Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 12, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-08.00: (Lot 17 CMN II, pp 173/174) Forwarded to City Council Consent VAC 04-04.00: (Clary/Harps, pp 401) Forwarded to City Council Consent VAC 04-05.00: (Clary/Harps, pp 401) Forwarded to City Council Consent VAC 04-07.00: (Woodall/Douglas Street, pp 444) Forwarded to City Council Consent LSD 04-11.00: (Hank's Furniture, pp 135) Approved Page 5 LSD 04-10.00: (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) Approved Page 10 PPL 04-05.00: (Deerpath Estates Ph. 2, pp 488) Approved Page 14 PPL 04-01.00: (Bridgeport Phase 7 & 8, pp 360) Approved Page 17 ANX 0405.00: (Harper/Brandon, pp 61) Forwarded to City Council Page 22 RZN 04-04.00:(Harper/Brandon, pp 61) Forwarded to City Council Page 22 RZN 04-06.00:(The Crowne, pp 559) Forwarded to City Council Page 28 I-PZD 04-05.00:(Wal-Mart Optical Lab/Hwy 62W, pp 559) Forwarded to City Council Page 31 ADM 04-11.00: UDC Ch. 172: Parking and Loading (Outdoor patios/dining) Forwarded to City Council Page 38 Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Candy Clark Christian Vaught Nancy Allen Christine Myres STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 3 Approval of the Minutes of the March 22, 2004 meeting. VAC 04-08.00: Vacation (Lot 17 CMN II, pp 173/174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Nanchar Inc. and MSB Properties, LLC for property located in Lot 17 of CMN 11 Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement due to a replat of the lot. Planner: Jeremy Pate VAC 04-04.00: Vacation (Clary/Harps, pp 401) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development for property located east of Colorado Drive and north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 4.61 acres. The request is to vacate a 35' drainage easement. Planner: Suzanne Morgan VAC 04-05.00: Vacation (Clary/Harps, pp 401) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development for property located east of Colorado Drive and north of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 4.61 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a 20' utility easement. Planner: Suzanne Morgan VAC 04-07.00: Vacation (Woodall/Douglas Street, pp 444) was submitted by Josef Woodall of New Millennium Construction & Development on behalf of David Kyle and Cynthia Nielsen of C.Y.N. LLC for property located between Lots 3, 4, 5, and 14 of the Archias-Bushnell Addition of the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Jeremy Pate Ostner: Good evening, welcome to the April 12, 2004 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Vaught being absent and Commissioner Graves arriving at 5:38 p.m. Ostner: Before I get to the consent agenda I would like to mention that item twelve has been tabled by the applicant. That item was a RZN 04-05.00 for Rasberry, Jordan & Benton. That parcel is at 1841 N. Leverett Avenue. Again, that item has been tabled and will come to an agenda later on. The first item on the agenda is the consent agenda including the approval of the minutes from the March 22"d meeting. Also, VAC 04-08.00, a Vacation for Lot 17 in CMN II. VAC 04-04.00, a Vacation for Clary and Harps. VAC 04-05.00, also for Clary and Harps. The fourth item on the consent agenda is VAC 04-07.00 for Woodall and Douglas Street. If anyone would like to pull these items off of the consent agenda either in the audience or on the Commission the time is now. Otherwise, we will have a motion for approval. MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda and the minutes of the last meeting. Shackelford: I will second. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 4 Ostner: Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 5 LSD 04-11.00: Large Scale Development (Hank's Furniture, pp 135) was submitted by Ron Homeyer of Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Hank's Furniture for property located at Lot 3B of Spring Park Place, Phase I (Joyce Blvd just east of Mall Avenue.) The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 40,850 s.f. retail store with 58 parking spaces proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate Ostner: Our next item of new business is LSD 04-11.00 for Hanks Furniture. Pate: This Large Scale Development was submitted for Hanks Furniture. It is located at Spring Park Place Phase I, which is between McDonald's and the United Bank on Joyce Blvd. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 40,850 sq.11. retail store with 58 parking spaces. Surrounding land use is all C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. There will be 6' sidewalks located at the right of way line for street improvements proposed. There are no trees on site so that requirement is waived by the Landscape Administrator. Through the meetings of submittal the primary discussion that we've had with the applicant and at the Subdivision Committee have been meeting Commercial Design Standards. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 04-11.00 with seven conditions. The first of which is the Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Based on discussions with the Subdivision Committee, recommendations for better articulation of wall surfaces, the addition of some awnings. I believe the applicant and architect have revised drawings to show you tonight. Staff is recommending approval of those drawings. Additionally, staff is in support of a waiver request. The Hanks Furniture Store is definitely a boxlike structure. However, it is compatible with many structures and many developments that are already located in this area and staff is recommending approval of that. Item two, an assessment in the amount of $72,207 shall be paid by the developer prior to issuance of building permits. That is an assessment for street improvements that have already been completed. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Please state your name, introduce yourself, and give us your presentation. Roberts: Good evening, my name is Steven Roberts I am the construction and property manager for Hanks Furniture. I have with me this evening Ron Sloan and we have some new elevations depicting some of the changes that we discussed with the Subdivision Committee. Based upon their recommendations and further discussion with staff we have changed the looks. Ron, if you'd like to address what we've done there. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 6 Sloan: I'm Ron Sloan with Sloan Architects. Basically, what we have done is we've added a brick wainscote to the usual Hanks prototype and we have also articulated the building with the addition of awnings on the side walls and also projections with pilaster columns on both sidewalls and the front walls. We are trying again, to get away from the smooth wall side and try to give us more of an articulation on the sides. These two elevations here that I've got down here. These perspectives give you a view of the southwest elevation and the southeast elevation that you can see both sidewalls and front and we've also extended the canopy out 30' from the front entrance all the way out to the parking lot. Again, to give you a focal point and identity to break up that front elevation. Are there any questions? Ostner: Thank you. We will maybe have a few in a moment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Allen: We talked a good bit about the Commercial Design Standards at Subdivision and I see some real positive changes from Subdivision to today but I did have a couple of questions to ask staff. The buildings that are in that area that are boxlike weren't they built prior to these design standards being implemented? Just to follow through with that I just wanted more clarification as to why you would feel like in this highly visible area that we would want to waive that boxlike recommendation. Warrick: On Joyce Street in this general area there is a mixture as far as time goes of projects that have been processed and approved before and after the adoption of our Commercial Design Standards ordinance. The Walgreen's that is under construction at the corner of Shiloh and Joyce of course, came after. Circuit City came after and was considered compliant with Commercial Design Standards. The United Bank and the McDonald's which flank this subject property, were both subject to Commercial Design Standards. The project to the south and then also the Wal-Mart and the projects north of Wal-Mart are on Joyce Street were existing prior to 1996 when this ordinance was adopted. You can see that there is a mixed bag of timing with projects. Many of them are different. With regard to this particular structure most retail buildings that you see, in order to have efficient use of space are somewhat square and boxy. This particular project the applicant has made an effort to ameliorate that affect by having a projected entry and by raising some of the parapet to create an entrance feature and also by articulating pilasters or columns along the front and sides. The front is further articulated with door and window openings and the sides have some of the awnings that are also on the front. We felt like the treatments that the applicant has proposed mitigate the affect of this structure. We felt like they had made an effort to comply which was adequate in order to comply with our design standards. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 7 Anthes: While we are on the discussion of the Commercial Design Standards I'm looking at the north elevation and wondering why we have a very blank unarticulated wall surface on the north as opposed to the other facades. Warrick: Our consideration of the north had a lot to do with the visibility. There is no public access to the rear of this structure. There is a private drive. The public access, the closest where you would even see the rear of this structure is the looped drive around the mall. This structure is set down into the site and because of the grade of the site the majority of the rear wall is below the eye line and below the level of Georgetown, which is the private drive that runs behind the site. The primary emphasis of our Commercial Design Standards is that portion of the structure which is visible from a public right of way. Because this portion of the structure is not visible from a public right of way we felt that it was adequate the way that it was proposed. Anthes: My concern was the mall drive. I know that is not a public street but it is one that is heavily trafficked by the public at large. Everybody that uses the mall drives that loop a lot. I was having a hard time visualizing how much would be apparently seen from that road. I would like to know what other Commissioners thought of that. From out seeing the site I looked out there and thought I would see the back of this structure and that this would have a much different character on the north side. Trumbo: We did discuss that on the tour and to me it looked like the building was sitting down low enough that it really wouldn't be noticed unless you were looking for it. I don't think the north side is going to be seen. Allen: I wonder if the rest of you have access to the drawings that I bad at Subdivision, would that be helpful for you to see the differences in the two? I can pass this around for people to see. Williams: I did want to direct the Planning Commission that when you are considering this you are considering whether it complies with the Commercial Design Standards. You are not considering a waiver. I know it is kind of couched in those terms but you are not going to waive any kind of requirement. The code states that a square, boxlike structure should be avoided or minimized. It doesn't say that there cannot be one. It is the kind of characteristics that the City Council wanted to avoid if possible. You are not waiving it. Waiver is kind of a term of art and people think you are going to waive an ordinance or something and you really can't do that. You are following the ordinances, trying to apply the Commercial Design Standards and see whether this project, in fact, in your opinion, does comply with the Commercial Design Standards. That is what the issue is before you. