Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 10, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-11.00: Sequoyah Commons Denied Page 2 R-PZD 04-06.00: (Rupple Row, pp 439) Forwarded to City Council Page 13 ADM 04-1066: (Town Creek Properties, pp 523) Forwarded to City Council Page 33 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner James Graves Sean Trumbo Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Candy Clark Christian Vaught Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Gary Coover Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 2 Ostner: Good evening, welcome to the May 10, 2004 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine commissioners present. Ostner: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the April 26`h meeting. Do I have a motion? Allen: I move for approval of the minutes. Clark: Second. Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion by Ms. Allen and a second by Ms. Clark, could you call the roll please Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 3 VAC 04-11.00: Vacation (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Houses Development Company, LLC for property located at Olive Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to vacate existing utility easements located within the property to satisfy conditions of approval for LSD 02-29.10 (Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development.) Ostner: The first item on the agenda is VAC 04-11.00 for Sequoyah Commons, if we can have the staff report please. Shackelford: I am going to recuse myself from this vote. I have a business relationship with the owner. Morgan: This property is located east of Olive Avenue and south of Spring Street. It is zoned RMF -24. A Large Scale Development was brought forward to the Planning Commission in May of last year and was proposed with buildings which were shown to be constructed within two 15' utility easements which is shown on page 1.17 of your report. The Planning Commission approved Sequoyah Commons Large Scale Development on May 27, 2003 with a condition that the utility easements be vacated. The City Council approved this item with modifications on October 21, 2003. These modifications, however, did not alleviate the requirement to vacate the utility easement. The easement will need to be vacated in order to comply with the conditions of approval for the Large Scale Development. Should the vacation of the utility easements not be approved the Large Scale Development could not be permitted as approved by both the City Council and the Planning Commission. The vacation request covers approximately 15' on the east side of lots 6 through 9 of block 3 and 15' on the west side of lots 7 through 9 of block 4 of the Harrison's Addition. Staff has received comments from two neighboring property owners and these comments have been included in your report. Also, notification was submitted by the applicant to the utility companies as well as to the city. There were no objections. However, comments were received from the water and sewer department and they are reflected in the condition of approval. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed easement vacation subject to the following conditions: 1) An easement shall be dedicated a minimum of 10' on each side of the existing 36" water line that parallels Center Street prior to City Council consideration of this request. Originally this condition stated 15' but it has been modified to 10' to be consistent with the fourth condition of approval for the Large Scale Development, which can be seen on page 1.8 of the staff report. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Bunch: Good evening, my name is Mandy Bunch and I'm here representing House's Development Company tonight in the vacation request Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 4 represented by the staff report, which is pretty lengthy. Since the Planning Commission has last seen this there was a discussion with the City Council regarding street improvements. Basically, that came out in a wash because there wasn't appropriate right of way existing to expand Center Street as was originally approved by the Planning Commission. That's how things have come out in a wash and the units have been significantly reduced. I believe we had 51 in the original and he has gone down to 42. There were originally two buildings over here. Here is the nearest adjacent property owner. There were originally two buildings stacked in this area and what we've done is moved this building further and taken one building totally away so that there is a better buffer in that area and we can maintain more trees adjacent to them. Basically, the easement that we are looking to vacate runs through the center. There was an old road that was abandoned years ago in this location and there was a utility easement dedicated at that time. This easement needs to go away so that the property can develop in accordance with the Large Scale. The orange area is where we dedicated easements for the utilities. None of the utility companies or city department representatives have any objections to this. I'm here to answer any questions I guess. We are just here to try to comply with the requirements of our Large Scale. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this Vacation request? Thomas: Good evening, I'm Mike Thomas. I live at 106 N. Olive. That is one house away from where the apartments are going to be put. I didn't know about the last meeting that they had. I know that it is in the paper and everything but the last I heard was Mr. House would have to continue through Center Street and make it a complete full through street instead of a dead end there. That's where I thought we were. If you put 42 units or 51 units or wherever we are now, that's a lot of traffic on a short span of street that we are really worried about with a lot of children growing up in that area and that's kept us concerned through the last meetings I've been at for about a year on this issue. We've put in a lot of hours as neighbors on this exact issue. It really scares us how badly it is going to ruin that area up there. I hate to use the word rape but it seems like it is really going to rape that area up there and be totally different where we have a lot of greenspace. I notice the goals for 2008 is a beautiful city clean and green. This goes against that totally, I guarantee you. I have lived there for twelve years and we are going to have to move if it happens. If they expand our street that wide to accommodate the apartments we are going to lose two huge maple trees in our front yard. It will just be too close. They are right there. It is going to go over into our front yard so far that we will lose both maple trees that are on about a 3' diameter right now that cools our house in the summer and really protects us a lot and create a lot of beautiful color in our front yard. One is red and one is yellow in the Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 5 fall. Also, this politically correct word, multi living housing, is about 100' or so from the confederate cemetery. It is such a historic district there that I don't quite understand that they could put something like that in that area. Right now it just seems bazaar and surreal to me that something that large scale could be put in that area. They are just single dwelling homes there. I know this is not the City Council but I just wanted to let my thoughts be known and be part of your decision making. It feels to me that the meetings that we have and many times the neighbors have met and we've just been kind of placated by the Commission and the City Council and then the big developer comes in and does whatever he wants. None of our demands or anything that we've seen so far on that sheet that we had when Mr. House met with us, which I respect him a great deal for. He has met with the neighborhood three or four times now. Each time we give him a compromise and demands and now it seems like that's all been thrown away and we are just back at where he originally wanted to be, except not the 51 units, I will give him that. I just don't see how that neighborhood can withstand that kind of impact, especially on a dead end. One of our main requests is that if he is going to do it, it's his property, but it is still our neighborhood though that is being changed forever, is that that street continue through there to relieve some of the pressure. I ask you to look at how many bedrooms are in there, not just the units but bedrooms will decide how many cars are going to be in that area. It is going to just totally change that neighborhood and the people who are living in that neighborhood. I appreciate you taking that into consideration. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Thomas. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? Bryan: Hello, Holly Bryan, 107 N. Olive. Excuse the way I'm dressed. I have just returned from South Carolina. I found out about this meeting Friday evening when I called home and my mother said that there had been a sign placed at the end of Olive Street. I immediately sitting in the North Carolina airport this morning, called City Planning to enquire on what was coming before the Planning Commission this evening. She helped me walk through some things. I apologize if I'm not up to date entirely on what is actually in front of you. I believe it is the utility easement which was vacated probably about 20 years ago I believe. I've been opposed to this development. I would implore you this evening to think about how this vacation would affect other people in the neighborhood. Other single family homes developing later on, those on Center. I'm not familiar, like I said, I didn't have the map and I don't know where everything falls on the map. Just keep in mind all of the other additional property around Mr. House's property, what that is going to do if that is going to have an affect on someone else being able to develop. Thank you. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 6 Chaddick: I'm Susan Chaddick and I live at 423 E. Olive. I'm on the corner of Olive and Spring Street. Pardon me, I live on Spring Street, not Olive. I am looking at having huge traffic at that particular corner. I'm here simply to state my opposition to the development. I see this as an opportunity to close the door on such a large scale development and I just simply want to voice my opposition to the development and my opposition to vacating those easements. Gable: I'm Julie Gable, I live at 106 N. Olive. I just want to echo my neighbor's sentiments. As a native of Fayetteville I just really hate to see this happen. Please take that into consideration and thank you. Ostner: Would anyone else like to comment on this Vacation request? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I would just like to again, by making sure we all understand that the development has been approved, and we do not have the authority or the right to go back on our approval. This is about a vacation which is part of a development that has already been approved. Warrick: Just to further clarify what you just stated, as far as the chain of events on this particular project, as Suzanne stated in her report, it was approved by the Planning Commission with certain conditions. One of those conditions specifically was appealed by the developer and that was the connection to Center Street. The project was then forwarded to the City Council for further consideration on that appeal. At that time, this was October, 2003, at that time the Council heard the request on the Large Scale Development with the changes as proposed by the developer. I would just like to read a statement from the minutes that kind of clears it up and synopsizes what the changes were at that point. "The motion was to reduce the density to 26 units, 42 bedrooms, eliminate the requirement for Center Street to be built and to have Olive Street evaluated by our City Engineering and Planning staff for the appropriate designs that addresses traffic flow and drainage for this development." That motion was seconded and approved on a 7 to 1 vote at the Council level. One of the conditions of this Large Scale at the Planning Commission level, as well as the City Council approval level, was to vacate this existing utility easement. There are no utilities in this easement and in order for the development to be built as shown on the plans the easement needs to be vacated. Staff is recommending that with the condition that an existing 36" water line have easements dedicated to satisfy the city's needs to maintain that particular water line. That water line runs along side the Center Street, which if there were right of way, would extend further to the east. That's why the condition is stated the way that it is. It does reflect what has been consistent through this Large Scale staff report from the time that it was at Planning Commission, through the time that it was heard at City Council. At this point that is the request that is before you is Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 7 a vacation of that utility easement. Vacations are unique in that they are items that are required to be heard by the Planning Commission. Regardless of your recommendation, however, they will go forward to the City Council for final action. The Vacation of an alley easement or right of way requires an ordinance at the Council level to be approved. Ostner: Thank you. Commission? Clark: If I'm understanding, I'm new here. Whether or not we approve this proposal, this development has been approved so that is moot at this point. We inherited it, I inherited it. All we are talking about is just the utility vacation, that's it, end of story? Ostner: Yes. Clark: Ok, I just wanted to be clear. Will we see any plans for the development of Olive to the street standards? Warrick: No Ma'am, that was left in the hands of the City Planning and Engineering staff to review. The Engineering Division will have to release that project once construction documents have been reviewed and approved. Clark: Will the neighbors have any input into this process? Warrick: That is not part of the standard process. Clark: Ok, but will the neighbors have any input into this process? Warrick: Probably not. Clark: What happens if in widening this street, this is probably way off the point since it's moot, what happens if widening the street causes destruction like Mr. Thomas was talking about with trees in the front yards and property? Warrick: Let me ask the City Engineer address that and talk a little bit about their process when they are reviewing construction plans. Coover: I'm Gary Coover, City Engineer. When we review the plans for this development we will be looking at all applicable city ordinances and design requirements. I know we have actually walked the street with Ms. Bunch and looked at some of the locations for some of the curbing and how the drainage will be handled through there. We have also looked at some of the tree preservation along that. We will be looking very carefully when the plans are finalized on that to make sure that it meets all city requirements. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 8 Williams: At the City Council level this was handled by a resolution. Let me read you the resolution. It says that the developer shall be required to improve Olive from Center to Spring up to residential street standards which can be modified or altered at the discretion of the Director of Planning, Engineering and Code Compliance (Tim Conklin) to avoid drainage problems and adverse impact to the established homes along Olive Street. I do think that probably there will be some input from the neighbors to Mr. Conklin in order to avoid this adverse impact. That's unusual. Usually we just require building up to street standards. In this case it was obvious that if we built to minimum street standards and put sidewalks on both sides that we were going to interfere with people's front yards and ruin their trees. I would expect the city staff, especially Mr. Conklin, to actually consult with the neighbors in order to try to ensure that there is not this adverse impact. That is very unusual but this is an unusual situation. Clark: It seems that we are going to face it more and more if we are talking about infill. This to me seems to speak to that issue. I would hope that Mr. Conklin would talk to the residents throughout this widening process because there are some beautiful trees along that street. Coover: There is some beautiful landscaping that people have put out in the right of way too and we would like to retain that as much as possible. Clark: They have been there forever so that is definitely a concern. That's Tim Conklin. Bunch: Just to address that situation, the reasons that the changes to the Olive Street improvements were even started was Greg bringing it up because we had been out there several times. There had been a lot of concerns from the neighbors on the west side, which is where Ms. Bryan's property is. There is a very steep slope going to her house. That's one of the reasons that we were hoping for a little levity with the Engineering and Planning Department to work with this. There is a 60' right of way on Olive. You would never know it because it is about 20' wide now but that is why we will be working with them. We actually had been working on trying to get it surveyed to get started on that since early December. That's where we are now and that's why this is coming back to you. We were delayed a little bit with our schedule and some of the other issues that were at hand. We are waiting on one utility company to come back and one other that I realized today. That's why we are a little delayed in this process too. This would've been a lot easier if we would've kept going down the chain at that point. I just wanted to bring that up with the street improvements because that was our side that brought that up. We plan on working with them. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 9 Allen: I understand what staff has told us tonight. However, I was the lone descending vote with this project before because I feel that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood. I had some safety and traffic concerns. I know that this is just kind of a holding my own ground sort of thing to do, but consequently I will be opposed to the Vacation. Clark: I like your ground and am going to join you there. Vaught: As this is a continuation of a previously approved LSD at this level and at the City Council level that has undergone lots of scrutiny, I will move for approval of VAC 04-11.00. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Vaught, is there a second? Trumbo: Second. Ostner: I have a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Anthes: I was present the evening you voted on this originally. I guess I'm perplexed because a lot of the decision to go ahead and approve the density was predicated on the second outlet to Center Street. I'm rather disappointed that we dropped back in the number of units but we didn't drop back in the number of units that would be equivalent to half of the traffic outlet of the project. I just want that recorded in the minutes. I want to thank the neighbors for showing up again. Thank you. Vaught: That was something that at our level we did go with the second outlet and that was a City Council decision. In my opinion since they made that policy decision at their level it is not something today that is a factor on my decision on this. They are a higher level than us and have that say and they did. Ostner: If I could ask staff, could you all fill us in more on the reasoning of Council to eliminate the Center Street extension? Warrick: You have the minutes in your packet. The amount of right of way that the City believed to be existing in that location through research, turned out not to be existing. There was not right of way sufficient to install even a modified street to make that connection. Ostner: As I recall, I believe the discussion at the Council level required condemnation and the creation of right of way for that extension and they did not see that as appropriate. I would tend to agree. The information that we were given at this level was the right of way is there, it is very old, do we want connectivity or not. That was a simple question to me at this level. If I had known there was not right of way I am not sure I would've Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 10 voted to extend Center and condemn possibly a resident's home to make that connection. That's just my opinion. I just wanted to share that with the Commission that it's not cut and dry. Clark: Would that knowledge have affected the debate and discussion about whether or not to even approve the Large Scale Development if there wasn't the possibility of an outlet. Olive Street is one of the trickiest streets in Fayetteville to maneuver. It has got a lot of kids on it and it is a beautiful street. If you put that density, density being defined to me as more people on that street, seems disaster. At that point if you knew you couldn't get to Center Street, period end of quote, Olive was your only outlet, would that have changed the whole course of debate at that point? Hind sight is 20/20 and it seems like the City Council is going to have the final word anyway. Just because this body has made a decision doesn't mean we have to confirm it just because we did it once. That is as my mother taught me when I jumped off the roof for the second time and broke my ankle. You don't do an unwise thing twice. I'm thinking put this much density in an area on a street that is almost shorter than this room is according disaster. If the Vacation is key I'm going to oppose the Vacation. Ostner: On that point, I don't believe turning down this Vacation will stop this development. Myres: I need some clarification. There is a sentence in this report that says should the vacation of the utility easement not be approved the Large Scale Development could not be permitted as approved by City Council. It seems to me that yes, if we do choose to deny this vacation that that would require something. Vaught: The City Council hears vacations. They will hear this after us and they can override us. Myres: Right, they can but that would basically throw it in their