Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 14, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-1105: Vacation (LUTZ, 716) Forwarded Consent ADM 04-1120: Administrative Item (CLEM JOHNSON) Denied Page 4 RZN 04-1080: Rezoning (TRUMBO, 557) Forwarded Page 15 PPL 04-1081: (SUNDANCE MEADOWS, 436) Tabled Page 17 CUP 04-1109: (CHI OMEGA PARKING LOT, 444) Denied Page 35 LSD 04-1078: (BOTANICAL GARDENS OF THE OZARKS, 99) Approved Page 44 PZD 04-1075: (CAMBRIDGE CROSSING, 175) Forwarded Page 47 ANX 04-1071: Annexation (JONES, 569) Tabled Page 58 RZN 04-1072: Rezoning (JONES, 569) Tabled Page 58 ANX 04-1073: Annexation (AMES TRUST, 569) Tabled Page 58 RZN 04-1074: Rezoning (AMES TRUST, 569) Tabled Page 58 Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Alan Ostner Christian Vaught James Graves Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Gary Coover Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the June 14, 2004 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Can we have the roll call please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Trumbo being absent and Commissioner Myres arriving at approximately 5:35 p.m. Ostner: Before we get started items eight through eleven have been tabled by the applicant. Those are ANX 04-1071 for Jones, RZN 04-1072 for Jones, ANX 04-1073 for Ames Trust and RZN 04-1074 for Ames Trust. Williams: Certainly the Planning Commission honors the petitioners when they request that their items be tabled. If people are here to speak to it, you might allow them to go ahead and speak so they wouldn't have to come back later before they are officially tabled. Tabling really will require a vote of the Planning Commission. Approval of the Minutes VAC 04-1105: Vacation (LUTZ, 716): Submitted by THOMAS C. LUTZ for property located at 1645 W SUNRISE MTN ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a 10' gas and water easement on the subject property. Ostner: Just to reiterate, if anyone would like to speak to these tabled items we will have a time available when they come up on the agenda. The first item is the Consent Agenda. The item is VAC 04-1105. Does anyone wish to speak to this item or shall we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Shackelford: I will make a motion we approve the consent agenda. That includes minutes. Clark: Second. Ostner: Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 4 ADM 04-1120: Administrative Item (CLEM JOHNSON): Submitted by CLEM JOHNSON for property located at 1798 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 0.78 acres. The request is to allow a waiver of Commercial Design Standards to allow a chain link fence in front of the structure at the subject property. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is ADM 04-1120 for Clem Johnson. Warrick: I did pass out some additional information this evening in your packet regarding this particular item. That includes a newspaper article that as published this weekend and also some photographs that were taken on the site this morning, just to get you some current information on what the current conditions are on the site. This applicant's request is to allow a chain link fence in front of a commercial structure. The property is located at the corner of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road. The area that the applicant proposes to fence in with this application contains roughly 5,400 sq.ft. of the property. This request constitutes a waiver of the city's adopted commercial design standards. The City of Fayetteville sets a high standard for all commercial developments. Staff feels that it is important to the quality of development in the city that these standards are enforced equally. The subject property is located at a very visible and key intersection leading into Fayetteville. It is desirable to improve upon the appearance of commercial properties as changes are requested. Proper application of adopted commercial design standards will allow for positive improvements that are consistent throughout the city. The property is zoned and functions as a commercial operation. While it is also a residence, that fact is not by default, changes to a residential structure or change the principal use. Residential accessory uses are permitted and are encouraged in commercial districts. Again, that does not change the primary function of this site from being Commercial and from it being commercially zoned. The applicant states that he has gone to extensive measures to restore the character of this structure and site. It is a 1950's gas station. In keeping with that theme a gas service station, staff feels are not typically fenced off from adjoining streets. Open access to the front of the structure is part of the function of this type of site. To enclose the front of the site with fencing is not demonstrative of the historic use of the site, nor the present commercial uses conducted at this location. Staff recommends denial of this request. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Warrick. Is the applicant present? If you would please sign the sheet at the podium and introduce yourselves. Johnson: I couldn't hear Ms. Warrick but it sounded like she didn't want us to have our fence. I don't know if you guys have got the photographs that we took that in of showed the fence. The property is commercial, yes. We moved in three years ago and at that time it was just an empty shell of a concrete Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 5 block. We've done a lot of work there and made it quite a nice place and a lot of people like it. I do have two more signed petitions from the other neighbors that were on vacation last week. They both agree that they like the idea. That covers all of the neighbors that we have. It is true that it is a restoration project. It is an old 50's gas station, Sinclair Gas Station. According to the City Code we could only have a wood privacy fence, which wasn't