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 8 Shackelford: Do we have signed conditions of approval? Warrick: I don't believe we do. Shackelford: A question of the applicant. We don't have signed conditions of approval at this time, are there any of these conditions that you take issue with? Roberts: No, we have committed to all of those including the fee. We are very aware of the $72,000 fee and I've made commitments to those in the past so we are aware of those. MOTION: Shackelford: With that, I'm ready to formulate a motion here. I understand, and I looked at the north elevation as well, I'm in agreement with Mr. Trumbo as you look at this property I think due to the topography that is going to be less in view to the public than the other sides. Also, the fact that that is from a private road and not a public road I think there is an issue there that differentiates the north elevation from the other elevations. I understand our conversations about boxlike structures. We've had these conversations quite a bit. In my opinion that may be somewhat bad language. We start talking about 41,000 sq.ft. of wholesale or retail space it is hard to approach that without thinking of a boxlike structure when you are talking about that kind of square footage on a one story dimension. My key and the way that I'm looking at this is, as our City Attorney has said, that those should be minimized and I think this has been minimized with articulation and the work that they have done really minimizes the affect of the square boxlike structure. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 04-11.00 with the positive determination of Commercial Design Standards as proposed in the new elevations presented tonight subject to all other terms and conditions based on staff's recommendations. Ostner: We have a motion by Mr. Shackelford, is there a second? Tr umbo: Second. Ostner: Is there additional discussion? I'd like to go ahead and share my view of this. I do feel it is lacking on the north elevation. However, I don't think it is visible enough for them to fail the test of unarticulated walls. The prominent three sides have been dealt with very well and I believe most buildings are boxes and we are constantly trying to do things to make them not look like a box. I believe Circuit City is about the purest box in town. That's their style, that's something they want to do. I'm not sure if Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 9 that came in before or after our design standards but I would be in favor of this project as stated. Allen: I will agree. I do continue to wish that when we have our next workshop that the Commission as a whole discuss this difficult dilemma that we continue to have about what is boxlike and about what makes a box by any other name a box. I see that the applicant has made significant efforts to do the things that were suggested to them with the direction that we gave them at Subdivision Committee so I will be in favor of the project. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-11.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 10 LSD 04-10.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Lindsey Management Company for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Stearns Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.86 acres. The request is to allow development of an 82,420 s.f. office building with 275 parking spaces proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate Ostner: Our next item of business is LSD 04-10.00 for Lindsey Office Building. Pate: This Large Scale Development site is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The Planning Commission actually approved a very similar project back in July, 2001 for a Large Scale Development for this site. The time frame of one year has passed since that last approval. Therefore, the developer is required to come back through this approval process to comply with all current ordinances. That is the process we are going through at this time. The applicant proposes to construct a structure, a portion of which is six stories tall, of 82, 420 sq.ft. of office space. It does front onto Joyce Blvd., and a portion of the site onto Steams Street. The proposed development includes 275 parking spaces to serve this development, which is allowable by ordinance. Also, a 10' sidewalk is being recommended along Joyce Blvd. and street improvements to Stearns Street. A 6' sidewalk is also an addition to that street. Numerous retention ponds are proposed on your site plan utilizing water features as both detention as amenity to the development. It is a waiver request from one of those ponds for the 100' setback. That is one of the Planning Commission determinations tonight. There is 14.6% existing tree canopy and the applicant is not proposing to remove any tree canopy at this time so there is no mitigation required. As I mentioned, in July, 2001 a very similar project with similar waivers and conditions came through. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 04-10.00 with 16 conditions. A couple of determinations do need to be made tonight. Item one, Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff does find that the proposal meets the criteria for commercial structures in this case. Item two, Planning Commission determination of the variance request for the 100' building setback from a water surface. Staff is also in support of this. It is an office complex that presents a low potential for danger with the proposed office use. Item three, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending that Stearns Street be improved, as per typical, with a 14' width including curb, gutter and storm drain and a 6' sidewalk. Additionally, there is a 10' sidewalk to be located along Joyce Blvd. to eventually match up to the sidewalk that is being put in there now. Item four, Planning Commission determination of an assessment for a future traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Joyce Blvd. and Vantage Drive, which is an offsite improvement. Staff recommends that an assessment be made in the amount of $9,120 to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. There is a memo in your Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page I1 packets with your staff report detailing the means by which that is reached, the actual calculations that staff uses to determine those offsite street improvements. Ostner: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please and introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Kelso: I'm Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner, Lindsey Management. As you can see, this is a proposed office building. This plan was presented before some time ago and we are basically presenting it again in the same location. The fagade may have changed a little bit there but other than that it is basically the same project. The architect is here who can answer any questions that you have regarding the building elevations and I will try to answer any questions that you have about the site. Ostner: Thank you Sir. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to comment about this item? Seeing none, I will move it back to the Commission for comments. Allen: At Subdivision again, we talked a little bit about the glass building and that some reflective glass buildings could be a hazard when driving so I asked that you could bring the glass material and maybe a little explanation of how that kind of glass operates. Fugitt: My name is Kim Fugitt. I'm the architect on the building. The glass is a reflective glass. Half of the glass is a glass material that you can't see through. The other vision panels are clear but they do have a reflective surface on them. The surface has a blue tint to it. The elevation is heading in that direction. It is not a mirror type finish, silver or gold or bronze. It is a blue reflective material to hopefully blend with the sky view. I realize coming from the west that that could be a potential problem on Joyce but we have tried to use a dark tinted material to reduce that glare. Allen: Thank you. Clark: Are there any other structures in Fayetteville that have similar glass that we can get a reference to? The reflection issue has bothered me a bit as well. Fugitt: Not that I'm aware of, not this particular glass. I haven't researched that much but I don't know of one that I could point you to. The only suggestion I can make is take the glass samples outside where you can get the actual look. I know this is maybe not the appropriate time to do that but that may give you a better idea of that reflective surface. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 12 Clark: I'm not sure one panel as opposed to six stories is really going to be a good comparison. Myres: Is this in anyway similar to the Staffinark building on Millsap? Fugitt: No Ma'am. That is actually an aluminum skinned panel on the Staffmark building. Anthes: On the conditions of approval I don't really have a problem with the variance request for the setback from the water surface in the pond area. I do have a question of staff on item ten. Is that a typo? I'm trying to reference that with the plan that says the east setbacks will be modified to correctly reflect a zero foot side setback, is that correct? Warrick: It is correct. The side setback in a C-2 zoning district when it adjoins another C-2 zoning district is zero. It is just a note on the plat that needs to be updated. Anthes: I was trying to reference the plan, ok, thank you. Shackelford: Do we have signed conditions on this? Pate: Yes Sir. Ostner: Just to get this discussion started, there are other parts of the Commercial Design Standards that we are applying tonight. What do you all think other than the reflective glass? Allen: I would say that it is a cleverly disguised box. Shackelford: I would add that I think there is a lot of articulation to the building. I think even more so than had we saw this originally proposed and approved as an earlier development. I don't remember some of the one story space being quite as articulated as it is at this point. My personal opinion is I don't have any trouble with the Commercial Design Standards on this project. Allen: If there aren't any further comments, since this project has been approved once, I will move for approval of LSD 04-10.00 subject to the 16 conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you. Do we have a second? Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 13 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-10.