lap. Ostner: Can I ask Mr. Williams for a clarification of if we turned this down? Williams: One of the conditions of approval of the Large Scale Development was the vacation. Therefore, if it is not vacated then one of the terms and conditions have not been met. I think in fact, that both this body and the City Council, by voting in favor of the Large Scale Development, agreed to the vacation. Although, not formally and so that is why it is now back formally in front of you and will have to go back formally in front of the City Council. It basically was approved by both bodies on the front end and I would recommend to this body not to re -litigate something that has happened already in the past. The decision has been made. This is not the Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page I1 decision about the Large Scale Development. This is a decision about vacating a utility easement. For that consideration you need to know whether or not this utility easement is needed. If it is needed then don't vacate it. If it is not needed, as all the utility companies have said, then it is appropriate to vacate it. That will be the same issue that the City Council will be looking at and those are sorts of issues that you need to be considering rather than trying to re -litigate something that has already happened before. Trumbo: Being a member of the Commission and an ex -neighborhood of Olive Avenue I appreciate the neighbors coming. I think the reason I am going to vote for this is what Mr. Williams just said. We are here to decide whether this property should be vacated, not to stop the development. At this point in time I don't know what you can do but there are a lot of pieces of land on that hillside that are zoned with higher density and to the neighbors that are here and listening on T.V. I would suggest a planning map to see what your neighbors are zoned and possibly start at that point before this happens to someone else. I will be voting for this. Graves: I appreciate what our esteemed city attorney stated as far as having implied the extended agreement of sorts potentially that this vacation might be approved if you are making it a condition you are in some way maybe saying that you are going to approve that condition whenever it comes back before the body. I also think that at the time this was originally approved there were a number of other conditions that were impliedly believed to have been a part of that project that are no longer there. They are no longer present. I, for one, do not necessarily feel, while I normally try to appreciate what I think would be a precedental effort by former members of the Planning Commission and City Council, or current members, this wasn't before me. I doubt that would've voted for it to begin with. I understand that the Large Scale Development is not what is before us, the vacation is what is before us. It is a condition on a Large Scale Development that was approved based on a number of conditions that turned out not to be true. I don't necessarily feel that my hands are tied and I am going to oppose this for those reasons. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion on this issue? Myres: I call the question. Ostner: Renee? Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 12 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 04-11.00 to the City Council failed by a vote of 3-5-1 with Commissioners Myres, Clark, Anthes, Allen and Graves voting no and Commissioner Shackelford abstaining. Thomas: The motion fails. Warrick: Before everybody leaves if I might just remind everyone that a vacation is an item that does go forward to the City Council regardless of the Planning Commission's recommendation so this will be heard at the Council level. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 13 R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock Investments, LLC for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently zoned RT -12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision with 182 single family and 39 two-family lots (260 dwelling units) proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is R-PZD 04-06.00, a Residential Planned Zoning District for Rupple Row. If we could have a staff report please. Pate: The vacant site is located in west Fayetteville across from the Boys and Girls Club on Rupple Road. With the exception of the Boys and Girls Club and Meadowlands S/D, the surrounding property is currently undeveloped, though the Planning Commission has seen and approved various development plans recently. Fire Station #7, which is to be constructed on the lot immediately north of the subject property. Meadowlands Subdivisions Phases I & II lie to the northwest, which are developed and Cross Keys Planned Zoning District is immediately to the west and proposed to be connected to this development. The property is currently zoned RT -12, Residential Two and Three Family, and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 41.7 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision with 182 single family lots and 39 two-family lots for a total of 260 dwelling units proposed. That proposed density is approximately 6.24 dwelling units per acre, which is actually less dense than allowed on the property currently. The project is an unconventional subdivision with all access and services to be from rear alleys. Dwelling units are to be sited much closer to the street than you see in typical subdivisions. There is a 5' building setback on the front. The lot sizes and setbacks are proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts, thus the need for processing a Planned Zoning District as opposed to just a standard subdivision or rezoning. The typical lot size for single family uses range from approximately 40 to 45' wide by 115' to 120' deep. The two and three family lots are proposed to be approximately 75' wide by 100' deep. Rupple Road is a newly constructed street south of Wedington Drive that accesses the Boys and Girls Club at this time. The developer of the Rupple Row PZD is also required to construct Persimmon Street east of the Cross Keys development, coordinating with the adjacent developer of Cross Keys to eventually complete an improved, through connection from 46`h Avenue east to Rupple Road. The developer is proposing to construct parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road. One of staff's conditions tonight is Planning Commission determination of the appropriateness of those proposed parallel parking spaces along Rupple Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 14 Road. It is a minor arterial street. We find that the parking spaces are adequately located and do serve a good purpose in that area. However, we do need to ensure that their position is carefully evaluated to ensure that the continued safety of traveling and parking motorists on this future busy street. With regard to findings, staff finds that the property is identified for residential use on the Future Land Use Plan. Thus, is compatible with that General Plan 2020. The proposed density and land use is also compatible with adjacent development. The residential subdivision to the northwest, Meadowlands Phases I and II is a similar type of use. However, it is a very different type of configuration and site design layout. They also have I believe single family homes and duplex and potentially even triplexes in that area as well. There is connectivity to the north, south, east and west in this proposed development. It does allow for a density and land use that is compatible with adjacent properties. Thereby creating a harmonious relationship with surrounding developments. There are comments in your packets from the Fire Department. Obviously, the newly built Fire Station #7 will not have a problem responding to this. The Police Department and Engineering have also reviewed these plans and are in support of them. Staff is recommending approval of the R-PZD to be forwarded also to City Council with a recommendation for approval of the rezoning with 15 conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of the appropriateness of the proposed parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road, a Minor Arterial street. Item number four is payment for Rupple Road impact fees in the amount of $30,443.30 and a letter of credit in the amount of $20,295.70, based on the number of dwelling units proposed, shall be submitted to the City of Fayetteville prior to Final Plat approval. Item five, the City Council heard this with regard to parks fees and parks fees in the amount of $7,482.75 are due prior to Final Plat approval. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Brackett: Good evening, my name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. I'm here representing the owner, John Nock who is also in attendance and his architect, Tim Cooper. We prepared a foam board to maybe help you understand the overall concept of this that includes a schematic of the layout of what will be the future homes. We know that this development concept has not been done much in this area but we feel that it is something that is in demand in this area. Mr. Nock is very familiar with it and if you have any questions concerning the concept I would refer those to him and would be happy to answer any other questions you might have. Nock: Hi, my name is John Nock. I wanted to give you just a brief outline of what you are looking at there on the concept. What you are looking at is Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 15 somewhat different from most developments that you would see in this area. Although, if you have traveled to Springdale to Harber Meadows parts of it would be familiar, as well as Charleston Place, which is on the east side of town. This is what some people refer to as neo -traditional or new urban design planned developments. Some of the central parts of new urbanism or neo -traditional developments include really tighter land organization into categories. As you will notice all of the dwellings here have rear access alleys and all of the homes will have rear access garages. Having been familiar with some of the developments surrounding this area what we have had is a series of problems with congestion, with cars parked along streets, people that live there, not just visitors and of course, that eliminates this under that concept. Also, it calls for tree lined streets, tighter streets, although we have actually stayed with the current city ordinance as far as the streetscape goes, but we have put tighter parameters on setbacks. Also, you can see that not only is it tree lined streets but also sidewalks on both sides of the streets as well as sidewalks and walking areas along all of the alley ways. Along those alley ways you would see all of the services that would be required including trash removal. All utilities would be there and all hookups would be there. The idea is that you would keep your main street truly for vehicular traffic for pedestrian traffic and bicycles. Also, as you can see, we have been pretty particular about making sure that there s the installation of single family verses multi -family so that those components are ear marked