really utilized in the 1950's or a concrete masonry fence or a metal, wrought iron type of fence. Those, I guess would be allowed, is that right? Warrick: Yes. Johnson: None of those would be appropriate for a 1950's gas station. We are needing the fence for a couple of reasons, one is to protect the antique cars that we have and restore there but also our dog, a german shepherd, was shot by a Fayetteville police officer. I'm sure most of you guys know the story. We have been required by the animal shelter and the County Prosecutor to construct this fence. It is true that we do have a fence in the backyard that we thought was adequate but they want secondary protection coming out of our front doors. Right now we have gates that are just temporarily applied to the building so that we could get the dog out early. I don't think they are going to let that be what they would call the secondary protection. We really need the fence. Johnson: They are also unattractive. The current gates, in my opinion, don't fit the building and are unattractive. Several of our neighbors have said how unattractive they are. They are quality as far as construction wise, they are just unattractive. Johnson: If you see the property or have driven by the property you know that we are not going to just throw up some shawdy fence just to get by with this. If we are going to do a chain link fence it will be well constructed, well maintained and it will be a nice fence. So what do you guys think? Ostner: We are going to open it up to the public and get back with you. At this point I will open it up to the public for any comments. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this issue? Hawkins: Good evening, my name is Loren Hawkins. I live at 1101 S. Duncan. I wanted to make a couple of comments that are somewhat reiterating the Johnsons. They have really created an asset out of what was for a long time an eye sore on this corner, an abandoned gas station turned into a showplace. I believe they can be well trusted to erect this fence. The alternative fencing, the wood and masonry would actually detract quite a bit from what they have created on this corner. I love to go by and see the restoration of old vehicles occurring. I also would like you to strongly Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 6 consider the reason for this fence. There was never any kind of objection to this dog until the Fayetteville police man shot him. That whole issue seems to now be placed on this dog. Never has there been any questions of the police officer's actions. I think that probably the most affective reason for this fence is to keep the policemen and the skateboarders off of this private property. I would really appreciate it if you would consent to this request. I believe it is good to the city. The Johnsons have been an asset to the city in many ways. Thank you. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak on this issue? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Williams: Let me call your attention to the actual test that you should be applying in this according to our Unified Development Code. It is not actually a waiver. It is a variance as it is defined in the variance section. It says that when we are going to consider a variance of the design standards the applicant should show what's called undue hardship. It says if the provisions of the standards are shown by the developer, or in this case, the applicant, to cause undue hardship as they apply to his proposed development the city Planning Commission may grant a variance to the developer from such provisions so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured provided the variation will not have the affect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the development regulations. In addition, in granting variances the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as will, in it's judgment, secure substantially the objective of the standards or requirements so varied. At this point the petitioner is seeking to vary the standards which do not allow a chain link fence in front of the building. It does allow it in the back where I think it is now. He is asking that development standard be varied so that the chain link fence can be in the front. I think that one thing that you should consider is that this has been a request or a demand from the prosecutor in this case in order to ensure that the dog does not escape the premises in the future. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Williams. Clark: Is this fencing that is currently up, which is in fact, fairly ugly from what I saw today, acceptable to the plea bargain agreement, the settlement? Johnson: Are you talking about the gates that are on the doors? Clark: Yes. The one you put up today. Johnson: My understanding is that is just temporary. The dog had been impounded for two months and we were worried about his well being. This was a temporary solution to get the dog out early. The problem is that they want Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 7 a secondary barrier and you would have to open both doors at the same time that way to get out the dog could get out. Clark: They are requiring you to fence 5,600 sq.ft. or something like that? Johnson: This is a compromise. They would allow it to go out enough that the doors would open but then that cuts our place in half. We have driveways and overhangs where we work on vehicles. The further the fence is from the building to me, the more attractive the fence would be to the property. If it is up close then it starts to look like a cage in front. If the fence is far enough away from the building and chain link you can see through the fence and see more of the building. Clark: As I was looking through this material today I found the amended Bill of Assurance. I am not sure who I should address this to. As I was reading through this in May, 2001 it seems like in this Bill of Assurance