to share parking. That was about four developments ago. That was about three restaurants and a hotel ago which was about one year. I'm concerned that this is too much parking and that we've gotten into an allowance where we simply allow a restaurant to do quadruple the 30% overage. I'm concerned that the 111 spaces that were offered at Subdivision were adequate for this function and now 111 is not adequate, 124 is necessary. It just seems like a little bit too much. Hoover: I will respond to that. Having had a lot of restaurants pass in front of us, what we might not be seeing here are the statistics of other restaurants and the counts in the parking lot, which we've had in other ones. I think why we always go back to the Olive Garden because we had some really good numbers on that and we found that even though we went over, let the Olive Garden have more, I think in proportion even more than this, that that is not even enough parking spaces during peak time. The other issue is it would be wonderful if they could share parking but it is all restaurants and hotels. They're all going to be using the spaces at the same time unfortunately so we are kind of stuck. That's my feeling on it. Ostner: I appreciate that. I wasn't aware that the Olive Garden was filling up. That's important to know. Hoover: It is important. Yes, or I wouldn't feel so adamant about it either. We have carefully examined each one I want to say every time a restaurant comes in. I think we already modified the parking ordinance once and obviously, the restaurants have more difficult issues. I still am in favor that they ask each time so we can look at each situation because you never know, they could be next to something that they could share parking with Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 19 so I do think we need to carefully look at parking at each one and not give it a blanket rule of more. Shackelford: I concur with all of your comments. I am in total agreement with that. I think that is why we have Conditional Uses in place so that we can evaluate these situations where it makes sense to go outside of the ordinances. I think that this is in line and in scale with the neighbors and what we've done in this area. The restaurant industry is all about turns and peak time and parking is one of the key issues to make that work. Based on all the comments that have been made here I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 04-06.00. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Ostner, Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: I would like to offer a fourth condition of approval to be added to the Conditional Use and that would be merely to state the number of parking spaces. It is in the findings and on the drawings but I think it is a lot easier if it is also included in the conditions of approval where it is more readily available if that is acceptable to the motioner and the seconder. Shackelford: If it is ok with the second I will add a fourth condition of approval that states "The total number of parking spaces allowed by this Conditional Use will be 124." Ostner: That sounds good. Hoover: Is there any other discussion about this Conditional Use? Ostner: Yes. I have one question. Mr. Koch, you mentioned you want to do the projecting sign instead of the monument sign? Koch: That is correct. We are only allowed one freestanding sign. The projecting sign, according to the sign ordinance, states that if you have a projecting sign you can't have another freestanding sign on site. Ostner: That would be the projecting sign and then the four wall signs, two of which are combined on one side? Koch: That is correct, the wall signage as proposed and the projecting sign. Shackelford: Just a question of staff because I was confused about this. Why are we talking about the pole sign in this Conditional Use and also in the Large Scale Development? What is the difference in why we are addressing the Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 20 pole sign as part of the parking discussion and the other sign ordinance as part of the Large Scale Development? Warrick: Because there are specific findings for any Conditional Use that relate to things like parking and loading, refuse and service areas, signage and lighting. We make those findings and they are appropriate to discuss when you are talking about compatibility issues that surround a Conditional Use request. Shackelford: Even though we are discussing it here the real final decision would be made with the Large Scale Development? Warrick: I think it runs in tandem. You are really making that decision in both of these because of the way that we framed the conditions. You have the ability to place that condition in either one of these two applications. In this particular case the applicant is solely proposing to comply with the ordinance so it is really just a matter of for the record stating which manner he is going to do that. Shackelford: I'm fine with the way that it is addressed, I just wasn't used to seeing it that way. Thank you. Hoover: Is there any other discussion on the Conditional Use? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-06.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Hoover: On the Large Scale, I just want to make sure that we get the signage correctly on here. Would you just repeat again what you are going to do? Koch: We are going to pursue the projecting sign that is depicted on this elevation with some minor modifications to bring it into the allowances provided by the ordinance. There will not be a monument sign or a pole sign asked for. Ostner: Those modifications would mean shrinking it to 75 sq.ft.? Koch: No, actually it is 16 sq.ft. and it cannot project above the eave so it is quite small. Ostner: Which eave? Koch: The height of the building, it cannot project over the roofiine of the parapet that is drawn here. You can see from the side view of it a lot Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 21 better that it actually goes above the parapet some distance and we are going to make modifications so that it doesn't. That will probably be with replacing that sign with a smaller version of the projecting sign, it will not be projecting above that parapet eave height. Hoover: Thank you. Can we go ahead and look at Commercial Design Standards and have some discussion about that? At Subdivision were there any problems with Commercial Design Standards? Bunch: If I remember right, we discussed quite a bit on Commercial Design as well as signs because they were extremely interrelated. Many of the awning type elements that are shown were also signs and that sort of thing so there was a considerable reshaping of it to meet our codes. Also, there was some reorientation of the building and some switching of facades to present the best faces to the streets. I think it would be better to have James give us a rundown on that to show which facades face which way and why and materials and that sort of thing. Koch: Yes, basically what we did was we made sure that the service entry was going to be on the northwest corner of the building, which is on the interior corner of that building footprint. The dumpster location is at the rear and all of the service activity will take place on that element of the building. The actual rear of this footprint is facing to the west. The other sides of that building are as depicted in these two color elevations here represented by the north, the south and the east faces of the building. I don't know if you have a handout in your packet that would help describe that to you. The south face of the building is actually Van Asche Drive. The east face of the building is Mall Avenue. The north of the building is actually facing Mudd Creek or back