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 14 PPL 04-05.00: Preliminary Plat (Deerpath Estates Ph. 2, pp 488) was submitted by Project Design Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SCB, LLC for property located east of Crossover Road and north of Deerpath Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 9.13 acres. The request is to approve the development of another phase of this subdivision with 16 single-family lots proposed. Planner: Suzanne Morgan Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-05.00 for Deerpath Estates. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision on 9.13 acres. It is zoned RSF-4 and the proposal is for 16 single family lots. The lots range in size from .41 to .68 acres. The property is located east of Crossover Road, north of Deerpath Estates Phase L This is the proposed Deerpath Estates Phase II. The approved Preliminary Plat for Stone Mountain subdivision is located to the north and east of this property. Surrounding land use is single family residential and zoned RSF-4. 50' of right of way is being dedicated for Red Deer Court and the proposed extension of Skyview Lane. The applicant is proposing connectivity to the north and tree preservation existing canopy is 90% with 40.8% proposed to be preserved. Staff recommends approval of PPL 04-05.00 with the following nine conditions. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the residential block length greater than 1,400 feet. The proposed block length is 1,765 feet. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Scott: My name is Art Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants here representing the developer for any questions that you might have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a comment? Johnson: I'm Angela Johnson, I'm a resident of Deerpath Estates Phase I and I'm speaking on behalf of the residents of Deerpath Estates. We had a meeting with the developers on April 5`h in which at least one representative from each home was present. We are all in agreement with what the developers are proposing to do. If there is any way tonight that we could do the three readings tonight that would be great. We would like to see things move forward in that area. There is only one issue which we have concern about. We understand that there is a new city proposal for connectivity. However, as residents of Deerpath it is a very quiet community. We purchased our homes there because it is quiet and there is not a lot of thru traffic. We do have children and we are just concerned about traffic coming in and out of the subdivision. As far as the proposal of the community itself if there is anyway we can bring that up later that would Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 15 be wonderful. Otherwise, we are all for this subdivision and would like to see it move forward. Thank you. Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. If we could start out by a question for staff, if you could address the proposal for connectivity and how that is a policy of ours. Warrick: We have a situation that the existing Phase I of Deerpath Estates is relatively land locked, it is a single drive that has a small cul-de-sac connection to it. It is one street of single family homes. It is in an area where the topography is somewhat steep and I guess you could classify it as hilly terrain according to Fayetteville standards. It is also in a location that the northern boundary is only one property away from a future street connection. The Stone Mountain subdivision that was approved recently as a Preliminary Plat has a connection to Crossover Road but there is one intervening property between this Deerpath development and Stone Mountain. Because we do feel that connectivity between neighborhoods is important so that people from both of those neighborhoods have more alternatives for getting in and out as well as for service vehicles. All different types of deliveries and just services. We feel like it is important to provide for that future connectivity. It will not happen with the development of this particular phase of Deerpath but we do expect that in the future should the property to the north, which currently has on it a single family home, but it is a large tract, should it be redeveloped or should it develop in anyway, split or have some sort of action taken on it, we feel that it would be appropriate for the connection to be made to have another access to the north. It has a lot to do with the topography. It has even more to do with the city's policy with regard to encouraging connectivity between neighborhoods and not creating exclusive enclaves that only have one way in and out. They can be, of course, very peaceful quiet streets but they can also be quite problematic with regard to delivery services. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners? I don't hear much discussion. Do I hear any motions? Anthes: Staff, will you just review for the record the conditions that necessitate the 765' block length in this project? Warrick: The Unified Development Code establishes design standards for residential lots, as well as residential blocks. The recommendation for a residential block is no longer than 1,400 feet. It gives a recommendation of between 400 and 1,400 feet in length. That is a design standard. It is a recommendation under the UDC and we felt that it was important to bring it to your attention just because this is a very long street, which for right Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 16 now, will be a dead-end. The existing street that is already constructed is somewhere in the range of 1,000 feet in length and this is going to add an additional approximately 800 feet to that. We've got a really long street that has not intervening intersections of any type, no intersecting streets for other access. We don't see that a lot because 1,400 feet really is quite a distance and that range between 400 and 1,400 feet is usually accommodated when you have a subdivision that has some type of intersecting street. As I mentioned before, this is in an area where it is quite hilly terrain and the street that will be extended runs a ridge line on the side of the hill so it is understandable that there is not necessarily a lot of intersecting grid type streets to this. That is why it is mentioned because it is part of the residential street and block design standards. Anthes: Matt, were there any comments from city services about problems with this? Casey: None that I'm aware of that have been provided through our Plat Review process. As long as they have adequate means to turn around when they get to the end then there should not be a problem. MOTION: Shackelford: This project looks to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. You are talking about less than two houses per acre. It seems like the existing neighbors are in favor of this, the issue being connectivity. That is something that we do need to hold possible in the future. It is not going to happen at this point but it is a city standard to have that going forward. Based on staff's recommendations and findings, I'm going to make a motion that we approve PPL 04-05.00 with the approval of the waiver request for a residential block length greater than 1,400, this one being 1,765 feet. Ostner: We have a motion, do we have a second? Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Before we vote, I would like to commend the developer for meeting with the neighbors. That is something that we really promote and it tends to make everything easier. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-05.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 17 PPL 04-01.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgeport Phase 7 & 8, pp 360) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Arkansas Oaks for property located east of Bridgeport Subdivision Phase III and Freedom Place. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 17.4 acres. The request is to approve the development of Phase 7 & 8 of this subdivision with 24 single-family lots proposed. Planner: Suzanne Morgan Ostner: Our next item is PPL 04-01.00 for Bridgeport Phases VII and VIII. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: Yes Sir. This applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision on 14.7 acres. It is zoned RSF-4 with 24 single family lots proposed. The northern portion of this property includes an area of floodway within Hamestring Creek. Also, the property is located south of Mt. Comfort Road and delineated by Bridgeport Addition Phases I and III to the west. The applicant proposes to develop this subdivision in two phases, Phases VII and VIII. Surrounding land use includes area within the Planning area and that which is in the city zoned RSF-4. Right of way is being dedicated, 50' for the length of American Drive and New Road. Also, New Bridge Road is a collector on the Master Street Plan requiring 70' of right of way, which is being proposed. Connectivity is being proposed to the south from the intersection of New Road and New Bridge Road to provide for future developments. In addition, connectivity is being proposed to the east from American Drive and New Bridge Road. Existing canopy is 37% and proposed preservation is 27.2%. The applicant is also proposing a dead end street of 570' in length, which is currently called on the plat New Road. Staff is recommending approval of PPL 04-01.00 with 13 conditions. Of which, condition two is Planning Commission determination of a waiver for a cul-de-sac length of 570' on New Road. The maximum length of a dead end street allowable by ordinance is 500'. We have received signed conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and give us your presentation please? Barnes: Good afternoon. I'm Bleaux Barnes with Keystone Consultants on behalf of Arkansas Oaks. We have Bill Helmer here present, a representative of Arkansas Oaks that might answer any questions that you might have. Ostner: At this point we will open it up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this issue, PPL 04-01.00 for Bridgeport? Seeing no one I will close it to the public and move it back to the Commission for comments. Shackelford: Condition number seven, I was trying to remember this this afternoon. It calls for removal of the construction office at the time of Final Plat shall Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 18 be required to comply with the conditions of CUP 03-27.00. Is this the last phase of Bridgeport? I'm trying to remember that Conditional Use, I don't remember that condition per say. Warrick: We kind of thought Phase VI was the last phase of Bridgeport. They seem to have additional properties and were considering additional properties at the time. The intent with that condition is that when the Final Plat for Phase VII that the construction trailer goes away. I realize this is Phases VII and VIII and that is something that you, as a Planning Commission, placed a condition on that Conditional Use and it was, if I remember right, three years or when that Final Plat is approved and the construction is completed on that phase, whichever comes first as far as when the time frame went away or lapsed on the Conditional Use approval. Our recommendation would be Phase VII and even though we are looking at two phases, there would then be the option for, if there is continuing work on the site, to operate what we wanted to do was to basically replace the sales office with the construction trailer which would function on the site as the infrastructure was being installed for that phase and then, of course, the sales office would go away. We expect Phase VII to be the one where that applies. Shackelford: Thank you. Allen: I wondered if the applicant could talk to us a little bit about the waiver for the cul-de-sac length. Helmer: The waiver for the cul-de-sac came about as we were meeting with the staff and trying to solve a couple of problems. One that we have a piece of property that was not accessible and was going to wind up being a very large lot which we didn't really want to create. Also, to avoid three large walnut trees it caused us to have to go a little bit longer with that cul-de- sac. Clark: On condition of approval number one that the remnant of common property is going to be maintained by the Property Owner's Association, has that been agreed to by the Property Owner's Association or is there a Property Owner's Association now? Helmer: There is a Property Owner's Association. I guess technically that has not been agreed to. We kind of left that, they will agree to it if that is what we determine to do with the property. There is actually another development forthcoming that this property adjoins with which would be better if it was just joined to a lot there. The location of it is not really advantageous to the Property Owner's Association. Clark: So there is future development coming in that very area? Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 19 Helmer: Yes, that is my understanding. Warrick: I've spoken with an individual who owns property to the south and they are proposing to move forward with a development proposal in the near future. Helmer: I have spoken with him also. We haven't worked out details but I've spoken with him about the possibility of one or the other of us buying a strip of land from the other and making that a lot actually. Warrick: That is what staff would prefer to see happen and that's what we are encouraging both of these developers to do but we did need to have a fall back because that remnant tract doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a legal lot within the zoning district so it would have to be considered an un -buildable parcel and therefore, greenspace to be maintained by some entity should they not be able to work out an agreement between the two developers. We expect that a small lot line adjustment would allow for that remnant tract to become a legal lot within either Bridgeport or whatever the unnamed development to the south would be. Clark: I'm not sure exactly who to address this question to. Suzanne and I talked a little today about traffic and the impact of this development, the development that you are talking about to be named at a later date, and all the other developments that are going up and down Mt. Comfort Road. When we were taking our tour last week it is a testament to Dawn's driving ability that two bikers did not meet an untimely demise because it is a very narrow road. I'm very concerned about the impact that as we add more development in a quilting fashion is going to have on traffic. I'm not even sure who I should address this question to but it seems to be a concern that as smaller developments come up one after another somebody has to answer it. What type of impact do we project these types of development to have on Mt. Comfort, which is already a very crowded, small road with no shoulders? Warrick: Any development within the city is going to impact any infrastructure in the area existing and future. What we are charged with considering is whether or not the amount of impact caused by any particular development exceeds what they are going to be installing as public infrastructure on that project site. That is the starting point. The Planning Commission does have the ability to assess offsite improvements should they feel that there is a burden on the public infrastructure surrounding the project that is exasperated or caused to be worsened by the particular development that is being proposed. One thing that is very important to keep in consideration is the fact that there is law that has to do with rough proportionality of the impact of a development and the amount of Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 20 improvement or assessment that is charged towards that development. What we do is we try to make a reasonable recommendation that we feel is fair and is consistent with regard to the way that we consider all development proposals. The amount of infrastructure that that development is bearing the burden for and whether or not it is in excess of what is there directly on site and whether or not, for instance on the Lindsey Office Building that we saw earlier, staff recommended and the Planning Commission approved, an assessment for contribution towards the signalization of a future intersection. We do take that into consideration when we make recommendations. In this particular case we are looking at a development that will be providing future connections, two to the east, one to the south and they also will be dedicating right of way for a collector street, which is larger than a standard street, for New Bridge Road when it extends to the east through this development. We also have to take into consideration the disbursement of traffic and the fact that they are providing for future connections and so with that connection not all of this traffic that is generated by this development will have to access on Mt. Comfort Road. There is capability through this development to access Wedington Drive, in the future to access Rupple Road, but to access currently Wedington, Mt. Comfort and 54`" Street to the west. That traffic is not all going to be targeted at one particular location, it has the ability to be disbursed and that comes through the requirement for connectivity and future stub outs that we look at with each development. Clark: As soon as I figure out everything you just told me I'm sure I will have a follow up question. Because they are building connector roads, or streets, into other major thoroughfares that are already heavily traveled, at what point would it be judicious for us to look at Mt. Comfort itself and doing something to improve that major thoroughfare? Warrick: As we move forward in this process you'll see that when we do have a development that adjoins Mt. Comfort, for instance on the north side of Hamestring Creek there is a large, vacant tract, when that develops there will be requirements for right of way dedication and improvements on Mt. Comfort. There are other developments that are currently in process, under construction along Mt. Comfort, that you will see piece meal improvements with curb and gutter and expansion of the street paving section as those developments occur. It is, as you said, a quilting process where it is not all going to happen at once. Mt. Comfort is a little bit tricky because it is a state highway and we don't fully control it. We can require improvements but we can't predict a comprehensive major improvement that might come through. We work through the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission for projecting larger projects such as that and there are certain state monies and federal monies that are Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 21 allocated through that agency for projects within the Benton and Washington Counties area. MOTION: Ostner: Do we have any other comments? I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve PPL 04-01.00 with the conditions as stated. Graves: I will second that. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 22 ANX 04-05.00: Annexation (Harper/Brandon, pp 61) was submitted by Michelle Harrington of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug, P.A. on behalf of Craig and Karyn Harper and Gary Brandon for property located at Albright Road and George Anderson Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.99 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-04.00: Rezoning (Harper/Brandon, pp 61) was submitted by Michelle Harrington of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug, P.A. on behalf of Craig and Karyn Harper and Gary Brandon for property located at Albright Road and George Anderson Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 9.99 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 04-05.00 for Harper/Brandon. Morgan: I will review the Annexation request along with the Rezoning request together. Warrick: They will require separate votes but since they are the same property you might want to hear them together. Ostner: Ok, so we are going to hear the rezoning and discuss it and then we will hear the annexation and discuss it and vote on them separately. Morgan: I will review the annexation first. The subject property contains two tracts of property equaling 9.99 acres. This property is vacant and it is located east of Crossover Road, a principal arterial, and north of Copper Creek Phase II, an approved Preliminary Plat. It is also south of the Springdale city limits. The property is adjacent to the city limits along it's southern boundary for approximately 1,300 feet and this is where it abuts Copper Creek Phase II. The applicant is proposing the Annexation of the property into the City of Fayetteville. We noted a rezoning request has been submitted for this property. Staff has reviewed this and made some findings. The requested annexation will extend an existing peninsula to the north. The extension, however, will create an appropriate boundary that will extend to the Planning Area boundary limits. No island completely surrounded by a municipality will be created by annexing this subject property. In addition, this area does not consist of a defined subdivision or neighborhoods. However, future development plans may include the extension of the Copper Creek subdivision and proposed boundaries for property lines. Current conditions result in a fire response time of just over eight minutes from Fire Station #4 and over nine minutes from Fire Station #5. Any development in this area would necessitate installation of hydrants and other such infrastructure improvements to the area. The Police Department reports that current levels of service would not be compromised and that coverage in this area can be provided. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 23 Annexations into the city automatically are zoned R -A and the applicant is requesting to rezone to RSF-4. I will review the findings that staff has made for that request for a rezoning. The proposed zoning is for single family residential and is compatible with the proposed land use to the south. The land use to the east is utilized for single family residential and agricultural uses with the property to the west vacant. A higher density than the R -A district allows for development of a subdivision with density appropriate in this area and would provide compatibility to the south. With those findings, staff is recommending approval of the requested Annexation and Rezoning. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Could you introduce yourself? Harrington: My name is Mickey Harrington, I'm the attorney for the Brandon and the Harpers. With me tonight is the engineer on the project, Brian Moore of ESI and Mr. and Mrs. Brandon. If you have any questions we are here to answer them. I don't think there is anything to present that staff has not already told you about. We do request approval of both the Annexation and the Rezoning. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up for public comment. If you would like to come forward and tell us your name and give us your comments. Stewart: I am Alan Stewart, I live on George Anderson Road. Some of us here live on single houses on multiple acres and we are a little bit concerned about having 40 houses jammed on 10 acres. We are concerned about traffic, we are concerned about drainage, we are concerned about the width of Albright Road, which is already very narrow. The other person eluded to the fire coverage, we are also concerned about that. I would like to have these questions answered. None of us, as far as I know, has yet seen a plat of this property and we would like to have some of these questions answered. Thank you. Ostner: We'll try to do that tonight. Nooncaster: My name is John Nooncaster, my property abuts this. I have a map of this if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this. It is kind of a long story. I'll try to make it short and not burden you too much. The pink color on this map is Albright Road is here, this is the City of Springdale. The City of Fayetteville is along the western portion of this map. The City of Fayetteville also continues to the south of the Harper property, which is the brownish, orange property located here. I own the two tracts of property that are colored in yellow here. In this area bounded by George Anderson Road there are approximately 40 acres that are still county Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 24 property. Out of this you are having an Annexation request for 10 acres tonight. Two weeks from now I have an application for an Annexation of the southern 20 acres that I own in this area as well. I had discussions with Ms. Warrick about a year ago and I was getting her opinion on staff's recommendation of bringing in both tracts of property that I own in this area. She said that there was a concern by the Planning Department that the blue tract here, which is approximately a three acre tract, would create an island if I brought my Annexation without that property. After much time and effort I decided it was better to bring an application for only the 20 acre tract and not for the 7 acre tract that is north of that because I felt that at some time in the future there would be a request for this Harper property to be brought into the city and they would face the same issue that I was facing, the creation of an island. If you read the General Plan 2020 it says one of the guiding principles is that annexations of existing islands and peninsulas should be formed. It says we should not annex areas that would create an island or a peninsula. Developers are often accused of trying to circumvent the rules and trying to get loop holes. If you read the finding that staff has it says no island, a tract of county property completely surrounded by a municipality will be created by annexing the subject property. That statement is totally true but the item that is glossed over in that statement is the fact that it will not be surrounded by a municipality. There will be 30 acres in this area that will be completely surrounded by the municipalities of Fayetteville and Springdale. In my reading of that it says an island. It does not say an island that is surrounded by one municipality, it says an island. That is why I have chosen when I had my chance to make an application for the 20 acres that I did not brim the seven acres in because I had a discussion with Mr. Pate on March 11` and he also voiced similar concerns about the creation of an island with this three acres of property. Apparently, if you create a three acre island it seems to be a trouble, you create a 30 acre island apparently there is not trouble with it. That was the comments I had. If anybody has any additional questions I would be happy to answer them. Ostner: Are there other members of the audience who would like to comment on both the Annexation and Rezoning? Rothenberger: My name is Andrea Rothenberger. My husband and I also own acreage wit all of the folks in our row on George Anderson Road and we have not been approached at all, unlike some of the others I've heard tonight, by the applicant at all, Mr. Brandon or Mr. Harper in regard to what the plans are for the residential rezoning. I would like to know and I think others of us would just like to know a little bit more and have more information in general about what the intent is on the square footage of the homes and in general what would be planned for homes there. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 25 Ostner: Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to comment on this issue? Stewart: My name is Catherine Stewart and I also own property on George Anderson Road. My question is George Anderson Road is currently a gravel road. Is the plan to pave this or maintain it as a gravel road and what would be the implication of additional traffic on a gravel road during the winter and the summer when there is a lot of dust? Ostner: Are there other members of the public who would like to comment on these two items? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion with the applicant. Anthes: I wondered if staff might talk to the neighbors on George Anderson Road and tell them when in the process they will be privy to the development plans. Warrick: The process is just getting started at this point in time. We are considering annexing 9.99 acres into the city limits of Fayetteville and should that be approved by the City Council the request is for that property to then be zoned for single family residential use with no more than four units per acre. Once that is in place, should the Council approve those two requests, the applicant would then be able to submit a development proposal to the city showing a Preliminary Plat to layout a subdivision showing street connections, how many lots, what size lots, where detention is, and what improvements would be going along with that particular development. That will go again through the Planning Commission review process. It will be heard at two public hearings through the Planning Commission process prior to approval. That is a secondary action once this particular request and it's accompanying rezoning request are through the process. Should the Council choose not to annex the property or zone it we would not see a development proposal unless the applicant chose to develop a project in the city's Planning Area, which would not be required to meet certain development criteria of the city. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services. Copper Creek Phase II abuts George Anderson Road. In Copper Creek Phase II we are making improvements to our side of George Anderson Road to the city standards and the other side, the east side, to the county standards. I would assume that it would be the same. The development of this acreage we would end up doing the same thing. MOTION: Anthes: By annexing the property we are able to, as a city, require a higher level of standards for that street development than if the property remains in the Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 26 county. Knowing that, I would like to move to send ANX 04-05.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion on this issue? Trumbo: Mr. Nooncaster's concern about the island, I was wondering if the staff could comment on that. Warrick: Staff believes that what is being created here, while it will be a 30 acre tract of land that is surrounded on all four sides by incorporated properties, on three sides by the City of Fayetteville and on the north by the City of Springdale, with regard to the Annexation policy, we are not creating an island that the city would then have the ability to control by annexing it through ordinance as we could if that piece of property were surrounded on all four sides by the City of Fayetteville. I believe what we have here is a timing issue. It is a situation where the property to the east has come before, the Nooncaster property, which is slated for your agenda on the 26`h. With regard to whether the three acre Kelly tract is then of issue, that is something that we have to weigh the Annexation policy against. In reality, should the Council choose to annex this 10 acres that we are considering tonight, I believe it makes the case even stronger for the Nooncaster and Kelly properties to be annexed into the City of Fayetteville because they are surrounded on three sides by the City of Fayetteville. They are within the City of Fayetteville Planning Area, which is the designated boundary that we feel will become annexed to the city within a 25 to 30 year span. Therefore, being suitable to be annexed into the city. It is a timing issue and what we see first, second and last is really based on when applicants propose to go into the process. The city is not actively reaching out and annexing by election at this point in time. There are other communities in Northwest Arkansas that are choosing to do that right now but it is not something that the City of Fayetteville desires to do. We look for people to petition to annex into the city and then once we have the application in process and understand what's being requested, we analyze that against our adopted policies to make a recommendation to you and to the City Council on that request. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ANX 04-05.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 27 Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Ostner: The next item is tandem to this, RZN 04-04.00 for Harper Brandon, the same parcel and the same project we have already been talking about. We have already heard a presentation. Commissioners, do you have discussion on this Rezoning? Shackelford: Based on what we just did, the request was an annexation. The property comes in under bylaw as zoned Agricultural. On the 2020 Plan and looking at adjoining neighborhoods, it makes a lot more sense I think to be zoned RSF-4 with a maximum of four units per acre. Based on staff's findings and those two points of fact, I will make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council of RZN 04-04.00. Anthes: I will second. I would also like to encourage the developers to have a meeting with the neighbors as you develop your recommendations for the plan. Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Anthes. I would just like to reiterate that this is merely a land use decision and the development will come back before us and the public will have an opportunity at that point to talk about the details, the nuts and bolts that they want to hear about with this piece of property. Is there further discussion? Clark: I think that is a very important determination to make very clear. I think that this Commission will follow the development of this property very closely especially with regard to the concerns of the neighbors in the surrounding area so I would follow up on the suggestion that the developers work closely with the neighbors because there obviously, are a lot of concerns with what now happens to this property. Because it has been annexed and we are about to take the next vote, it gives you much more voice in the whole process. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Clark. Is there further discussion on RZN 04-04.00? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 04-04.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 28 RZN 04-06.00: Rezoning (The Crowne, pp 559) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of LEC Properties for property located at the southeast corner of 15`h Street and Beechwood Avenue, north of 181h Street. The property is currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial, and contains approximately 10.93 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -12, Residential Multi -family, 12 units per acre. Planner: Jeremy Pate Ostner: The next item on our agenda is another Rezoning, RZN 04-06.00 for the Crowne. Pate: This property is located at the southeast corner of 15`h Street and Beechwood Avenue north of 18`h Street. You may remember it is just west of the Crowne Apartments that was approved last fall. Currently, the property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. To the west is zoned RMF -24, that is where the Crowne Apartments have been approved and are well under way with construction at this point. All along the western border to this piece of property shown on your maps, there is Town Creek which also abuts the property to the south, the Crowne Apartments to the south. To the west of that is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. To the north is I-1, there is an existing manufacturing plant and a SWEPCO facility there as well. C-2 property is to the northwest. The request tonight is to rezone the subject property to RMF -12, which is Residential Multi -Family, 12 units maximum per acre. Immediately surrounding properties are primarily vacant with the exception of the construction going on to the east with commercial zoned and planned land use to the west. A natural barrier is formed all along the western boundary of this property. Town Creek and the associated floodplain, there will be limited development that can occur in this floodplain, though it may be important to at some point construct a crossing to actually access that property from the west and 181h Street. The developer intends to develop a condominium project, a 10.93 acres with a for sale type of dwelling unit as a departure from the multi -family units that we have seen with the apartment complexes of the Crowne. Again, this is just a request for the rezoning so that is not before us tonight. That is just to allow you the knowledge that has been represented to us. A trail corridor that is being constructed by the developer of the Crowne Apartments for the Parks Department will likely continue along Town Creek with any development of the proposed project. Again, the proposed zoning allows for a maximum density of 12 units per acre resulting in a maximum potential of 131 dwelling units. The presence of Town Creek is a major finding with regard to staff s findings on this proposed rezoning. It does provide a formal boundary along the south and the west. That is also the line on which the General Plan deviates on the west side it is Regional Commercial, on the east side it is more mixed use type of development. The proposed zoning of course from an I-1 type of zoning would increase population density in this area. Based on the findings from the Fire Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 29 Department, Police Department and Engineering, which are also located in your staff report, it will not increase an appreciable traffic congestion or danger in this area. There are service accessible, both water and sewer. Of course the services will need to be extended within the development. Staff's findings for the proposed zoning of multi -family condominium style residential land uses is compatible with the adjacent and nearby multi -family dwellings, especially in contrast to the existing I-1 zoning that it is currently. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I will try to give a brief presentation. There are a couple of maps here I want to show you. Let me go over our property and what we've got here. This area that is a beige color is zoned C-2 at this time. This area here and here is where the apartments are going up right now is zoned RMF -24. This area down here is all parks land. This right here is the floodway and the creek is basically in the center of that. The property that we are looking at is this RMF -12 right here. Our intent is not to put apartments here. These are going to be condominiums that will be sold. There is a Bill of Assurance that has been presented to the city and will be posted with this property that we are limited to less than 100 units and they will be condominiums and sold so they are not apartments. Unfortunately, the city doesn't have a zoning designation for condos so that is what this is. The type of condos we are looking at is what you see, they will be upscale nice looking condominiums. The one thing that I do want to point out is the fact that this is a mixed use area so we do have several different uses but I do want to point out that this is floodway. Those trees will have to remain in place. Any kind of commercial use for this area just wouldn't be feasible because of the trees, the floodway and you wouldn't have any visibility. The same thing on this side here with the large apartment buildings. That is why this area is zoned commercial and this area is zoned commercial so that kind of leaves this piece right here and what you do with it. We don't really want to put apartments there, commercial doesn't make sense but condominiums seemed to make the most sense and just a great fit for that piece of property. Again, this is what we have planned on doing and I can try to answer any questions that you might have. Ostner: Thank you Sir. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this issue, the rezoning for the Crowne? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments or motions. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 30 MOTION: Shackelford: As I look at this property the current zoning of I-1 makes no sense whatsoever. You've got a large tract of RMF property to the east of this property and you have commercial property to the west and I think this is a pretty good buffer. In my mind this is a down zoning. Probably as this development occurs in this part of town industrial zonings are going to become less and less needed. I think this is a great concept and I think it fits in well with what this project overall is accomplishing in this area. Based on that, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-06.00 as presented. Clark: Second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Clark, is there anymore discussion on RZN 04-06.00? I'd like to agree that this is a down zoning and our General Plan 2020 designates the west side of this area as mixed use, that is not the area we are talking about, but for this project to be multi -family residential at this density, which is half the density of the Crowne Apartments, seems to be a good fit. I would concur. Are there any other comments? Renee, can you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 04-06.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 31 I-PZD 04-05.00: Industrial Planned Zoning District (Wal-Mart Optical Lab/Hwy 62W, pp 559) was submitted by Todd Jacobs of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for property located at 2314 W 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and is in the Design Overlay District. The request is to rezone the subject property to an I-PZD, Industrial Planned Zoning District, to allow a 979 sq.ft. addition to the Optical Lab building and revise the on-site parking. Planner: Jeremy Pate Ostner: Next is I-PZD 04-05.00 for Wal-Mart Optical Lab. Graves: I have to recuse from this particular item because of my employer's representation of Wal-Mart. Ostner: Thank you. Can we have the staff report please? Pate: The site was formerly a Wal-Mart retail store and operated as such until the early 1990's, the records are a little hazy. The site is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and is located within the Design Overlay District. Currently the site is used as what is called the Wal-Mart Optical Lab, a Tractor Supply Co., which leases the property from Wal-Mart, and the Arkansas State Unemployment Center, which is a separate building to the west. The Wal-Mart Optical Lab's use came into being in approximately mid 1995. That was basically through a tenant finish out building permit that was issued basically to rehab the interior and probably install new signage. Based on current ordinances, the use of an optical center would not be allowed in the C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. Therefore, an expansion, which is what the developer has requested, would require a rezoning because it is not allowed by right nor by Conditional Use in the C-2 zoning district. The most appropriate process for this to approve an expansion for this particular use would be the Industrial Planned Zoning District. Staff would not be in support of a general rezone to I-1 nor I-2 in this area. It is definitely a type of regional commercial area. It is a very high trafficked interchange with I-540 and 6`h Street. The request tonight is to rezone the subject property to an I- PZD, which is an Industrial Planned Zoning District, the first of which we've seen in the city, and to allow a 979 sq.ft. addition to the Optical Lab building. Also, to revise the onsite parking for a more efficient manner of re -striping the parking. Future Land Use Plan identifies this site again, as Regional Commercial. The applicant does utilize a portion of the site, about 53% of it for their lab uses and tight manufacturing uses. The remaining portion is leased to commercial use and office use. Rezoning to an I-PZD more appropriately, again, fits the current use of the site to it's zoning district. The applicant has indicated that a mixture of the current manufacturing and lab use, commercial uses and office space are to be allowed within the use units for the I-PZD. The net parking spaces with the proposal actually decrease with the additions of islands and Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 32 landscaping to meet both our parking lot ordinance with regard to landscaping and our Design Overlay District requirements with regard to a minimum of 25% greenspace onsite. They are bringing that up from I believe 18% or 19%. Also, they have proposed 25' of landscaping along 6`" Street with trees planted every 30 linear feet and shrubs to screen the parking. All of those requirements are being met by this proposal. Staff is in great recommendation of that. It is a derelict site at this point with a decrepit parking lot void of any plantings or landscaping at this time. I think that would be a very good addition to that area. Additionally, the Wal-Mart Optical Lab in this area employs about 530 employees. Some of which, 500 of which on a cycle of shifts are at the Optical Lab. Six to ten are at the Tractor Supply and six to ten at the Employment Center as well. As I mentioned, the applicant proposes to retain several of the use units that are more usually found within the C-2 zoning district and are also allowed in the I-PZD zoning district. In some of the findings, the site is relatively fully developed. There is no addition to any structure with the exception of 979 sq.ft., which I believe are shown in the elevations and the ones in your packet as well. The development expansion, along with the re -striping of parking spaces, achieves a more efficient use of the space for the applicant and is minimal relative to public improvements proposed. 