there was supposed to have already been a 6' metal fence around the front of the property. Am I misreading this? Johnson: When I first got the property and started fixing it up we needed a fence in the back because the city won't allow you to have cars that are in forms of construction, different parts of development in the eye of the public so we had to have a fenced area to put cars that were still in the progress of being worked on. That was put behind and it was a corrugated metal fence. I went before the city to be allowed to do that fence also. That was all in the back. Clark: So all of this is supposed to be in the back? Johnson: No, the fence in the back is not what the prosecutor and animal control people are wanting. Clark: I know what they want. Just to be honest with you, it seems to me that in 2001 there was supposed to be a 6' metal fence around the entire property. Is that the way that I'm reading this Bill of Assurance? Warrick: The way that the Bill of Assurance reads is that the use would be restricted to a used car lot and/or automobile restoration and repair for a maximum of 15 vehicles to be located behind a 6' metal fence. Wherever the vehicles are, they are supposed to be, by this Bill of Assurance, located behind that metal fence. Clark: They are in the front? Johnson: And the back. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 8 Clark: That troubles me to some extent. I'm a big advocate of Mike the dog but this troubles me. It seems like there should've been a metal fence there in 2001 but that doesn't do anything to us in 2004. Vaught: When I look at this from the undue hardship portion, if we wouldn't allow a fence at all then I could see a situation where it creates an undue hardship. We do allow fence there and our regulations call for a fence located in front of primary structures may be solid up to 30" in height, any part of the fence which exceeds 30" in height shall not obstruct the view of the primary structure from the right of way. A fence is allowed by our code there. That was known in 2001 when the Bill of Assurance were due. I know it is a unique situation but he can build a fence there. We are not telling him he can't build a fence, we are telling him he can't build a chain link fence. That's the way that I look at it. Therefore, I don't know if I can support a variance on that for those reasons. I understand staff's argument too. We have design standards that are applied across the whole city and we need to be fair with those. We wouldn't allow other people necessarily to do a chain link fence when we allow a fence of some sort. Shackelford: Staff, based on Commissioner Vaught's statements and our City Attorney Kit Williams, about the type of fencing that is allowed in the front of a building in a commercial standard, would a privacy fence be allowed? That wouldn't be allowed in front of this building either because it is over 30" in height? Warrick: There would have to be openings in it to not obstruct the view of the primary structure. It would have to be some type of fence that allowed visibility to the structure above that 30" mark. Johnson: The prosecuting attorney and the animal shelter say it has to be a 6' fence for whatever type it is. Shackelford: They didn't say privacy fence or any type of fencing? Johnson: No, there again, I'm not trying to build walls between the property, which I think is an attractive part of the city to put a privacy fence or a wall fence to a certain height and then slatted wood or something that you could see through beyond that. To me it detracts from the property and more or less kind of makes us feel like we are caged. Anthes: I agree that this property has been attractively restored. What I'm struggling with is that we have commercial design standards that are applied throughout our city and when you read those commercial design standards they deal directly with the structure and the visibility of the structure and the impact to the city. Nowhere are we allowed, as far as I can tell, and maybe Kit can give us some direction on that, to consider the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 9 shelter or a dog in the application of design standards. I guess what I'm wondering is that to me this fence, once it is permitted or not permitted, will be there or not be there for the life of the structure, far beyond the life of any particular animal or human being will be there. Therefore, the design standards have to pertain to the structure and our ordinances. I guess I would like you to tell us Mr. Williams if it seems out of our scope to even consider the fact that there is a dog involved in here when we are talking about this fence. Williams: I would say that it is not totally without your, above or something that you should not consider. Undue hardship is not defined and it is not defined intentionally. It is going to rely upon your common sense. You might not feel that maintaining a dog there in a way that the prosecutor will allow it to be there is unique and enough to be an undue hardship on the developer to override the normal commercial design standards. I will say that if you choose the other way and say yes, because of this unique situation we are going to override them and grant a variance. There are certain things that you can do with a variance. The fence would not have to be there forever. You can say that the fence will be there as long as Mike is there. Once Mike is gone then the need for the fence is no longer there and the fence can be removed. There are other possible things that you can look at. I know I built a chain link fence around my yard and I got a vinyl coated black fence. It is much more attractive. It is not totally invisible but it doesn't jump out like the metal fences. It might would be something that you would consider as some sort of mitigation toward the normal ban that we have on chain link fences. When it is a variance request by the petitioners