towards the mall. Other items that we did address, as Commissioner Bunch stated, we took off approximately nine of the symbols that were considered signs so we had a significant reduction in the signage there. We also did some different architectural elements around the building such as breaking up that brick pattern on the rear that was an item of concern and adding awnings over all the doorways. Also, we did enclose all the downspouts too to help break up the surface of the building. Ostner: At Subdivision what is currently being called the west elevation I believe was at a different cardinal point, the building has been turned since then, we were concerned, or I was concerned that it was a large, unarticulated wall. We talked about some foe awnings or something to break up that elevation. Are the yellow squares awnings over the doors? Koch: That is correct, there are now awnings. Towards the top of that elevation you can see that the brick pattern has been adjusted to help articulate the Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 22 surface of that building. The stone also goes around the bottom portion of that building to add that element to that elevation as well. Bunch: James, when you enclose those downspouts how far does that project out from the building wall? I know it is hard to tell. Koch: I'm guessing it is about 12", it will be about a 12" encapsulated downspout that will drain underground. Bunch: You have three of those that will be breaking up the wall? Koch: I think it was four if I remember correctly. There were two on the rear elevation though and you may be able to see one of the downspouts from the side elevation that was enclosed as well. Bunch: What we have in our packets shows I think three on the west elevation. Then on the ends there is an offset. This type of drawing makes it appear more unarticulated than it actually is. Ostner: I'm interested in if other Commissioners are concerned about the west elevation. Hoover: I would say that it is minimally articulated and relevant to the Olive Garden certainly not as articulated as the sides of the Olive Garden that you can see from the main street. Vaught: Will this be that visible? Hoover: Yes. Vaught: It seems like that side is hidden behind Target and that development in the front. There will be development to the west. Hoover: I think if you look at Bath and Beyond and Old Navy how you can see, it is going to be that similar when you are driving down and you see that part of the building. I want to say I'm conflicted because it is somewhat articulated but like I said, relative to their neighbor it is so much less. Ostner: These downspouts, which are in essence, sort of pilasters or columns that are pulled out, if they were a different material such as this east elevation has the big pilasters going to the top with the other, it is a very like material. If this brick was broken up with other materials, I think if you changed the downspouts I would vote for it. Koch: How does the landscaping compare in your opinion to the surface of the building there? Could there be additional landscaping planted out there? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 23 Hoover: It doesn't look like there is much space between the sidewalk and the building. Anthes: I believe we've asked that question of staff before and we weren't allowed to use landscaping. Would you repeat that for us again? The Commercial Design Standards on the fagade cannot be mitigated by landscaping, is that true? Warrick: Landscaping doesn't articulate a wall. In the past the Planning Commission has looked at landscaping for screening purposes and to mitigate a large wall surface. In my opinion if you are looking at the Design Standards for a structure typically landscaping doesn't do that. Anthes: Thank you, that's what I remembered. Hoover: I was just going to say, not that I want to micromanage someone's design but I think Commissioner Ostner's suggestion was a good compromise and if you did do those pilasters in that stone material that would break up the brick and seem more like the other sides. Is that a possibility? Koch: Yes, that is a possibility. Hoover: How do other Commissioners feel about that? Allen: I agree. Shackelford: I think Commissioner Bunch made a pretty good point. We are looking at a 2D picture that really I think highlights or diminishes a lot of detail available on this. I also think the development to the west of this property is going to face south on Van Asche. I anticipate the building west of this to basically have a side of the building that backs up to this west elevation. With that being said, if it is something that the developer is willing to do and it is a fair compromise, I'm fine with it as well. Hoover: Is there any other discussion on Commercial Design guidelines? I think we're in good shape on the signage. Vaught: Are we adding something there? We stated a lot of stuff but I don't know if we specifically added anything. Hoover: I think we last stated that the pilasters will be out of a stone material yet we will have to see if whoever makes a motion includes that in the motion. He agreed that that would be doable. Vaught: Considered but is it doable? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 24 Koch: Yes, it will be considered. I would like for that to be a condition of approval so I can give the client the opportunity to make that revision. Hoover: Is there any other discussion on this Large Scale Development? MOTION: Ostner: I would like to make a motion that we approve LSD 04-03.00 with the added condition of approval number twelve to read the west elevation shall change the enclosed downspouts to the same brick material as the other pilasters on the other sides. Allen: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there anymore discussion? Shackelford: Since we have had them state for the record the sign issue, what sign they are going to go with we are fine with that, we don't need to address that in the conditions of approval, is that correct? Warrick: Yes. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-03.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 25 R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294) was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 4.429 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District and to approve the development of 14 residential lots. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is R-PZD 04-05.00 for Hickory Park. Morgan: This project was submitted by was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District and to approve the development of 14 residential lots on approximately 4.429 acres. Density for the entire site is 3.16 units per acre. The property is currently zoned P-1, Institutional and is identified as Residential on the General Plan. The site is currently vacant. To the north is Glenwood Addition zoned RSF-4 with 2.47 units per acre. To the south is St. John's Lutheran Church with P-1, Institutional zoning. To the east is single family residential usage with an R -A zoning designation. To the west is Cedarwood Addition, zoned RSF- 4 and has approximately 3.17 units per acre. The existing canopy on this site is 100% and preserved is 26.82%. Staff has received calls from the neighborhood with concerns regarding drainage, traffic, tree preservation and safety issues. Staff has made the following findings: The proposed density is compatible with surrounding properties. In addition, the applicant has proposed erecting a 6' stone wall along Crossover to be used as screening between the road and the housing. There are currently manmade screenings along Crossover and this is somewhat consistent with the other subdivisions along Crossover. In addition, connectivity is being