6' sidewalks also are to be constructed along 6`h Street, also with landscaping along Futrall and Old Farmington Road for that frontage, which is required by ordinance for both the Large Scale Development and a Planned Zoning District. Staff is recommending approval of the Industrial Planned Zoning District with a number of conditions. I will mention a couple of those. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards for the building expansion. All future additions, remodels and new construction for existing and proposed buildings shall comply with commercial design standards and Design Overlay District requirements. A minimum of 51% of the gross floor area on the site shall be of Industrial use per the I-PZD zoning ordinance. Any less than that or changes of use will require a rezoning request. Item number seven I've added, the existing access to Futrall Drive shall be permanently removed from public access. That has been shown on the plans and we've discussed that with the applicant. Additionally, all parking lot lights are to be shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties utilizing full cut off sodium lighting fixtures. That is a requirement in the Design Overlay District and the existing fixtures are to be retrofitted to meet those requirements. If you have any questions about this please feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Could the applicant come forward please, introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jacobs: Good evening, my name is Todd Jacobs, I'm with CEI Engineering representing Wal-Mart. I think Jeremy gave a good description of the Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 33 history of this site. It has kind of been a couple of months of getting up to speed of how this site has evolved over time. Basically, there is a site that is not compliant right now. With this process we feel that it will best represent the city and Wal-Mart as well, in the future. With bringing the site up to code this will hopefully benefit the city with future development. This is a regional commercial node that is happening in this area. With the proposed improvements with the new landscaping we are removing 29,000 sq.ft. of impervious area to bring this site up to code so we'll meet the 25% greenspace. We are adding 30 or 32 landscape islands with new tree plantings, a new sidewalk along 6`h Street, we will be extending that onto Blockbuster which is really not part of our property but is in the right of way to make that extension. This site is kind of a crazy site to work with, with the evolution of it being turned into light industrial. With the re -striping it will be more efficient and the landscape islands, I think this is the best use for this piece of property. There are quite a few employees through the day, 530 give or take a few with the different shifts. For that reason, we are asking for a little bit over the allowance of what would be allowed by normal code for parking. Hopefully, bringing this site up to code, like Jeremy talked about, is a very derelict site, as you saw from the tour. That will hopefully encourage development in this area and bringing this site up to code for an entryway into Fayetteville. With that, I hope you will approve this project. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: I think the need for this tiny lab has resulted in a terrific cue for the City of Fayetteville for this highly visible artery it will be the beginning of beautification of this area. It is adding sidewalks, it is removal of asphalt, it is landscaping, it's a bonanza! With that, I would like to recommend that we forward to the City Council I-PZD 04-05.00 subject to the 17 conditions of approval. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes, is there further discussion? Myres: I just have a question. I'm not sure to whom it should be directed. Currently is it Old Farmington Road is one way into Futrall Drive? Is that of any concern? Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 34 Warrick: Old Farmington is a two way street. Futrall is the one that is one way and it is a concern to many people but it is the one way onto the bypass. Ostner: I do have one comment. I drove by there for the thousandth time today looking carefully. This proposal does not require sidewalks along Futrall Drive. Our packet says our Sidewalk Administrator has determined sidewalks are not feasible. My guess is because of the design of the ditch. It is not curb and gutter, it is a ditch drainage design. We have approved our first commercial PZD directly adjacent to this project, directly to the north situated on the southern part of Southern View and it is designed to be an old town concept for people to live upstairs and work below and promote pedestrian activity everywhere. I think a sidewalk along Futrall is crucial. I would like to add that to the conditions of approval, just make it number 18 to require a sidewalk along Futrall Drive to benefit the new development to the north that we have recently approved. Do the motioner and the seconder agree with that additional condition? Shackelford: I think we need to have some discussion with that. If our city staff is telling us that it is not feasible, I would like some sort of input why that determination was made by a professional that it wasn't feasible before we require that as a condition of approval on this development. Can staff that is present now, can you edify us on that decision? Warrick: One thing that is important to note is that the subject property does not extend north to Old Farmington Road on Futrall. There is an intervening property, which is the Sines Autobody Shop, which would be the connection point to have a sidewalk connection between the Southern View project and 6`h Street. It would take both properties. In addition to that it really has to do with what we were provided with regard to a recommendation from the Sidewalk Administrator, who did review the site and provide that recommendation to us. Pate: In addition, Mr. Rutherford, the Sidewalk Administrator, also relayed onto me the sidewalk connection, specifically this is an area with a school Sidewalk connections are very important. 6th Street is going to be an important sidewalk connection. The reason, for instance, it wasn't on the south side of Old Farmington is there are existing power lines. Also, there is planned to be a sidewalk on the north side of Old Farmington Road in conjunction with the same project that you're speaking of, the C-PZD. I believe that connection along Old Farmington Road is seen as the more practical connection, especially with regard to high traffic numbers going all the way down to 6th Street. I believe a lot of the pedestrian connection will start to follow Old Farmington Road now with the signalized intersection with the new traffic signal along Sang and Hollywood. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 35 Ostner: Just to continue this discussion, the southern triangle does abut the frontage road. Warrick: Right, it just doesn't extend north to Old Farmington Shackelford: He is talking about just the specific part that abuts Futrall. Ostner: Yes, I know Sine's Body Shop does have the majority or the northern half but the southern half is this property and I understand that the new signal is helpful but not for people heading west. People heading west from the school or from the Southern View mixed use development will come right here. Warrick: It is the Planning Commission's determination. You have a motion and a second on the floor that would need to be voted up or down or amended. Williams: Before the Planning Commission votes you should keep in mind that this is not an entirely new project. This is a 900 sq.ft. addition. Already the applicant is performing very many things to enhance the property pursuant to our ordinances, building sidewalks and removing asphalt, a bonanza, as Commissioner Allen pronounced it. I understand that the petitioner is in agreement with all of the conditions at this point, is that correct? Jacobs: That is correct. Williams: I appreciate the petitioner for doing that because, in fact, this particular parking lot was one of the reasons that we passed the parking lot landscape ordinance a few years back when I was on the Council to avoid this in the future. However, I would be reluctant to add additional costly things to the petitioner at this point in time who has already agreed to spend a terrific amount of money on a 900 sq.ft. addition only. We have to look at the rough proportionality of what his impact is to the city and to it's infrastructure needs. I think that they have shown very good faith up to this point in time. Ostner: I would agree that this is a great project. They are doing a lot of things above and beyond and it is greatly appreciated. Personally, with our city's dire lack of sidewalks in many places, if I, as a single person not speaking for the entire Commission, if I were presented with should there be a sidewalk along Futrall or should we remove three tree islands I would say a sidewalk because I see that as becoming heavily traveled and I see this as contributing. Why are they doing a sidewalk along 6`h, logically, if they aren't doing a sidewalk along Futrall? The logic is the same. They are both major pedestrian thoroughfares but that's on the table. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 36 Anthes: I guess I need to go back to staff's comments about the feasibility of that sidewalk. It was the drainage, the overhead power lines and what was the other? Pate: Those specifically were concerns along Old Farmington Road as far as existing infrastructure, utility poles and things of that nature along Old Farmington Road. As far as the specific condition by which feasible comes into the aspect of whether sidewalks could or could not be constructed, I'm sure it could be constructed, it is not impossible. We are basing that recommendation on our Sidewalk Administrator's recommendation with that regard per his site visit and recommendation. Warrick: I would just also add that we do have in our streets and sidewalk chapter of the Unified Development Code with regard to sidewalk requirements and when we are looking at building permits or projects where there is an addition to an existing development of 2,500 sq.ft. or more then a sidewalk is required by ordinance. When it is less than that of course the Sidewalk Administrator can offer an opinion, a recommendation, but there is not an ordinance requirement specific to issuing a building permit for an addition of less than 2,500 sq.ft. Anthes: I guess you know, I kind of went back and forth about this when I originally started looking at this project because the I-PZD is a rezoning and we are in a situation where we have the Design Overlay District, we've talked about it being a commercial node and we are rezoning this property to allow this industrial use in perpetuity now that it would be rezoned. I always felt kind of comforted by the fact that the applicant removed many of the use units from the PZD that might have been most objectionable in that area and left the ones that would be compatible in the long term. Also, condition of approval number three indicating that all future additions or remodels and new construction for any existing or proposed buildings shall comply with the Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District requirements is the thing that really put this over the edge with me. In terms of proportionality, knowing that going forward with anything else that this building will be brought up to all of the other conditions that we would like and I would think that the sidewalk would be one of those and the fact that they are reducing the amount of parking and the amount of concrete, they are putting in the islands, landscaping, they are replacing the lighting to be much more friendly and we are keeping 500 plus employees in the City of Fayetteville that might go elsewhere. Knowing that for a 900 sq.ft. addition, I, as the seconder to the motion, would be willing to leave it stand. Allen: Mr. Chair, while I understand what you said, I feel that the impact of a 900 sq.ft. building they have gone far and above. I would like to let the motion stand. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 37 Ostner: Is there any other discussion? Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward I-PZD 04-05.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Graves abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries seven to zero. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 38 ADM 04-11.00: UDC Ch. 172: Parking and Loading (Outdoor patios/dining) Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ADM 04-11.00, an amendment to Title XV, Chapter 172.05, standards to the number of spaces by use of the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code to exempt restaurants and bars, existing, expanded and new accessory outdoor patios, balconies, decks, and similar outdoor use areas from meeting off-street parking requirements within the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. Can we have a staff report Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, my name is Tim Conklin. I would like to welcome the three new Commissioners. We haven't seen such a change on the Commission for a long, long time and thank you for volunteering for the next three years. This evening staff is bringing forward an ordinance amendment to our parking lot ordinance in our Unified Development Code Chapter 172.05. Mr. Ostner did go over the actual amendment. The reason that we are bringing this forward is that we have had requests with regard to allowing outdoor uses. In the past there have been pre-existing accessory uses for existing restaurants and bars in our C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. This afternoon we did do a little analysis of how many existing outdoor uses we have. We have approximately 24 that we were able to identify. Many of those, once again, have existed for a long time. Some of them have been more recent. We have seen quite a bit of redevelopment occur within our downtown area with the conversion of old warehouse type buildings, restaurants being established. It is not just along Dickson Street but within our square, downtown area having outdoor uses. In the past if a property owner wanted to expand an outdoor use area they had to either provide additional off-street parking on the site or they would have to go get a shared parking agreement. In the event that they could not provide the parking or get the shared agreement, there was a $1,200 in lieu fee that would have to be paid. To date, we have only had one outdoor use that was assessed the $1,200 per space fee. The City of Fayetteville did collect $30,000. If this ordinance is amended staff would recommend to the City Council that that $30,000 be reimbursed to the developer. We recently went through a series of meetings in January as part of our Downtown Master Plan. That Downtown Master Plan draft did talk about street oriented architecture and encouraging the use of balconies and decks and other outdoor type use areas associated with downtown development. It also talked about minimizing or reducing the parking requirements within our downtown area to make it a walkable and lively community. That was within our cultural and entertainment district. I have attached the proposed draft language in 172.05. Also attached are the existing ordinances in our Unified Development Code. Once again, this has been brought to our attention due to our Downtown Master Plan, but also, we do have a current business owner who has expressed concern for the inability of expanding an outdoor use area without being able to Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 39 provide the parking onsite or offsite through a shared parking agreement. Some of the churches, at least one of the churches, has stopped approving shared agreements if alcohol is being served as part of the business. So that has somewhat shut the door on some of those shared parking agreements and has made it more difficult to expand those outdoor use areas. That concludes my staff report. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Conklin. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a comment on this issue? Seeing no one from the public here, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments or motions. Anthes: Does this include roofed terraces too? Conklin: It includes all accessory outdoor use areas. Anthes: I'm a little confused. Obviously, if there is a little balcony that projects, kind of like the Brew Pub and that livens up the street and that is nice. That doesn't really add an appreciable amount of seating and most people move out there instead of sitting inside so it is sort of a substitution of the amount that is in the restaurant to some extent. If this was a roofed terrace that actually duplicated the entire floor level of seating on a second level, that might have a little bit more impact. I just wondered if you thought about that and what your comments were. Conklin: With regard to putting a patio on top of a roof of a structure that could potentially double the capacity. We also looked at trying to compare that to many of the restaurants and bars that I wasn't even aware of until recently, converting the outdoor space behind their businesses. I think it is similar if it is on the same level of the structure, out front or on top. You are somewhat limited due to weather that we have in Northwest Arkansas. We get rain pretty much year around. The weather changes fairly quick and it is not a permanent type use that you always can rely on that you are going to be able to have customers rely on that space on a day to day basis. That is why we did include it in there. Once again, we are removing these restrictions to encourage more outdoor use in dining. I think there are situations when it becomes a balcony or a rooftop deck due to the building, I think it would be difficult to make that judgment call. Why we would allow one person to cantilever a balcony over a second floor and say that's ok and not allow someone to convert a roof to a roof deck up on top. Anthes: I guess I am asking this because as I understand it, this is for all C-3 and C-4 zoning throughout the City of Fayetteville. The map you brought indicates where these uses are downtown and I agree with that 100%. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 40 Getting rid of the parking requirements for those kinds of additions in the downtown area makes a lot of sense. Where I'm struggling with it is when we go out to wider locations, let's take CMN for instance, one of those kinds of more open areas that could put a really large amount of seating outside. I guess I'm thinking about, maybe it's an issue of our weather, but I'm thinking of some very large venues in Austin, Texas that have a roof structure but they are outside and they have those patio heaters and the entire establishment is an outdoor establishment that could seat 500 or 600 people. I wondered if that would be exempt from any parking requirements under this. Conklin: The way this is drafted right now, you are talking about outdoor seating area and they put the portable heaters up, yes, that would be exempt. This ordinance only applies to the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts so it is only central. Warrick: The C-3 and C-4 is basically restricted to the Dickson Street area and the square. Anthes: I don't have a zoning map in front of me and that's why I'm asking this. Warrick: Except in two or three really small locations, it really doesn't expand beyond maybe Lafayette Street down to a few little places south of the downtown square area zoned C-3 but it is not really expansive. Conklin: Dickson, along East Street, Spring, Center, Mountain, Rock, Archibald Yell, it is fairly defined area of downtown. Ostner: It would seem to me the situation here is that out in suburbs when people are developing they consistently, every single time, ask us for more parking than we allow and we always give them what they need because they are not hemmed in by buildings on their sides. I think this situation is only going to come up in our urban developed areas where they have a problem and our current regulations are asking for more parking and they can't deliver it whereas, out in the suburbs I think they would naturally want to build whatever they needed to keep their business going. Anthes: I had to ask because I think there are some kinds of structures and uses that we have not seen in Fayetteville before but that could conceivably come and I just wanted to make sure that we knew that those opportunities might exist and what we were getting into. Ostner: Some of the establishments at the Southern View mixed use could, in fact, even though it is a PZD, could want outdoor seating easily. Planning Commission April 12, 2004 Page 41 Conklin: I was just going to add to Commissioner Anthes' comments with regard to the scale of use, we did include the words accessory use in this ordinance, meaning that the outdoor use is not the principal use of the structure or the area that you didn't have someone just take a vacant lot and start serving but that it was an accessory to a permanent use. I was just trying to make sure that this is an accessory to the principal use on the site. MOTION: Allen: With that clarification, I would like to move for approval of ADM 04- 11.00. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes, do we have any further discussion? Anthes: We are forwarding that to the City Council. Ostner: Ok. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 04-11.00 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Ostner: Thank you. The other notes are I'm going to appoint the Subdivision Committee, Mr. Shackelford, Ms. Anthes and Mr. Vaught. Conklin: I would like to thank the Commission for forwarding that on. This is just a small piece to the overall Downtown Master Plan. We do have new draft zoning districts and zoning standards for a cultural and overlay zone. Dover, Kohl and Partners will be refining those drafts. Draft II will be available in the next few weeks. Thank you. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:41 p.m.