the Planning Commission has much discretion. That's all I'm trying to say. You might feel that this is not undue hardship and that is the way you should vote. If you do feel like it is undue hardship but you want to put conditions on it you can do that too. It is really pretty much within your discretion. Your only guidelines are substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured. Anthes: I guess I'm finding it hard to define dog ownership as a unique situation when I look at the majority of the people in the City of Fayetteville. I'm also looking at it expressly states in our ordinances that chain link is prohibited if closer to the street than the front of the building in these zoning districts, C-1 and C-2. There is very direct direction in our ordinances about what is and what is not allowed in this zoning district. I am just having a hard time finding the hardship in this instance. Johnson: Let's not talk about the dog or the hardship. Anthes: I actually wasn't directing that to you. I was directing that comment to Commissioners. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 10 Johnson: Ok, can I respond? Ostner: Sure. Johnson: You talk about the design standard that you have for commercial properties. Those are drawn up and it is pretty much the standard across the board. I don't know that you allow for restoration or projects that are period dated projects. That is kind of what we have here. It just seems like we are being put in a category of new industrial or commercial buildings that are being built today. The chain link is just period correct. It is just something that would've been done had this been done at the same time the station was. Yeah, a lot of gas stations don't have fencing around them but at the same time, a lot of gas stations, which were no longer gas stations, turned into used car lots. I do have a Bill of Assurance to be a used car lot on that property. If you want to protect cars you put them behind a fence. If you put them behind a solid wood or masonry fence nobody can see your cars. If it were true to it's Bill of Assurance, which is a used car lot, chain link would be really the best solution for that. Ostner: I'm not recollecting 50's chain link in the front yards is my sticking point on that. Johnson: It was the hot fence in the late 40's. Ostner: Not in front yards by my recollection. Johnson: This is not a yard. This is a concrete gas station front yard. It is all concrete out there. But it is our residence too so it does have dual purpose. Ostner: I understand that but a 30" tall white picket would actually be period correct but it doesn't suit your needs is sort of where this comes to a lot of our heads. It doesn't work. It doesn't help you in my opinion. In this project your zoning is a little bit of commercial allowing for residential so it is different. It is still zoned commercial and in my opinion, there are other options other than the chain link. Sort of what Commissioner Vaught said, you can still get your enclosure with your issues with your animal and the other police and what not. Johnson: Then we have a cost problem. Ostner: I understand that. Clark: If we exclude consideration of the dog, what would the undue hardship of a different type of fence be? I am thinking the undue hardship to the dog Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page I1 is what's winning my opinion. Absent the dog, what is the undue hardship which would justify a chain link fence variance? Johnson: I would think probably protecting the cars that we have and the cars that we restore. My wife and I are both graphic artists and we construct projects for trade shows. Those often have to be done in the front yard for space considerations to protect that. We have had vandalism and theft that are recorded with the Police Department. It is kind of like to protect it but yet not to close it off where it is not visible. Clark: Visibility would be the undue hardship? Johnson: I think that as far as I'm concerned, two way visibility is important for me. We come and go late nights when we are on a project and it is like a department store keeping the lights on so that intruders can be seen from the outside. I think that the invisibility from the street and the police being able to see that there is someone or something that may be a rye, I think that is an important consideration of mine. Anthes: I think this property is so attractive and I hate to see a fence of any sort in front of it frankly. Have you guys considered other methods like the electric wires or anything like that that would retain the animal and not deal with the appearance of the front of the structure? Johnson: I think that the concern of the animal control people and the prosecutor's office is also that the public not be allowed entrance into that property. In the incident that occurred the public was on the property and did gain entrance to the property because there were no barricades. We are talking about vehicle traffic and we are also talking about foot traffic. We do have some driveway barricades at this time and some signs posted but as early as 11:00 today I had someone walking across the property. Vaught: I still go back to my original thoughts. We are not saying you can't have a fence, we are saying you can't have a chain link fence. I don't see, there are lots of options other than chain link, for visibility. You can go to a fencing contractor. I know the cost is different but per our code I just don't see it being undue hardship. A lot of people could walk in and say they have a visibility problem or want to control traffic problem. That's why we have the code that allows a fence. I am just not seeing us reach that criteria. Per our code, you say that you have a car lot, you could never put cars on the front of this property because it has to be behind a 6' tall fence that seems to be unable to see through it, a metal or wood fence, and you are not allowed to build that on the front part of this property. It seems to me in the Bill of Assurance those cars were pretty much told to stay in the back. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 12 Johnson: Not to my understanding. To my understanding that was the cars that were not titled and tagged. You could actually sale cars out in the front but behind the fence were cars that would have to be titled and tagged. That was my understanding back when we originally did this. Vaught: I don't see that in the Bill of Assurance. I don't know if anyone here was on the Commission in 2001. Nancy, do you remember this? Allen: No I don't. Vaught: In my opinion that's the way it reads. Myres: From a design perspective, which is the way I see everything, I can actually see an instance where a chain link fence that wasn't silver, as Kit mentioned, there are a couple of different options for vinyl coating on these fences that are relatively attractive. The fact that this was originally a gas station that still looks like a gas station that has been restored to maintain it's appearance. It does seem that of all the fencing options that are available, chain link is the most reasonable. Having said that, I think there might be ways that that chain link could be incorporated with other elements such as pillars or posts that mimic the ones that are already present on the property that could create fencing that was a combination of something that was sensitive to the building as well as meeting the criteria of safety and security and maintaining a distance between the public and your dog and the public and your cars. Granted, I realize that that kind of attention to detail is going to be more expensive than just putting up a chain link fence that is uncoated and just industrial fencing. If you think about a 6' tall silver chain link fence with the typical posts it does remind me of an industrial lot someplace that is not necessarily detail or service oriented but industrial like construction and that sort of thing. I just wish that there was some sort of compromise that we could make between the letter of the law and the good will of the applicants in trying to find a solution to the problems that they have been faced with. I don't have any other suggestions to make. I feel like I'm caught between agreeing with everybody else's opinion that this is what the ordinance says and wanting to find some way to make it possible for you to put up a fence that is in keeping with the building but is something that won't break the bank so to speak. Ostner: It is not easy to design by committee. The design standards present problems like this every once in a while. Having come to this forum trying to design things where we should all be sitting around a table drawing. Vaught: I have a question for staff or Mr. Williams, whichever. On this on a variance, what is the appeals process? Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 13 Williams: Dawn, do you know if they have a right to appeal to the City Council if this variance is denied? Ok, I do see that there is an appeal to the City Council from a decision by the Planning Commission concerning commercial design standards so I would assume that it would also be variations from the commercial design standards. Clark: Do we have a copy of what type of fencing is going to make the powers in animal control happy? Johnson: All they mentioned was chain link. That was their solution to the problem. Clark: So the City animal shelter suggested something that violates the city code. Johnson: They told the special appointed prosecuting attorney that that was what he should recommend in the settlement and that's what we agreed to do to get the dog out early. I don't know what we will do if we can't do what they ask, we may have to go back and renegotiate. I don't know. MOTION: Allen: I am quite an animal lover. I feel very sympathetic to your plight. However, I do feel that you do have options in this situation. I can't see how there is an undue hardship since there are options for you. I will be the goat and move to deny ADM 04-1120. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Allen, do I have a second? Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I would just like to state that the prosecutor and the staff of the animal shelter are not the bodies of the city that are charged with design or interpretation of commercial design standards and therefore, I can't take their specific recommendations as applicable to our standards. Shackelford: I would also like to make one quick comment. Obviously, I seconded the motion for denial. This is a direct violation of city ordinance and code. We are challenged to look under hardship, as our city attorney said, and I think visibility is a possible argument. As far as specific costs I don't think that could be considered undue hardship. We force or encourage or require developers and others to live up to our codes and our ordinances everyday. Most of those times there are extensive costs. That is really the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 14 test that I struggle with. I just don't think I can get there with that being undue hardship. That is the reason that I will support the motion. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ADM 04-1120 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Myres voting no. Thomas: The motion carries seven to one. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 15 RZN 04-1080: Rezoning (TRUMBO, 557): Submitted by JAY RODMAN for property located at 3198 W 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 0.81 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1080 for Trumbo. If we could have the staff report Mr. Pate. Pate: Thank you Mr. Chair. The subject property is located off of Hwy. 62 West, 6 1 Street, north of the Lowe's Planned Zoning District, west of Finger Road. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from the current zoning district, R -A, Residential Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The property consists of approximately 0.81 acres. There is an existing single family home on the property. Surrounding properties are primarily large tracts which are vacant or developed with commercial properties. This lot is an existing non -conforming lot of record as the R -A district requires a minimum 2.0 acre size. There are currently water and sewer services to the site as well as access to 6`h Street. The fire response time to this property is approximately 3 to 4 minutes from Fire Station #6. As I mentioned, the property to the north is zoned C-1, to the south is a Commercial Planned Zoning District. To the east is C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and to the west is R -O, Residential Office. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. Some of the findings that we have made and supplied in your staff report include the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use plan objectives, principals and policies and with land use and zoning plans for this area. The future land use plan does call this site out for mixed uses. As I mentioned, surrounding properties are commercial in nature and those that are vacant are currently zoned for commercial or office uses. Therefore, the request for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning, is compatible with adjacent properties. It is the opinion of the public service providers in the City of Fayetteville that this rezoning request will not create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion nor will it alter the population density in this area. With those findings, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you would sign in at the podium and introduce yourself. Rodman: My name is Jay Rodman, I'm a commercial realtor with the Nickle Hill Group. We are representing the property owner that has entered into a contract to sale this property. The buyer has not indicated an end use to it but he does feel that the property would be more marketable in the future with an appropriate zoning. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 16 Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this rezoning? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. MOTION: Anthes: I believe this rezoning is consistent with our 2020 Plan and other surrounding zonings in the area. Therefore, I will move for approval of RZN 04-1080 recommending to City Council to approve the request. Allen: I will second. Ostner: I have a motion by Ms. Anthes and a second by Ms. Allen. Is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 04-1080 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 June 14, 2004 Page 17 PPL 04-1081: Preliminary Plat (SUNDANCE MEADOWS, 436): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at W TACKETT AND GENEVIEVE AVE, S OF WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 7.90 acres. The request is to approve a subdivision of land with 25 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Our next item is PPL 04-1081 for Sundance Meadows. Mr. Pate? Pate: This subject property has been before the Planning Commission several times as well as City Council for a number of different requests. Ultimately, on March 8, 2004 the Planning Commission voted nine to zero and on April 20`h the City Council approved the zoning of RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre. Tonight the applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision with 25 single family lots proposed, along with one lot for detention. This site is located on the west side of Fayetteville south of Wedington Drive fronting onto West Tackett Drive and Genevieve Avenue. It is accessed from 54`h Street, which is ultimately the road that connects to Wedington Drive. Immediately surrounding properties are primarily single family. There are some two family homes and agricultural in nature. Approximately 20 dwelling units are served by Tackett Drive onto which this property fronts. Tackett Drive is a dead end street. I have included in your additional packets tonight traffic numbers for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The counters were located near the bridge on 54`h Street. On Friday they had a total of 775 vehicles that day. On Saturday 675 and on Sunday 604 which represents an average number of vehicles traveling on 54`h Street. The proposal tonight requests 25 additional single family homes that will access Tackett Drive yielding approximately 250 additional vehicle trips per day to access Tackett and 54`h Street as their means of access to Wedington. As I mentioned, surrounding properties are primarily single family homes, agricultural and two family homes. Parkland dedication required within the City of Fayetteville for residential developments, the Parks and Recreation Board has recommended money in lieu in the amount of $13,775 for 25 single family units. Additionally, tree preservation mitigation is required on this site in the amount of $13,475 as payment to the city's tree fund. The Subdivision Committee has forwarded this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval with primarily the biggest issue being street improvements, a Planning Commission determination with regard to Preliminary Plats and Large Scale Developments. Those are itemized here in our conditions of approval as the Subdivision Committee passed it on to the Planning Commission. I will go over those for you. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 address the street improvements that are recommended. 1) Street improvements shall be constructed a minimum of 14' from centerline along Tackett Drive including pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks and Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 18 storm drains for the entire length of the project site. 2) Tackett Drive shall be overlaid with asphalt and widened to a minimum width of 20' to the project site's western boundary to 54`h Street. 