proposed from this subdivision to the east to Crossover Road. Shared drives will be utilized between lots one and two, six and seven, eleven and twelve and thirteen and fourteen in order to decrease the number of curb cuts. Pedestrian access is also provided along the sidewalks with the interior streets as well as Crossover. The developer is also proposing a landscaped island at the entrance of the subdivision and a landscaped round about with a mail kiosk at the terminus of the right of way within the subdivision. Access is being provided to Crossover Road with a 14' drive aisle into the subdivision and a 20' exit drive aisle, which would provide sufficient width for a right and left turn lane. Use Unit 8 is the proposed use for this subdivision. The proposal is unique in that there are build to lines and specific building types and materials called for in the covenants. Shared drives will be utilized. Staff is recommending to eliminate the build to lines on lots 4, 7, and 8 in order to preserve a greater amount of canopy. The proposed zoning, it is in the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that the Planned Zoning District will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 26 the load on police services or create a traffic danger or congestion in the area. Based on these findings, staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning and Planning Commission approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions. Staff has received signed conditions. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company representing St. Lutheran's Church. The applicant is also Signature Homes, Tracy Hoskins. We do accept the conditions of approval, they have been signed. The condition of build to lines on lots 4, 7, and 8 will be added to the plat and also on the tree plat we have a correction to make on not to count the trees in the building envelopes. Those two corrections will be made. Other than that, we are in agreement with the conditions. Hoover: At this time we will open up this PZD to public comment for Hickory Park. Sigafuss: I'm Bob Sigafiss, I live on Hardy Lane. I'm sorry my old friend Mr. Estes isn't here tonight because he generally agreed with comments I made in the past. Hopefully, I can make something constructive of this whole decision. I would like you to take a look at the big picture, particularly the traffic considerations. East Fayetteville is under a lot of pressure. I noticed up front your goals for 2008 number four says "Improve mobility and street quality." I hope that doesn't mean you are going to start to think about that in 2008 because it has been a long standing problem on Crossover Road. Crossover is the eastern corridor of Fayetteville. College Avenue is the center and I-540 is the west. In the last couple of years this street has become a mess. 24 hours a day there is truck traffic constant. From 2:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the evening there is heavy traffic. This entrance to Hickory Park is only 450', maybe less, from the traffic light of Township. It is only 450' from the entrance to Hardy. Hardy is a dead-end little subdivision. There is no outlet. Hickory Park there is no outlet other than off of Crossover. This leads to a lot of problems with safety. When I make a left turn into Hardy Lane sometimes you think that you are going to meet your maker because you are in the center lane, there are three lanes, one north, one south and one center. You have that little turn and you have an instant to get across because the traffic is so heavy. With Hickory Park you are going to be much closer to the congestion and I would think that it is going to be a very difficult thing to maintain a pattern of flow on that state highway is this project is approved. Candlewood is an interesting project, it is a very nice project. They have an entrance on Crossover, they have an entrance on Township, it is an ideal situation, you can get in and out. Hickory Park Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 27 you are in and you notice from your plans it is a very narrow confines in that project. I'm not going to talk extensively about the nitty gritty because that apparently has already been accomplished. I would hope that the church, which is now the owner of the property, would rethink the highest and best use of that property. If they are willing to grant an easement off of Township, and there is room for a 28' road off of Township and at least allow an extra entrance to the project it would make this project much more feasible. That's only one of the considerations I have. The second is the question of the marsh area. 4.4 acres, of that I would estimate one acre, maybe a little more, is a swamp. It occupies lots 11, 12, and 13. Mr. Jefcoat, the engineer for Milholland disputed that at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He said he had expertise in matters of wetlands and marshlands and this was not a problem. I would like to differ with that opinion and I would like to ask the staff, how many of the staff has been in that marshland area? Ms. Morgan, Mr. Casey? Morgan: I've been to the site but I've not walked it. Casey: I have not walked the site. Sigafuss: How about when you visited the other day, the Planning Commission? Did you get down into that marshland? It is a serious marshland. It is something that ought to be looked at by some third party, not take Mr. Jefcoat's word for it. He has a certain vested interest in this project. I would like at least before this project moves forward to the City Council for somebody to take a look at it and convince those of us who think that this is a wetland that it is not and it is going to be safe to develop lots 11, 12 and 13. Two parcels on Hardy Lane abut this marshland. The corner lot and the second one in on Hardy. Even during dry periods you can walk in there and the ground is spongy and it has a certain vegetation on it which looks like what the Corp. of Engineers decides is a wetland. I would think that you'd want to take a look at that first. Second, ask the principals of the church what they considered when they put this land up for sale. I know for a fact that a number of developers have looked at this land over the years and have turned it down because they felt that it was too difficult to develop and the traffic pattern there may affect the marketability of those homes. I tend to agree that it might affect the marketability of these homes. I think three of these homes are directly behind the wall off of Crossover and that drop off to the marshland is at least 3' below the grade of Crossover. It is down, it slopes to the northeast corner of that parcel. That you must address to satisfy my concerns. The church is asking for a rezoning. That is a very important serious matter. They have been living with this land, I think it is 10 acres total for their property, practically tax free for 30 years or more. Have they thought about other uses? Have they thought about maybe approaching one of the urban forest groups to take it off their hands? Have they thought about Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 28 maybe selling it to a single home owner? There is precedent on Crossover between Township and Mission, there are three or four homes that sit down there on large acreage, very nice places. It is possible that someone could come along and pay the church a fair price for it's land. I hope the church, I don't know their circumstances and why they are choosing to sell the land, it is probably financial, but whatever they are, I would like the church officials to approach the Planning Commission and the City Council and tell them why they are selling this land. I don't think you should just look at the plat and criticize or add suggestions. It is more the big picture as I said at the beginning. Please don't rush this thing through to the City Council and remember item number four, 2008, improved mobility and street quality. You are not adding to the betterment of Fayetteville by this decision. You may be going the other way. I would say either change the design or turn down the project. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Planned Zoning District? McCartney: Hi, I'm James McCartney, this is my first time here. I live in Glenwood as well with Bob. What I was thinking is when you are considering this residential area here by the church that you would think about the way that Glenwood is closed off and unable to go anywhere in the neighborhood unless you go by car on Hwy. 265. What I would like to see is a continuation of the sidewalk that is in front of our development to go to the west side of Hwy. 265 and continue onto Township so that we can go to Gulley Park, potentially cross the street and go to McNair Middle School and Vandergriff. It would seem like that the financial resources are there and also the construction equipment to do something like that at this point in time. It would not be just in front of the proposed subdivision because that would also be a dead-end but it would also continue on the east side of the Lutheran Church all the way to Township. That's what I would suggest doing so that people can get out from both of those subdivisions, walk up to Township, walk down Township, go to Gulley Park to go to the concert or take the kids to the playground and what have you. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Planned Zoning District? Hemingway: My name is Doug Hemingway and I'm a member of St. John's Lutheran Church. We were approached by this developer to purchase our property and I said let's see a plan. What he has done is he has designed an excellent plan. The church is most happy with it. We would like to see this really happen. The church is all for it and I would like to commend the city and the engineering staff and the developer for coming up with an excellent PZD. This is just a small piece of land where everything is Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 29 confined to a center village style and it represents what a PZD to me is. I would like to hear some more comments of how you feel about the design itself. We think it is quite excellent. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Mainfort: Robert Mainfort, 2408 N. Hampton Ct. My property is located essentially southwest of the proposed project area at the corner of Hampton Ct. and Township. The speaker before last raised a couple of issues that I would like to address. For starters, there is absolutely no comparability between the proposed development we are discussing tonight and Candlewood. This represents 14 single family units. Candlewood the last time I walked through there has at least several more structures than that. Most residents of the area I think are not concerned with matters of access because of Crossover. The other matter ties in with accessibility and basically creating access off of Township. This would go more or less through my backyard and that of about six other people who would not be pleased by this. More over, I would suggest that the speaker before last is being somewhat hypocritical in proposing this when on the one hand posing that certain areas he considers marshlands and then proposing an access road that would destroy a very large amount of habitat currently preserved. Both the church and the developer we think have been good neighbors on this and I strongly suggest that we proceed with this. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and staff. I guess first would you address traffic on Hwy. 265 and accessibility? Warrick: I will take that, at least to start. Hwy. 265 is a principal arterial, it is a state highway. It is designed when it is fully built to it's principal arterial standard to sustain the volume of over 20,000 vehicle trips per day. The current Arkansas Highway and Transportation Division count on this particular strip of Hwy. 265 in this location is approximately 16,000 vehicle trips per day. A single family home generates between nine and ten vehicle trips per day. This subdivision would generate fewer than 140 vehicle trips per day on a count based on I.T.E., the Institute of Traffic Engineers software and reporting mechanisms. The developer has proposed an entry that allows for a single access into the development, a one way entrance and there is a wide enough exit to provide for a two lane exit, a right turn and a left turn. Incidentally, that also allows for the necessary vehicle width for fire protection. The applicant has thought about the option to allow for stacking distance if people are stacked up at a peak hour. This portion of the city, like I mentioned, Hwy. 265 is a highway. It is located in a highly residential area, there are several schools in the area. There are peaks and there are times when there is a wait in order to move. Traffic movements are slower at certain times. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 30 That is not uncommon. You will always have peak times and off peak times so just as far as the numbers are concerned and as far as our evaluation of the situation staff is not concerned that 140 vehicles will detrimentally impact the traffic flow in this particular area. Hoover: Thank you. I guess I would like to direct the discussion to the suggestion of a sidewalk connecting this subdivision down to Township, which I personally thought was an excellent idea. Vaught: My question would be for the City Attorney. Can we require improvements like that on a project like that, not a part of this site? Whitaker: We probably cannot, however, of course, we do have money in the sidewalk fund and it might be a very good time if this project goes through, to do a cost share with their developer who will already have his equipment out there and can probably build that sidewalk in a cost share with the city much more economically at the time that this would develop as opposed to some other time. I certainly share your agreement with Vandergriff being close and the park being close, that pedestrian access to those areas would be very helpful. Vaught: Would that be a recommendation that we would make to the City Council for a cost share then? Whitaker: It would be a little bit too early to do a cost share, that would have to be when the project was finally approved and coming back after final approval when they start building it but certainly your recommendation that at that point in time that the city consider a cost share would be appropriate. Hoover: I guess I'm confused. Are you saying that it would be alright to suggest that with this? Williams: Certainly I think you can suggest it now. At this point it is pretty early in the game to get to the final thing but I think that you can certainly make that suggestion as part of your recommendation. Warrick: I believe that if the Planning Commission wishes to see that connection and a cost share consideration you need to make a definitive finding. This is the Preliminary Plat for this subdivision. They will build off of this approval. When you see it as a Final Plat it will be constructed, installed and complete. This is the time to look at those types of requirements. Hoover: Can we have the applicant come back? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 31 Vaught: This is an R-PZD so City Council will see it next. They won't start construction until after the City Council approves it so if we recommend, can we make it a condition or is it just a recommendation? Warrick: It is a recommendation. The City Council can certainly make it a condition if they deem that to be appropriate. Williams: The problem with trying to make a requirement not on the site that is being built on is I think we might be possibly overstepping our bounds on what the impact of this housing development of 14 houses and a sidewalk of that length, because we should also have it along the front of the church too along Township, I think that would be out of proportion to the impact that they would be incurring here and also it would be on somebody else's property and so in this case we need cooperation with the church to make sure that we have enough right of way to build the sidewalk with them and want their cooperation as opposed to trying to make it an actual requirement of this subdivision. Within this subdivision along Township we certainly can but beyond that I would make it a recommendation as opposed to requirement. Hoover: In the past we have required some offsite improvements. Williams: I've not seen an offsite sidewalk improvement. Hoover: There are other improvements. I don't think that a sidewalk is necessarily different from a road or something else. Williams: Those have always been based also on a rational nexus and proportionality of how much this development will require for a bridge or something is what you are thinking about. Here, we haven't done a rational nexus test to see what that would be when you look at all the sidewalks within the subdivision and then also the sidewalk that will be required along Township within the subdivision. Then to say that they must build a sidewalk along the church's property, which is much longer here, the church has already developed. We don't know for sure if we even have the land at this point in time so I think that it would be a little bit premature to try to require that. I think this can be worked out but I would recommend that you do it in a recommendation instead of trying to require it at this time since we don't have the facts and figures at this point to make that kind of determination. Hoover: I'm correct in assuming in a PZD we have the right to request or recommend what we think is compatible with the neighborhood and all the series of lists of items that we have? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 32 Williams: You certainly have a right to recommend this. I think that probably with the Planning Commission unanimously recommending this and the support from the neighbors that it will be done. I would rather see that as a recommendation as opposed to some sort of requirement that we have to follow and meet other tests in order to make that a requirement. Hoover: We might get a response from the applicant. Jefcoat: It is a two fold problem if not more. The sidewalk would be on property not owned by the applicant. The church would have to agree to the property as was stated, we are looking at close to 500' of sidewalk offsite if you go down Township. If you connect to Township you are looking at 200' of sidewalk. You are looking at a considerable amount of sidewalk. The applicant most likely would certainly consider a portion of that cost share and a proportional amount, certainly not half and half. There are some other considerations. While you may recommend that, it certainly would be nice to see the sidewalk at least continued to Township, the question is to how much of that responsibility belongs to the client. That is not for us to recommend or say at this point. Hoover: Are there other discussion items on this? Anthes: Standard condition of approval number eleven, I believe we just saw another project tonight where we required a 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace and this says a 4' sidewalk with a 4' greenspace. Can you speak to why we would do one or the other? Casey: Our requirements are that the sidewalk be located at the right of way. The greenspace will vary from project to project depending on the right of way width. I believe this is a 24' street. We have minimum greenspace requirements but the ordinance actually says it should be located at the right of way so that's why we see the varying greenspaces sometimes. Anthes: You can't really plant a tree in 4' but you can in 6'. Jefcoat I might address that to help clarify that up some. It also preserves trees outside the sidewalk so that is one reason we are trying, we have got a very thick canopy and a lot of trees here. That additional footage outside the sidewalk helps us protect some of those existing trees. Anthes: Because you are clearing the other part anyway, is that what you're saying? Another question is on page 4.5 at the bottom, talking about the International Fire Code requirements for the egress from the subdivision, are we meeting the code with the turn around and the mail kiosk in that area? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 33 Casey: The proposed cul-de-sac does meet our current minimum street standards as far as radius. Anthes: My next question is there was a pretty considerable amount of language in the tree preservation protection report that had some strong recommendations about reducing density, cluster developments, rerouting streets, build to lines, using words like significant, unnecessarily requiring, my question is of staff and Subdivision Committee, whether these concerns expressed by Mr. Camagey have been incorporated in any way by the developer. Carnagey: This development does meet the minimum requirements of our tree preservation ordinance. As you see in my report, there are recommendations that I have forwarded. However, the conditions of approval that I submitted to Subdivision Committee have been met by this applicant and therefore, because they meet the minimum requirements staff has no reservations about forwarding this project at this time. Anthes: Those are all of my questions, thank you. Bunch: Just some comments from Subdivision. Just like Commissioner Anthes questioned the tree report was prior to Subdivision and prior to additions and changes by the applicant. There have been a considerable number of alterations. There was a meeting with the neighborhood that incorporated some changes. Another thing that has been changed is the landscape island has been shortened in its east/west dimension to allow better access to lotsl and 13. Also, the width of the outbound has been altered to allow left turn lanes. Shared drives have been added and this was to offset the utilization of some very narrow frontages and accesses on particularly lots 13, 12, 11, 7 and 6. If you will notice in the covenants as well as in the findings and on the drawings, there are shared drives that have now been added. This is to improve the access to the lots but also to eliminate having a maze of concrete at the end of each one of these streets where there might be a 24' driveway on a 25' frontage and that sort of thing. It is an unusual concept to have a public street that ends in a cul-de-sac and then to have hammerhead private streets going from that. Also, one of the things I noticed is it has underground detention ponds. These are some of the things that we discussed at Subdivision was the accessibility to cleanouts for the underground detention system. Also, the access with the shared drives and such with the private drives. That has all been addressed in the covenants as far as the maintenance and that sort of thing. This is a project that has had quite a bit of attention. The developer worked with staff considerably and made quite a number of changes. They worked with the neighborhood and they also worked with Subdivision Committee and there have been changes so it is definitely one Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 34 utilizing what a PZD is for where there are multiple inputs and the changes