and specifically put in positions where they compliment rather than contradict each other's use. One of the things that is a really strong idea in my opinion if you look at the long term goal for Fayetteville is that we say housing choices for all income levels. I wanted to point out that obviously, your development design and concept has to go with the long term plan. There are a lot of developments that are done out there with acre lot or Y4 acre lots or two acre lots even. This is not that concept. This is a concept that creates a very attractive, very quality footprint for both building of a home but it also utilizes the land use in such a way that you can afford to do so so that the end user is getting a very quality instrument and a great place to live. The home price is where right now the market is being underserved. That would be in the 125,000 to 145,000 category. I bring that up because it is important to know what the end result is going to be and what they are going to look like. On this board you can see somewhat of a look, not every home will look this way, but it is destined to look like a neighborhood rather than just a development. That's about all of the comments that I have but I will be available for comments. Ostner: At this point I would like to open it up to the public. Davison: Just please, the density is the issue. When we speak of density a lot of people only think of houses and people but density in these situations relates to traffic. Even in this situation I don't believe the traffic can be Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 16 accommodated for this dense of project at this time. If we also look at the parallel parking along Rupple Road. I believe that is right where the Boys and girls Club is, I believe that will be creating an even more dangerous situation for those children. I would just ask you to be careful. We have started to decide, staff and the city, that these PZDs are great but they also need to be really, really carefully monitored. Once we give those then it is pretty much up to us to make sure that the little things that we can do make a difference. I'm not sure I'm sold on them being appropriate on how much you are going to see them being used so I appreciate it if you would check on that. As well as with the TIFFS coming up I know you will be doing a lot of reading. If you would just please consider that it is too much of a traffic problem, it is a safety problem for the children. I love the smart design. Those aspects are long over due. It is nice to have a development with those elements such as long standing city neighborhoods that have garages in the back and all that, it is still too dense. It is too dense because it will create unsafe traffic situations for our children. Thank you. Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I want to applaud all of you. I'm very much a newcomer to any idea of city planning. Whatever paths in your lives have led you here have given you a lot more experience of this than I have, which is almost zero. As I said last time I was here, what brought me more into this was more of the collaboration between the school district and the city around planning. I am reminded that this project, as I understand it, will be I would like to see a map if it is possible, whether it will be right on top of the new school. I would like to see a map that includes this project along with the other two that were up last time that have now been tabled. My problem with planning is that it seems like we are having a blind man and an elephant problem here. Everybody knows just a little piece of it. Nobody knows we are really dealing with an elephant because everyone is only touching the leg or the tail or the trunk. Also, nobody is really responsible for the elephant because everyone can say I didn't really know it was an elephant, I only voted for the little tail part. I will say again, I do not see how the Planning Commission and the City Council can make decisions about all these development decisions without knowing the overall plan. I believe Hugh Earnest of the city is in an excellent position to layout that overall plan and I would like him called upon to do that. I know he has sat on the city school committee that has made many of these plans and I think this should be information that everyone is drawing on. In terms of this particular development, as far as I see it trying to look at a larger part of the elephant, you are adding right here at this corner of the Boys and Girls Club, the Fire Station and the new Jefferson relocated school, you are adding 260 units to the 320 units of the McBryde/Sloan and the 640 units of the Sloan/Greenwood. Right there you have 1,220 new units. In this case, we all thought that was bad the last time we talked about it and the west side neighbors were here saying Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 17 that we do not want this kind of density in our area. Now this new development is even more dense. Instead of 320, four units per acre on 80 acres you are going to have 260 units on 42 acres. If you add them all together it looks pretty big, and it's only part of the elephant! I am in favor of the more neighborhood oriented kind of development. I like anything that encourages community and encourages people to gather together in their housing development. I like the idea that there is some slightly less expensive housing. Although, I'm not sure housing of $125,000 really addresses housing choices for all income levels. That's my concern. In terms of the elephant there's really nowhere to talk about the elephant so I'm just talking about it wherever I can. My overall concern is that I believe that this west side development is happening at the expense of not south side development but south side people, the people who live in the south side now. Those would be the people who went to the Jefferson neighborhood school and the people who live behind the Mountain Inn and behind the courthouse. Again, I don't know Mr. Nock and I'm a novice at this but sources tell me that Mr. Nock may also be involved in the Mountain Inn renovation or whatever is going to happen there and may be involved in some development in south Fayetteville and might have sold the city the land for the fire station. I don't know if these are all facts but I want to look at elephants. I would want some mechanism in this city planning that can look at elephants. If, and again I don't know Mr. Nock and I'm a novice, but I would like if Mr. Nock if benefiting from the location of the fire station, the Boys and Girls Club and the Jefferson relocated school all on the west side and if he perhaps also stands to benefit from maybe a gentrification of the area behind the town hall, the old courthouse, I don't know if he does, or whoever does, that's the elephant. I want to know who is providing the housing for the people who live there now. I'm concerned that that is part of the elephant and I would not go ahead and approve any development on the west side until I know where the people on the south side are going to live. That's all I have to say. I would like Mr. Earnest to be brought forward to explain the overall plan so that we could all look at the elephant and know what we are doing. I don't know how to get that to happen but that's what I would like to see. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Bowman. Are there any other comments? Moorman: Hi my name is Barbara Moorman, I live on the west side of Fayetteville, partly in the city and partly out of the city. My property goes down to a point where I expect eventually Rupple Road, when it gets to the day that it crosses Hwy. 62 will come in my direction. My questions and concerns are not simply general, although they are that too, but they core but it is putting housing and amenities in an area where they are more accessible to the density. is not the city core affect me directly. I wanted to raise a question about Fayetteville's goals. Is Fayetteville encouraging density Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 18 and is it trying to discourage sprawl? That's been my impression that density is good and sprawl is bad from Fayetteville's point of view. If that is the case then I wonder what a definition of sprawl would be and where sprawl is. If you have dense developments that are outside of the main downtown is that sprawl or is that density? These terms are thrown about and people talk about neo -traditionalism and new urbanism and smart growth and those terms are absolutely meaningless if you don't define them. They have been defined by other people but I don't believe they've been defined in Fayetteville's particular context. I would like to understand what the future plans are for Rupple Road. Everything that is planned to be built on it and where it is going to go after it crosses Hwy. 62. It has been projected to come down to Hwy. 62 for a long, long time but development is preceding a pace and I'm sure there are plans beyond that. I would also hope you know how many people are projected to live west of I-540 and between Wedington and 6th Street within the next five years or ten years. What is considered the carrying capacity in terms of population for that area? What we seem to be doing is saying, as Mr. Pate said recently, there isn't development around there right now. Well, no but it is about to happen. It is projected. When I asked the Planning Commission last year what was projected for all the way out to Farmington, Mr. Estes, who was here at the time and I believe has since moved out of Fayetteville said commercial all the way to Farmington, mixed commercial all the way to Farmington all along both sides of Hwy. 62. I don't know if that really is the projection and I don't know what the population projection is. I think that it would be really smart of Fayetteville to have all of its annexations and big rezonings done at one huge meeting once a year so that you can really see the elephant that Dr. Bowman was talking about. Since you don't do that then I think you at least have to look at it in terms of a discreet region. I think as far as being against sprawl, as I think Fayetteville has said it is, being for new urbanism which is against sprawl. The woman who wrote the first book against sprawl, Jane Jacobs, The Life and Death of Great American Cities, pointed out in a recent interview when she was asked about what she thinks about the new urbanism today she said, and I certainly agree "It's still sprawl." Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other people who would like to comment on this issue from the audience? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. There are a few things that I would like to touch on before we go further. The zoning for this property was approved by law long before us. This property could be developed without a rezoning. The owner has a right to build as each of us has a right to own a home and the current density that this developer is proposing is actually less than what he could build by right. Density is at issue here in a way but it is hard for me to understand how we are increasing density beyond what is already available by right. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 19 Brackett: I would just like to address some of those issues. The density that we are proposing, one of the reasons is that it is next to the amenities that are there. Rupple Road is a minor arterial with a light on Wedington. There is a new fire station, there is a new Boys and Girls Club and there is a possibility for a school in this area. We feel that putting homes next to these amenities is what Fayetteville should be looking at doing. Putting the density by the amenities they have. There was a comment made concerning the overall plan for this area. We have been in discussion with the adjoining owners and it just so happens we are also the engineers for the property to the east and the property further to the east and Mr. Sloan's property to the south and Mr. McBryde's property. We've been discussing with all the developers in this area to discuss the overall plan and to discuss the school and the Boys and Girls Club and those matters. There has been a lot of time devoted to looking at the overall plan for this valley and it is not something that was thought up over night. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Do we have any discussion? Vaught: Kind of addressing some of the comments. There are planning documents that we do use that try to dictate the plan for the future and there has been considerable work put into these by the Planning Commission, the City Council and Planning Staff. There is the Master Street Plan, the 2020 Plan, the Long Range Planning Map. All of these are available and you can see where Rupple Road is planned to go. It is not an exact because nothing has been built there. Also, I know some things were eluded to as far as new urbanism. I, by no means, am an expert on this. The part that I understand of the goal of Fayetteville of New Urbanism is creating smaller, walkable communities. I do tend to think that this creates that smaller, livable community. It is not the city core but it is putting housing and amenities in an area where they are more accessible to the density. I like the idea of having this by the school, if there is a school there. I don't even know if there is going to be. It is a rumor from what I understand. There is no contract. There is nothing in writing. There are other areas I know the school board was looking at. I don't know if it would be a bad location or not next to the Boys and Girls Club and a lot of residential development. On the long range planning map this area is designated as residential, of which this type of development fits and the other developments proposed around it fit. Like Commissioner Ostner said, by right they could come in, I believe some of this is RT -12. This is a compromise where they are cutting it back and trying to make the community more compatible with the areas around it. I like a lot of things on this. One question I did have for the developer was at Subdivision on Rupple Road on street parking was extended further down to Persimmon and on this little drawing we have in front of us it is not there. I was just kind of curious why that was changed. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 20 Brackett: It should be on that drawing. It is on all of your drawings that were in the packet. We have eliminated two spaces that were adjacent to Meadowlands Drive because of concerns from staff but we are intending for the rest of the ones, including the ones south of Meadowlands. That should be on that drawing. Vaught: That is all I have for now. Ostner: Thank you. I would like to mention something Mr. Vaught mentioned was the plan. The difficult part about being part of this city municipality is that our plans are just very malleable. Those guys are building our city, not us. Rupple will never be extended until someone steps forward and says I want to spend 10 million dollars to build a subdivision and I'm going to extend Rupple. We don't build the city, they do. It is a difficult process. They have to do it within our parameters, we have to grant them some things and we get to ask other things of them. Your metaphor of the elephant, we are often the tail end of the dog so to speak. There are property owners that want to develop in this town and we, with our ordinances, get to keep up as best we can with how they choose to develop their property. I think we do a really good job in a lot of ways. It is very difficult especially when you look around us at many other municipalities that are struggling to do a lot of things that we do well. There have been mentions of Mr. Earnest sharing the plan. There is no plan. There are maps that give areas of if you are going to develop here it probably should be residential. If you are going to build a street here we are going to ask you to do a collector street. Other than that, it has to do with the property owners and when they would like to build our town. We don't have a plan, you all do and your City Council updates all of those maps and those approvals periodically. They are the ones who really have the power to maintain those issues. Vaught: I have one other question for the developer. I know there was considerable talk about utilities and working with the companies, has all of that been resolved? Brackett: We had an initial meeting with the utilities and they've asked for some additional details for as far as the buildable area for each lot. We provided that to them and they are now reviewing it and we plan to have a second meeting to finalize what will be required. They are informed of everything that we are doing and we are working it out with them. Allen: I would just like to pitch out a question here about whether or not we have kind of an oxymoron. Is this density in a sprawl area? Clark: Who do you want to answer that question? Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 21 Allen: I was interested in the opinion of my fellow Commissioners. Vaught: Do we allow density to create another city center to make it not sprawl somewhere else? Shackelford: I don't know how you can declare that this is a sprawl area with the emphasis that has been put into the Boys and Girls Club and the other amenities that have been put in this area. I think with the amenities and the infrastructure that is in this location this is designated as a future growth area for the City of Fayetteville. I don't think you can say anything outside the downtown Dickson Street location is automatically sprawl because it is not in the heart of the city. As our city continues to grow there are going to be hotbeds or growth outside of existing areas that we might default to right now thinking that this is the center and anything outside of that is sprawl. Ostner: I wondered that too. I was looking more at their buildings and their narrow lots because 6.2 units per acre is not dense. We have downtown areas that could go as high as 40 units per acre. If someone were to choose to build a 20 story apartment building in those areas they could do that. That is dense. It is a little bit odd with the fact that they could already develop this and just build another subdivision and get the same amount of density to me says that if the zoning is an issue, the zoning issue that passed previously was to blame. Allen: I guess I wonder too whether or not developers should always be the ones who decide the direction of our community and whether or not that is a part of our responsibility as planners. Warrick: The City has adopted a General Plan. It is a future land use policy and guide. It is periodically updated through a community planning process. Through citizen input, public hearings and the Planning Commission level as well as ordinances and resolutions adopted by our City Council to reflect the desires of those persons who are participating in that process. Our current General Pan was originally adopted in 1995 and has had updates as recent as 2001. At that time we updated within the document and reviewed the map which identifies current and future land use as well as the Master Street Plan. We have recently completed a traffic and transportation study and as a component of that we will be bringing forward to the City Council later this year a proposed amendment and updates to the city's Master Street Plan. These are dynamic activities that continue as development occurs throughout the city. We have to adopt these or amend these products periodically because things change. Our boundaries change with regard to what we have jurisdiction over and development occurs that needs to be reflected on those documents and Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 22 policies. Ultimately land use is recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted as a policy action by the City Council. That does enable someone the ability to develop based on the uses permitted in whatever zoning district is applied to the property. This is the process that we go through on a bi-weekly basis as projects come through, whether they are actions to request annexation or rezonings, or whether they are follow up actions to ensure that the projects proposed for those properties is in compliance with the city's adopted regulations. We do proactive planning. It is not as site specific as the downtown master plan, which is the product that has recently been finalized. That actually looked at a demonstration of what could be done on a lot by lot basis. We don't have the ability to plan in that detail for the entire city. That was a special project that was appropriate for that discreet area described as our downtown. For the rest of the community we do have this Future Land Use map, the General Plan 2020, which is the text document that goes along with it setting out guiding policies and implementation strategies. From that, we implement new ordinances so that we can ensure that the desire of that document is being manifested through our ordinances and then we have to apply it to development in order to achieve that goal. Allen: I understand that Dawn. Thank you for the clarification, that was just simply a comment. Warrick: Sure. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that we do have some guiding policies and we're not just out there flying without any guidance whatsoever. We do believe that our planning documents are appropriate and we do update them because, like I said, things change over time. It is important that we utilize those for making recommendations and understanding where things can be improved upon and where things are going right. Shackelford: I would also like to make a comment because I'm in disagreement with a couple of statements that have been made. I don't necessarily view it as developers dictating growth. I think the citizens of Fayetteville dictate the growth through supply and demand. If there wasn't a market for this product developers wouldn't be bringing it to us. There is a need or desire for homes in this price range in this location and the developer is seeing this need and feeling that void. I take issue with the statements that we are allowing developers to tell us how the city is going to develop. I don't view it that way at all. I think it is driven more by economics and the desire for houses in this price range in this area because of the amenities. The close proximity to the interstate, the University of Arkansas and for a number of reasons is what is dictating this much growth in this area. I will tell you, I grew up in Fayetteville and I went to school on the west side of Fayetteville 25 years ago. It is completely different than what it was then. I think 25 years from now it is going to be completely different than what Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 23 it is now. We have all seen the census reports and I don't remember exactly, but they call for growth in Northwest Arkansas for 400,000 people in the next 15 or 20 years. That growth is going to require housing and different areas are going to be attractive to people based on amenities, price range and that sort of thing. I think that's what has been driving the growth in West Fayetteville, not the developers desire to be there, but the citizen's desire to live there. Thank you. Ostner: I certainly hope my comments weren't misunderstood. Of course the land owners simply start the process, of course they don't get to do everything they want to do. They are often turned down and they often stop the process when they come to city hall and realize the zoning map or other requirements that would be on them. I appreciate that comment from Mr. Shackelford. I would tend to agree that the market is driving development. Clark: What is the rational for the parallel parking on Rupple Road as opposed to someplace else? All throughout this report the staff raises great concerns about that and I've got to say I can understand why. Brackett: The idea there is these homes are rear access through alleys so each home will have a drive in the back to park their vehicles but there won't be any parking allowable on the alley because it will also be serving the trash trucks and all the other public services. To allow for visitors to the homes along Rupple, instead of having them park on Rupple, which is a minor arterial, which would be a horrible thing. We are allowing some place for these people to park as they visit these homes. If not, if that is not allowed there is a possibility that they will go down the alley and will park in the alley and that will prevent access for other homes and also provide trash service and things like that. It is allowing for an area for people to park who visit these homes. Clark: How many potential visitors are we anticipating? How many cars will these facilitate? Brackett: We initially had one space per every home. They are shown as a double space on the property line so it serves both lots. Because of the existing drainage that is along Rupple and the problem with it being too close to the intersection of Rupple and Meadowlands we have scaled that back quite a bit so there is not a space per lot, it is .85 per lot. This parking also, with being close to the Boys and Girls Club, I know that parking is sufficient for now but it could provide off street parking for a special event that happens to be going on there also. This is going to be right off the road so it is not going to be a private deal. It is a possibility of that happening also. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 24 Ostner: The Subdivision Committee discussed that parallel parking issue. Nock: Going back to the whole idea. I know that there was a question about how to define neo -traditional or new urbanism. This development is a definition if you want to include that. One of those things is that I think it is problematic when you go into communities and you only see the backside of homes. That is one of the primary aspects of neo -traditional new urbanism is where you see not their backyards, not just a big privacy fence, but you actually see porches and people sitting on those porches interacting. Yes, it may seem too idealistic but that is the concept and that is the idea. If we had put the rear end of those homes facing Rupple Road you know what that would look like, we have that all over town already. The idea is to open up the streetscape, put those homes along there, you are starting first with the fire station. You have a sidewalk with a tree lined street as protection down that way and then you have the Boys and Girls Club on the left hand side and then you have this row of homes with trees out in front with a very narrow setback and then you have the extended setback of the porches along the front. You have an additional buffer with the parallel parking. Our first concept to the city was literally pulling in for visitor parking. That becomes a problematic safety concern for backing out on Rupple. If you look at some successful city plans, not just Fayetteville, but others where there is more of an urban feel, where you want to see more interaction between people you allow for that parallel parking along the front. Yes, that is expensive just like putting in rear alley access ways is expensive for a developer to put that in but I think the end result is it's an appropriate response to that specific community. Specifically to the Boys and Girls Club. Not every time are you going to have one visitor for every home. That is going to be a very rare occasion so we even think it can be overflow for the Boys and Girls Club if they are having an activity, a community event. Right now, in fact, twice in the last three months the Boys and Girls Club have used our land for overflow parking. When they have a big Easter egg hunt you are going to see parking along there. That promotes that community interaction. Yes, even though it is parking for the housing I see it as parking for the community. Not every space is going to be used all the time for visitors but it is to promote instead, that interaction. Vaught: In addition, one thing I thought about was just a concern about traffic on Rupple Road and the speed of it. One thing that we talked about at length during the downtown master plan project was the use of on street parking as a traffic calming measure. Cars tend to slow down with on street parking there and I think that that can possibly help in this area, especially with the pedestrian traffic of the Boys and Girls Club. To me, that's one thing I considered. That was something that if you guys were able to be a part of that plan they talked about at considerable length and we talked Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 25 about the use of downtown streets now and creating on street parking on some of them that don't have it. Ostner: I would agree. The facing outwards that the developer has referred to in my mind is very important. When developments turn inward and wall off themselves I don't think they work well. A development to the west is the unfortunate "concrete canyon" that has a street that nobody faces and then there is a fence on one side and a fence on the other. It is not the developer's fault. In a way he was following our ordinances. This developer has chosen to face outward and I believe it is a great thing. It does interact and the parallel parking will help to slow down traffic. Anthes: I have a list of questions. Some for Mrs. Warrick, some for Mr. Nock. Dawn, can you remind us what is the number of units allowed by the current zoning? Warrick: The current zoning allows a density of 7.2 units per acre, which would be a total of 301 units. The proposal is for 260 units, 41 units less than what is permitted by right. Anthes: Thank you. John, on the street widths, I saw something in a letter that indicated that you were proposing the 28' standard street width because it was easier or something like that. Can you elaborate? Nock: I wanted 24' wide streets for much narrower streets. Unfortunately, there are certain constraints with the City of Fayetteville. You have to pick your battles. As those who have participated in other forums recently about some of our planning practices one of the concerns is wide streets tend to allow freeways. Originally our concept was to do 24' wide streets with one side parallel parking and after much debate we thought at least we can step forward with the setbacks and bring the setbacks closer. One of the driving points of this was in working with the treescape along the streets. We could still allow for the parking on the side of the streets, I'm talking about the interior streets now, still allow for two cars to pass one another in opposite directions, have parallel parking on one side of the street, as in most urban situations, and at the same time still have your greenspace and still have enough setback for the housing. You're right, I still would rather have 24' streets. But I think under our current planning in the City of Fayetteville I think that's difficult to do. Dover Kohl, as we have eluded to the master plan that has been talked about for the downtown address narrower streets as being a way to promote better traffic calming. There are other ways to do that as well. What we try to do instead was to make, as you will notice the radius of the turns of the streets, they are much tighter. That was with much negotiation and very much good help from the city engineering to do that. What would be done in most developments is just a very wide arc. As you can see this is very Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 26 tight, which again, slows down that traffic. In response, yes, we were looking at a much tighter but we ended up doing this because it was probably, we thought, the only battle that we could know would get done that way. Anthes: Ok, a question for Mr. Coover. As this is a PZD but these will be city streets, do we have any leeway to talk about a narrower street in this situation? Coover: I see no problem from an engineering standpoint if that's what you are asking. Anthes: Dawn, can you tell us something about that? Warrick: The only thing I can lend to that is I think that it can possibly be done. Obviously, we have 24' streets in other areas of town that have residential developments. There are a few areas in here that it would be a little challenging to provide a transition that would certainly have to be engineered because there are connections from adjoining developments into this project that those adjoining developments already have either 31' or 28' wide streets. That would take a little bit of work. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Our street standards that are a part of our adopted Master Street Plan call for a 24' street to satisfy no more than 300 to 500 vehicle trips per day. That's probably the biggest challenge in ensuring that those streets are going to function with the amount of vehicle trips that would be generated by this particular development. Like I said, there are other areas of town that are relatively densely developed with residential projects and they function. Anthes: Personally I would like to see narrower streets in this subdivision and also I understand that there is 4' sidewalks and if we can take 2' to 4' out of the width of either street and add a foot on either side and get that sidewalk to 5' to encourage kids on bicycles and pedestrian movement and that sort of thing that would be something that I would really like to see. Would you be amenable to that? Nock: I would consider that done. Anthes: Alleys, how wide are they? Nock: We have 20' right of way with actual paved, 16'. That is to accommodate two vehicles could potentially pass each other if need be. We have talked about the idea of just doing one way on the alleys but you get into some problematic issues because you still have to have all your service vehicles go back there. Mainly the largest one is the city sanitation trucks and they also have the armature that has to get the cans. Even if we narrowed those Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 27 alleys we still have to accommodate the trucks. We talked about making those narrower too but I think just out of service perspective that it probably has to be wider. Anthes: Who is going to maintain those alleys? Nock: It will be the city. Anthes: So those will be to a spec? Nock: It will be to city standards. Anthes: I don't have a copy of your subdivision covenants but I had a few questions. We're talking about a building setback but I don't see that called out anywhere and I was wondering whether you are having a mandatory setback or whether you are calling it a build to line and how far back that is. Nock: It will be a build to line. Anthes: Do you know what that is? Brackett: On the front of all the lots other than those along Rupple it will be 5'. Because of an existing 20' utility easement along Rupple it will be 20' on Rupple. Anthes: The other thing is you've talked about minimum square footages and have you considered putting a maximum square footage in your covenants? Nock: I think that is going to be required just simply from the economics of it. We certainly could do that because some of them are two family. There are a small amount of them that are duplex lots. There's only so much you can put on these lots to make them work. Because they are zero lot lines you are also dealing with a property line on at least one side. There is a point where it would not make sense to go any larger. Anthes: The reason I ask is because we have had a lot of developments that have come through the city that there was an intended size of house for the lots and there was a minimum put in the subdivision covenants and then what happens is it is such a desirable area that the lots have been really overbuilt with houses that were really much larger than what was intended by the developer originally. You have such tight constraints here I wondered whether that would be something that you would consider. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 28 Nock: It might not be required but we would not be opposed to doing that. It seems like it is doing that automatically. That's fairly easy to accommodate. Anthes: I'm glad that you left the designation for a home occupation to be permitted. Nock: We think that's important. Anthes: The on street parking at Rupple Road, I think that that is, as other people have stated, positive measure that those residences face the street. It is a much more urban pattern. It is a much more dense area. To address what Commissioner Allen and other people have talked about is we do have a situation where we have when we cross I-540 that's basically a "sprawl area". Once we put the Boys and Girls Club out there we kind of, as a city, made a mandate for that to happen. If there is the Boys and Girls Club and there is the fire station and there is the possibility that there might be the school then those things should be easily accessed by foot by children and by residents which seems to make a case for me to see density at those locations. With that, I would like to move for approval of PZD 04-06.00 subject to the conditions of approval and with the addition of a condition that the street widths be reduced working with city engineering and staff to something between 24' and 26', whichever works out the best. That the sidewalks be 5' instead of 4'. Nock: There is just one thing. In that analysis of the width of the street we want to make sure that we can still allow onsite parking so if we were very rigid with on street parking. If we were real rigid with the rules you would not be able to have a two way street and parking on one side. In most urban scenarios you do allow because you don't always have one side of the street completely lined with cars. We want to make sure that that flexibility is there because we would be defeating one of the primary purposes for visitor parking. Anthes: I absolutely agree with you and I need to put that into the statement that is that that would be two drive aisles and one side of on street parking. I see that as a 9, 9, 8 situation. Brackett: If we could just make that motion something that we could work out with staff because it is our intent for a smaller street. If we could work this out with staff to make sure that that is enough room. The reason we don't have it is because it wasn't allowed through staff. Nock: If I could add one more thing. This main street, Keats Drive would be a wider street, because that is one of your primary access points as well as connection to the other developments, which would be Putting Green Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 29 Drive and Daffodil Lane as well as Meadowland Drive. Those would all have to match the current widths of roads that are already there. The other ones it would be perfect for that. MOTION: Anthes: Condition of Approval 1 to show Planning Commission endorsement of parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road. Add a Condition of Approval 16 to read: Reduce secondary street widths to 24-26 feet, with parking allowed on one side. Increase sidewalk widths from 4 to 5 feet. The option to utilize Use Unit 10, Three-family residential units, shall be limited to lots 164, 165 and 171 only. Also, note recommendations to revise subdivision covenants to include a reasonable maximum square footage for the homes. Warrick: We can make that work. Anthes: With the endorsement of condition one which is the parking on Rupple Road. Shackelford: I will second, and would also like to take this moment to ask the applicant since we haven't formally done so, do we have signed conditions of approval or are you guys in agreement with all of the stated conditions? Nock: Yes. Shackelford: Ok, I will second. Ostner: I have a question. On page 2.32 talking about your covenants, I know this seems like a silly detail. How are the mailboxes going to be along Rupple? Nock: That is not a silly detail because in the development directly to the west, northwest, which is Meadowlands. Some of this has to be worked out not with our authority but with the authority of the almighty post office service. It was originally designed, in that development, I was not involved with that development process but it was designed for every home to have a matching masonry mailbox in front of that property to match the masonry. We are not going to that detail but we are looking for uniformity. That is another one of these nostalgic interesting details in this type of neighborhood. It is going to be our wish, so long as we comply with the almighty post office, that each home will have it's own mailbox along the perimeter of the street. Again, it promotes going out to the mailbox at the same time and talking to your neighbor. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 30 Ostner: My question was more rudimentary. In my neighborhood we get in trouble. We get fines if we park in front of our mailbox because he can't pull up and put the mail in. Along Rupple that seems problematic. It could be problematic anywhere in town but it is usually problematic. Nock: Ideally along Rupple, again, if we could get that approved, it would either be one box for that whole group or it would be a very old style porch drop. We would not want to put mailboxes along Rupple Road, that would be the one exception to what I said. On the other hand, let's keep in mind although we have been talking about parking along these other streets part of the covenants is very much spelling out that the owners or residents of these homes will be required to park in the alleys and preferably in the garages. The occasional car that will be parked along in front of the houses on the street should be occasional, not all the time. That would be the hope anyway. That would be mandated by the covenants as well. Osmer: My other question is on down your covenants, number 22, all lots shall be required to have two trees planted. You don't really talk about where. If you are building streetscapes it seems to me that it should be uniform. They could put it in the greenspace or in their yard. There are some modifications on the covenants and one of those things that we will actually be defining is a direct placement of trees. That may sound very rigid but in this particular case we want a specific spot where that tree will go because we are looking for uniformity. In a lot of developments you don't want uniformity but in this one we do for that very reason. Brackett: The difference between the greenspace and the front yard is really nothing in this development because the home is 5' off the right of way. In looking at it there is not a big distinction between, it's all one area. Osmer: I was just talking from the streetscape standpoint. Along Rupple there is not quite 30' between the curb and the building and that gives a lot of places. Nock: We have had direct conversations with the city, especially on the tree side about where those need to be placed so I think we have fairly narrowed that down. Warrick: Condition eight is the submittal of a street tree planting plan at the time of Final Plat. We do expect this development to have that street presence that is being described in the covenants and the comments of the developer and with that part of the mitigation will be street tree plantings and we will look for that plan to be submitted at the time of Final Plat. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 31 Clark: I don't think Jill followed up on this one but I think it is a great idea. Will you consider putting maximum square footage allowed in the covenants as well? Nock: Sure, as long as it is reasonable. Brackett: The lot area itself will dictate the size of the home also. It is such a different design concept that you really can't put a 3,000 sq.ft. home on these lots. Nock: A stroke of a pen will take out all uncertainty. Ostner: I'm sorry to have waited this long to have brought this up. Use Unit 10 I believe is for triplexes and you call out Use Unit 9 or 10 on 39 lots. That increases density mathematically at least and I just wanted to talk about that. Nock: There is only one case where that could probably be done and that is on lot 164 and possibly lot 165. The reason why that uncertainty was there is we were still working at the time with the city. They are going to be using that rear access alley for a secondary entrance to the fire station. In some ways we were unsure exactly where those property lines were going to be and would still like to reserve that right to be able to do that if it makes sense to do that in that particular case although there is no current plan to do so right now. Ostner: On the issue of triplexes you are only talking two lots? Nock: I don't think it is physically possible anywhere else. Potentially 171 but again, by the time you get vantage points and cars it is probably not doable there. Ostner: The only reason I bring this up is that since this is going forward to Council it will become a legislative act. The math is different. The way it is worded now all 39 lots could be triplexes which brings the density up to 7.14 units per acre. Nock: That would not be the intent. Why don't we reserve it to those three lots and that makes it pretty clear. Ostner: I would like to add a condition of approval number 17 that the potential triplexes only be lots 164, 165, and 171. Anthes: I'm agreeable. Shackelford: I'm agreeable. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 32 Ostner: Is that acceptable? Nock: If we heard you correctly those three would be the allowance. Ostner: Yes. That's the end of my comments. Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 04-06.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Earnest: As Chief Administrative Officer of the city I was here simply to listen. I have to tell you that I served with some distinction for six years on the Little Rock Planning Commission as a member, Vice Chair and Chair and I was simply here to listen tonight to something that I think is extraordinary. I just want to emphasize that we have an excellent planning staff, we have an excellent General Plan and we have a deeply committed and caring Planning Commission. I'm certainly not presumptuous to sit here and tell you the overall plan for the city. That plan exists and I think we follow it very well. I would love to volunteer to offer you my ideas about Planning Commissions and how they act but I would do that only as an ex Planning Commissioner and certainly not as an official of the City of Fayetteville. I enjoy working here. I want to also tell you that for six years we tried to get something like this done in a much larger city with very little success. We tried to have a Smart Growth initiative that we failed miserably in selling to the city board and I want to commend everybody associated with this because I think it sets a good precedent for the future and development that is far more friendly and it will be in line, I think, with where we are trying to get the city to go in the future. Thank you. Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 33 ADM 04-1066: Administrative Item (Town Creek Properties, pp 523) was submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of Town Creek Properties for property located at 545 W. Center. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The requirement is for a 24' driveway. The request is for a 16' driveway. Ostner: The last item on the agenda is ADM 04-1066 if we can have the staff report please. Warrick: This is an administrative request for a reduction in the size of a drive aisle for property located at 545 W. Center Street. This particular request is kind of a follow up from a similar request that was presented and approved by the Planning Commission in October, 2002. This particular site is located at Center Street at the intersection of Gregg. The developer has been working with the city's Parks Department with regard to dedicating property to become part of Center Prairie Trail along the property line of this site. The site currently has a 2,400 sq.ft. building that is an auto body shop currently. The owner has proposed to dedicate property for the trail, as I stated. However, he is concerned about future use and redevelopment of this property with that concession. In 2002 the Planning Commission approved a reduction of drive aisle width from 24', which is our standard two way drive aisle, to 20'. At that time it was believed that the amount of land being dedicated for the trail would be sufficient. Since that point in time the trail has been engineered, fully designed and they are actually getting close to being ready to break ground. The amount of infrastructure necessary for the trail to be installed in this location had exceeded the expectations of the Parks staff at the time. We didn't have a designed trail, we had a corridor that we knew we wanted the trail to go. As it was being designed and engineered it was discovered that a very large retaining wall would be necessary unless additional land could be found in this location to ease that amount of infrastructure. By reducing this particular future drive aisle to 16' a great expense would be eliminated and the trail would become more accessible and more friendly. At this point in time the property owner is requesting that the drive aisle be reduced to 16'. As we started discussing this the Parks Department brought Planning staff the Fire Department and Solid Waste all to the table so that the proposal could be reduced and the various service providers and reviewers for administrative compliance, could understand what the conditions were. After further review we have determined through the various divisions of the city that 16' is adequate to provide access to a small parking area that would be the result of a redevelopment of this property. You can see in your packets there are two photographs on page 3.3 that show existing conditions. There are memos in the packet from the Fire Chief as well as the Manager of the Solid Waste Department, both in favor of the reduction. Then on page 3.9 you can see a drawing that shows where the trail location would be in proximity to the proposed future parking area with a 16' driveway Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 34 proposed. Staff is recommending in favor of this reduction in drive aisle width. We are recommending three conditions. The first that the drive aisle be identified as a fire lane and painted in that manner. The second, that no parking be permitted within the drive aisle and third, that both the Fire Department and Solid Waste Division review any building permit requested to allow a change of use or addition to the existing structure prior to issuance of that permit. In speaking with the Solid Waste Division today I noticed that in their memo back to Parks they specifically talked about development of this site as a four plex and the appropriateness of cart service that would be accessed off of Center Street for that type of development. The zoning of this property in October, 2002 when we first heard this request for a drive aisle reduction, the property was zoned Industrial. Since that time, through the Mill District neighborhood zoning study the property has been downzoned to a C-3, Central Commercial designation. That would permit a four plex development. It would also permit several other types of uses. In talking with the Solid Waste Division today I wanted to ensure that other uses could also be served from Center Street without a Solid Waste truck having to try to manipulate this drive aisle. Depending on the type of development there are certainly other options that can be utilized. There are larger carts that can be accessed by truck from Center Street and the Solid Waste Division is willing to work with the owner on changes so that they can be accommodated with that service. That's the only difference from the information in your packets. I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. Ostner: I take it we are our own applicant? Warrick: We are. Kelley: I'm Laura Kelley, I'm just representing the property owner. If you have any questions I'm here to answer them. He is trying to be amenable and work with the city on making a better trail. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to comment on this issue? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: One quick question of staff. In reviewing the packet I noticed an email from Steve Hatfield that talked about a meeting with the Mayor and at that time they indicated a 12' wide driveway would be acceptable and Planning staff came back and said that a 16' drive would be preferred. Can you give us a version of why we need 16' verses 12'? Warrick: We were trying to ensure that if two vehicles came to a point that they had to pass in this area they had a fighting chance. We don't expect that. This Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 35 is a very small site, a relatively small building and depending on what use would be established there, there is not likely to be that type of conflict. A standard parking space is 9' wide. A standard vehicle is anywhere between 6' and 7 ''/2' typically. We were more comfortable with 16', we just felt like 12' was really cutting it too close. MOTION: Allen: I will move for approval of ADM 04-1066 subject to the three conditions of approval. Anthes: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes, is there any further discussion? Clark: I would like to commend the property owner for being so amenable for working with the city. It is going to be a great trail. Ostner: Just a quick question for staff, can you refresh me as to the uses of C-3 other than a four plex? The only reason I ask is if it does go commercial this is a tight spot. I understand picking up trash can be very complicated downtown because I live there and it is complicated. Warrick: There are a wide variety of uses allowed in the C-3 zoning district. Cultural and Recreational facilities; Government facilities; Offices; Eating Places; Restaurants; Hotels, Motels and Amusement Park facilities; Neighborhood Shopping; Retail; Gas Stations; Small Site Commercial Recreation; Multi -family dwellings; and Liquor Stores. The site itself and the amount of parking that can be provided will be limiting factors to any type of development to go there but those are the uses that are permitted by right. Those are the expanded general descriptions of those use units. Ostner: Since the issue is the drive aisle and the new sanitation truck with the side arm. That becomes an issue that is very relevant to me because I live a couple of blocks from here and we have all kinds of neighborhood problems over who is parked where, the truck can't fit, I didn't get my trash picked up. I just wanted to say for the record that I would hope that this is resolved well, that they don't have to use a dumpster with another truck simply because the site wasn't fitting easily for a large truck that is really designed for subdivisions and we are having a lot of trouble downtown. I know we are not the Sanitation Board but if a truck can't fit easily in here to get the trash picked up I wanted it to be talked about now. Kelley: I understand that carts will be on Center. That was one of the conditions of the owner that he didn't want to have to accommodate the truck moving Planning Commission May 10, 2004 Page 36 around back there because that takes out any chance for parking. Carts will be on Center Street. Ostner: Ok, I thought I read that sanitation didn't want to stop on Center Street. Warrick: No, they want to be able to serve the development off of Center Street because they couldn't make the turn. Ostner: That answers my question, is there further discussion? Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 04-1066 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:25