are incorporated. Hoover: Thank you for the report. Ostner: Can you elaborate about the build to lines, where they are? Jefcoat: The build to lines are the front building setbacks only, except for lots 7, 8 and 4 where we have significant trees on the fronts of those lots. The build to line has been eliminated on those front building setbacks to try to come up with an alternative to save those trees. Ostner: It is the front setback line is to pull the buildings to the street? Jefcoat Yes. Ostner: Since there are so many trees, I'm curious, how many provisions are being made for these trees or are any trees supposed to remain after the lots sale or is it just up to the lot owner to go ahead and develop as he or she wishes? Jefcoat: There is an architectural review committee setup in the covenants and they would have the right to approve any significant tree that was removed from inside the building envelope. In order to meet our minimum canopy, all trees within the building envelope, including the significant trees, were not considered in the count in order to meet our minimum canopy, therefore, that is the worse case scenario if all the trees within the building envelope were to be removed. Also, we have left a buffer strip. Normally utilities such as sewer would be along the rear property lines, these have been located in the front, utilities have all be pulled to the front which in the case of the north side of the subdivision, is the high side. That sewer line there will be constructed at a deeper depth than you would normally find on a short line like that in order to preserve the trees along the back and to give an additional buffer benefit to the neighbors to the north. There have been considerable considerations. Shackelford: As I look at this property I think that it is in accordance with some of the surrounding properties, in particular, Hardy Lane. If you look at the development that happened in the late 1980's and early 1990's just south of this property it is a single entrance road with 16 units, pretty much a carbon copy of what we are talking about doing here. I think we have gone through great lengths to make the best compromises in this area we can to allow development and still maintain the integrity of the overall neighborhood. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of R-PZD 04-05.00 with the addition of the language that we recommend the city research a cost share for sidewalk Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 35 construction on the east side of the church property and the south side of the church property along Township. Vaught: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there more discussion? Bunch: Yes. Could we ask the representatives from the church what they would be willing to contribute on this if it is going to be a neighborhood effort to try to get sidewalks in and access Gulley Park. The city wanted to make, we are asking the city in a sense to cost share and we are asking the developer to take a look at cost share, what contribution would the church be willing to make on this? Hoover: I think that we can't do that here, I think that will happen at City Council, am I correct? Williams: You can ask them, I don't know if they can speak for the church. I don't know if they have someone here that can actually do that. I don't think it would be binding. Bunch: Just to get the dialogue started since there was a representative of the church here that spoke to us in the public comment session and also to look at the principal of neighbors working together and since the church is the seller of the property they do have a vested interest in it. Hemingway: At the neighborhood meeting that we had this was brought up and it was quickly stopped when I said we'll put in our share. That is when the neighbors were requesting the sidewalk. We said we'll put in our share. There was no more discussion of a sidewalk. These people that are requesting a sidewalk, we are not opposed to a sidewalk, we are just opposed to spending a whole lot of money to do it. If there can be some kind of agreement with the neighbors that want this we will be happy to put in our share. That is what we have come to the conclusion of saying, does that seem fair to you all? Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Jefcoat: I would like to address one other thing that the client has brought to my attention. We are interested in just the sidewalk going to Township on the east side of the church. I'm not sure the church would like to see the sidewalk on the south side of the church and that has nothing to do in the process of the client. Also, while we are doing the assessment consideration, it has been pointed out that the users of the sidewalk, those Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 36 in the Hardy Lane subdivision should be assessed their equal portion for the sidewalk also. Hemingway: I would just like to state that there is a sidewalk now on Township on our side so it would just be the east side. Shackelford: I was not aware that there was a sidewalk on the south property line so I would like to change my recommended motion to strike that part of it that we research a cost share on the south property line along Township. Hoover: Is that ok with the second? Vaught: That's good. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 04-05.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 37 CUP 04-07.00: Conditional Use (Linda Doede, pp 524) was submitted by Linda Doede for property located at 510 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow a home occupation, Tax and Bookkeeping Service, to remain on the subject property. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is CUP 04-07.00 for property located at 510 E. Huntsville Road. Pate: This Conditional Use was submitted by Linda Doede for property located at 510 E. Huntsville. The property is zoned RMF -24 and the request is to allow a home occupation, which actually has been in existence since 1996. It is a tax and bookkeeping service to remain on the subject property. The property currently contains an existing four bedroom single family dwelling unit in which the applicant resides and works currently. Recently the applicant was contacted for operating a business without proper city approvals for the Conditional Use. Thus, the application for a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation has been submitted to the Planning Commission for your consideration. There have been some citizen concerns, specifically, a phone call from a neighbor to the west regarding the proposed home occupation. This neighbor has no issues with the home occupational use however, she is concerned with the parking area that is currently located across Wood Avenue from her residence to serve this home occupation. In your findings on page 5.4 parking is proposed to be located, also it exists currently, along Wood Avenue. On the tour of the Planning Commission last Thursday we saw that Wood Avenue curves around and basically serves as a rear entry alley to serve the rear of these lots so they front onto Huntsville Road. There is currently adequate space for three vehicles, which does conform to the Conditional Use requirements for a home occupation. A single family residence permits two spaces by right with that 30% overage there is an allowance for one additional space. Staff has conditioned our recommendation for approval that there be a maximum of three parking spaces in total to be permitted on property, including that parking space utilized by the permanent resident. Staff also finds the proposed home occupation is generally compatible with many of the properties in this district. There are several businesses, across Huntsville Road is actually zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. As I mentioned, there is a tax and bookkeeping service directly to the east of this property as well. Another finding staff is charged with making is for the signage. There is a specific requirement it cannot exceed 3 sq.ft. and it is also required to be erected flat against a wall or a door or displayed in a window. Again, in our recommendation for approval for this Conditional Use has conditioned that any existing or proposed signage shall comply with those requirements as set forth by limiting that sign to a maximum of 3 sq.ft. Additionally, the Sidewalk Administrator for any Conditional Use is required to make a recommendation for sidewalks and the Sidewalk Administrator has found Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 38 that this site is appropriate for money in lieu of a sidewalk in the amount of $630 for a single family dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Hoover: Thank you Jeremy. Would the applicant come forward? Doede: I am Linda Doede and I live at 510 E. Huntsville Road. Hoover: Is there anything that you would like to add? Doede: I didn't understand what he was saying about the sidewalks. I couldn't really hear everything and I didn't understand what I did hear. Pate: A Conditional Use request requires a determination by the Sidewalk Administrator whether there should be a sidewalk constructed in this location. Any Conditional Use that staff reviews and is brought before the Planning Commission, that determination is made. In this instance, the Sidewalk Administrator has determined that a sidewalk would provide no connections in this area. There are not any sidewalks existing anywhere near this location. Therefore, his recommendation would be for money in lieu in this location. Doede: I know that the sidewalk stops just across the street from me. It stops in the 400 block and there are no sidewalks from there on out until you get to the new "Y". Does that mean I need to pay $600? Hoover: It is $630. Have you seen the list of conditions? Doede: Yes, I didn't see anything about sidewalks. Hoover: Will you give her a copy of that? Pate: Yes. Hoover: I guess right now I'm going to open it up to public comment and then we will come back to discussion. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and the Commission. Ostner: Am I understanding correctly that there is no development going on, it is just you need this Conditional Use because you have been doing this business for a while and a Conditional Use is required to do that in this area, am I understanding that? Doede: That is correct. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 39 Ostner: My question for staff is on the daycare two weeks ago, a very similar situation, they were preexisting, it was determined that their usage wasn't allowed in that zone but it needed a Conditional Use. Did they already have a sidewalk? Warrick: No, they were required to pay a fee in lieu and the Planning Commission granted them six months in which to do that. We would be willing to keep track and work with this applicant if the Planning Commission wants to do the same with this particular project. Hoover: Are there other comments? Williams: I actually have a question for our Sign Administrator. When we redid the sign ordinance I know that we allowed even in places where signs are not normally allowed, which would be in residential areas, a larger sign, a sign that would be the same size as a real estate sign. I know that kind of conflicts with our home occupation ordinance which says it only can be 3' as opposed to what it says in the sign ordinance itself. Warrick: Actually, in the sign ordinance itself under §174.03d, Home Occupation Signs, it states "Home occupation signs shall be erected flat against the wall and not exceed 3 sq.ft." That is part of Chapter 174 Signs. It is under exemptions which exempts the requirement for permitting but not the size and location requirements. Williams: Where it is otherwise I guess it is not allowed to be a commercial sign. The other exemption that I was talking about talks about political or non- commercial signs so that would not fit with you so you are pretty much stuck with the more limited sign. Doede: There is no sign variance or permit you can get for a larger sign considering the distance from the road to the front of the house. A 3 sq.ft. sign would not be readable. Williams: I might ask Dawn, is that something that the Board of Sign Appeals could grant a variance for? Warrick: The Board of Sign Appeals doesn't have as strict specific criteria to base their decisions on as the Planning Commission does. That is something that they could hear and that is something that we would need to look into and make a determination on a recommendation to them but they do hear variances to the size and location requirements of the sign ordinance. Vaught: I just have a question, because it is a preexisting sign there is no I guess exemption but it doesn't carry forward? Are they required to tear it down and build a new sign? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 40 Warrick: It can't be "grandfathered" in if it was never approved. What we are trying to do is find a starting point. Vaught: That was my question. I know on some existing things they carried forward but that's because they were properly approved originally. Warrick: If they were properly approved and the ordinance changed for instance, since the time that they were placed, they can stay until such time as under the ordinance they fall out of compliance. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Ostner: A question for the applicant. Would you agree to the conditions of approval? Doede: Yes. The three things on the signage, the sidewalk and the parking spaces, definitely yes. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve CUP 04-07.00. Allen: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and a second by Commissioner Allen, is there anymore discussion? Williams: Did that include the time for her to be able to pay this out? Ostner: Yes, I would like to adhere to the previous practice of allowing for six months of the payment of the sidewalk fee as part of my motion. Hoover: Is that ok with the second? Allen: If it is a need that she has. In the other instance there was a situation where the person had asked for that period of time, would you like that? Doede: I think so. That would be very helpful. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Doede: I guess I'm curious on what the process is for the signage to try to get a variance for that. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 41 Warrick: We have an application in the Planning office that you will need to come by and pick up and fill out the necessary information to provide us with drawings and/or photographs that show what your existing signage is, what your proposal would be and basically I just need to set you up with one of our staff members so that they can better understand your request. Doede: There is no problem with my existing signage as long as I'm in the process of getting a variance? Warrick: I think if you are actively pursuing a variance it is fair for your sign to stay. Basically, it kind of has a stay in all the proceedings that are applicable to it until such time as that Board makes a decision. Should they decide not to allow your sign to remain then it would need to be removed. Shackelford: What is the approximate square footage of the sign as it exists right now? Doede: I think it is approximately 20" tall x 28" wide. Shackelford: If these minutes do go to the Sign Appeal board I, for one, would be in favor of them granting that waiver. We are talking about a person who has been in business for seven years in this location buy a new sign because it is 4' instead of 3'. That to me is a pretty immaterial difference. In particular, as I drove by this property I noticed how far away it was from the road. If these minutes make it there I, for one, would suggest that we give her any consideration possible in that area. Ostner: I would like to agree with that comment. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-07.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 42 VAC 04-01.00: Vacation (Michael Campbell, pp 60) was submitted by the City of Fayetteville on behalf of Michael and Nandra Campbell for property located at 4843 Lavendon Place. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to vacate a portion of the water and sewer easement located on the property. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is VAC 04-01.00. Warrick: If it is alright, I'm going to stay here because staff is going to request that this item be tabled to the next meeting, the February 23`d meeting. We are still working out some of the issues surrounding this Vacation request. Hoover: Do we need to take any action on that? Warrick: I believe it would be appropriate to table it since it has been brought before you. Hoover: Thank you. Do we have a motion to table VAC 04-01.00? MOTION: Bunch: So moved. Graves: Second. Hoover: Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table VAC 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 43 ADM 04-06.00: Administrative Item: Preliminary Plat Approval Extension submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Investor's Realty, LLC. The request is to allow a one year extension of PPL 03-04.00, a preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2003, for property located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street. Hoover: ADM 04-06.00, Preliminary Plat approval extension. Morgan: The applicant applied for a Preliminary Plat approval. They applied for a twelve lot subdivision on approximately 17 acres zoned R -O and this is located east of Gregg Avenue and delineated by Appleby Avenue to the north and Drake Street to the south. The Planning Commission approved PPL 03-04.00 by a vote of 8-0 on February 10, 2003. The UDC states that the Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one year and it is within this one year time frame that construction of infrastructure should begin and ground should be broken. Prior to the one year expiration the applicant may request the Planning Commission to extend the period to begin construction for an additional year and the UDC allows three years from the time the Planning Commission approved the subdivision until the subdivision should receive their final inspection and come before you as a Final Plat. The applicant is now requesting to extend the approval of the Preliminary Plat for one year to expire on February 10, 2005. The Planning Commission has the authority to extend if the applicant requests an extension within that one year and shows good cause why the tasks could not reasonably be completed within the normal one year. The applicant stated in the attached letter that working on other projects in surrounding municipalities has delayed construction and the developer did receive approval for construction plans in the Summer of 2003. Planning staff is recommending approval of the requested extension to the Preliminary Plat approval and the applicant shall be allowed until February 9, 2005 to begin the construction of infrastructure with a three year time limit from the date of the original Planning Commission approval, which was February 10, 2003 to receive a final inspection. Bunch: Is the applicant present? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on ADM 04-06.00, a Preliminary Plat extension? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments or questions. Ostner: Have any major or minor requirements changed or occurred within the year since this has been approved? Warrick: I don't believe that this plat would be different if it were coming before you now as far as meeting the minimum standards of our ordinances. The answer is no. Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 44 Williams: It will be clear that they will have to pay impact fees now since they did not get it completed before mid-December of last year. Ostner: How much would that be? Warrick: It depends on the meter sizes for the various structures that they will place. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve ADM 04-06.00. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: Is there anymore discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-06.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Hoover: We have a couple more items on the agenda. Dawn, would you like to review this bylaw amendment? Warrick: These were passed out at the last meeting and I believe there are new copies in case you didn't hold onto yours from the last meeting. What staff prepared at the request of the Commission was an amendment to Article 2 of the Planning Commission bylaws. Under Section A in that article it talks about the Nominating Committee and establishing a secret ballot for electing officers for the Planning Commission. The current language is the Nominating Committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect by secret ballot the Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary annually at the first regular meeting in the month of the April. The proposal is to modify that sentence by removing the word at and inserting the words no later than to allow the Planning Commission flexibility in the time of election. The reason for that is that typically the first meeting in April is when the new Commissioners come-on board and they have not had an opportunity to possibly even meet some of their colleagues on the Commission and are asked immediately to vote on electing officers for their Commission. This would allow flexibility to have an election in March to allow the sitting Commission to elect officers for the next year. It is not a mandatory thing, it is a no later than, not a shall. Hoover: This is an item that we have the information today and then we will vote on it on the February 23rd meeting? Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 45 Warrick: We will slate it on your February 23`d agenda. Hoover: A couple of other items, with that schedule I need to appoint a Nominating Committee to come back with a slate of officers and I would like to ask that Commissioner Allen, Ostner and Anthes be on that Nominating Committee. Will they all serve? Very good. Just to reiterate that is the February 23`d meeting and the secret ballot would not be until March 8d' on that. I'm trying to do housekeeping before we leave. Do we have an update on the lighting ordinance, or may I say at the next meeting could we have an update on the lighting ordinance and could we also have a date for the PZD workshop and also a date for the hillside ordinance presentation coming to the full Commission. Warrick: Let me tell you what I know on those things so far. We certainly can provide you with an update on Outdoor lighting. We have focused more on hillside recently and we will figure out where we are and let you know on that. We are proposing to bring forward at your February 23`d meeting a draft of the hillside ordinance so you can start considering that. The PZD workshop we are looking at March, March Ild' has been kicked around but it is not confirmed yet. It will be very shortly and we will let you know as soon as we have a date confirmed. If you have any suggestions or scheduling conflicts that you know of that you need us to know about please let us know. Hoover: Thank you, I appreciate that. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:49 p.m.