3) The developer shall widen 54`h Street north from the intersection of 54`h and Tackett to the bridge to a minimum width of 20' which has been determined to be a safe means of access. That is the minimum that the Fire Department requires for safety. These street improvements shall include the intersection of 54`h and Tackett Drive. The remaining conditions of approval are fairly standard. I mentioned the Parks fees, the city's tree fund mitigation requirements. Item number eight, I would like to point out. The developer shall work with staff prior to construction of any improvements along 54`h Street and Tackett Drive in attempt to save the appropriate existing trees within the street right of way where possible. Staff is available for questions. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Bates: Good evening Commissioners, I'm Geoff Bates. I'm the engineer on this project. As Jeremy stated, we have been before you several times. I think we've been working on this since Christmas. We have met with city staff several times and we have met with adjoining property owners. I thought we finally had everybody happy. The adjoining property owners were happy with the development although they were concerned with 50 Street, which we are too. However, according to the ordinance, the developer is supposed to pay for his proportionate share of offsite improvements and we don't feel like 54`h Street is a proportionate share for this developer to have to pay. He has already gone above and beyond what was required by overlaying Tackett 20' wide from his development to the intersection. It is supposed to be a proportionate share. There are probably several hundred acres adjoining 54` Street and this is a small eight acre subdivision that doesn't even adjoin 54" Street. Also, I know you aren't engineers and it may seem in your mind simple to put 4' or 3' of asphalt down the side of 54`h Street would be no big deal. You've been out there and you've seen it and there is a major ditch along both sides of 54`h Street. In order to improve that we would have to put reinforced concrete pipe for 450' from the bridge to the intersection. We are talking $20,000 to $25,000 just for the drainage system there. Plus, it would be filled over to the neighbor's property line there so that all the runoff from the street would be running off onto the neighbor's property unless we went in and put curb and gutter and inlets and that is an additional cost. We feel like it is spiraling out of control. The improvements to 54`h has never been a requirement until this last Subdivision meeting. We've been going through this for six months and everybody was fine with improvements. The developer was fine with doing Tackett. 54`h we feel like it is above and beyond what his proportionate share would be. Other than that, we are in agreement with all of the other requirements. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 19 Ostner: Thank you Mr. Bates. At this point I would like to open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Wonnacott: My name is Melissa Wonnacott, I live at 655 Genevieve and I'm representing a significant amount of neighbors on the west side of Tacked Avenue. We understand that they don't feel that they should flip the bill to pay for this. 54`h Street, he said something about the traffic numbers. 600, you add another 250 to that, to me that is proportional. That is 30% added cars from this one subdivision. 54`h Street itself has 3' deep ditches so that if I were to come around the corner and a child was standing at the bus stop which is the corner of 54`h Street and Tackett, the bus stop that will be for these other up to 100 children. If I were to come around that corner I could not go anywhere but run into a tree or hit one of those children to be able to get to my house or get to Wedington Drive. I don't believe, I understand cost is an issue but it is not slated to be fixed in the next 10 years, which is what we heard at Subdivision review. The guiding principals for 2020 say that you will have safe roadways. This will not create a safe roadway. It is a bottleneck. All of the neighbors are concerned. We welcome the development but we just want our lives safeguarded so that one of our children don't get hit. I can't count how many times I've almost hit somebody's child going around that corner because it is blind. Again, I represent Tim Phillips, Jill Phillips, Harold Bernard, Don Hansell and there are a few others. All we ask is that you safeguard our lives and the lives of these people that will be living in these 25 houses. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this project? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Shackelford: Kit, can you talk to us about offsite improvements on this road that the property does not have any sort of relationship if you will, it doesn't touch on any boundary. Is that something that we have done in the past? Is a precedence in place to require that sort of improvement? Williams: We have on occasion required money from a developer for their rough proportionality impact for a bridge or possibly for a road or intersection near the development and required them to donate what their proportion of the increased cost would be. In this particular case it looks like we are asking them to pay for the entire increased cost. Let me tell you what the Supreme Court said when they tried to explain what rights the city had to require a developer to spend money. They said that no precise mathematical calculation is required but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication, or the money in this particular case, is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 20 proposed development. The nature would be there is more utilization of the street so I think that that is not an issue. The question is the extent of the impact of this development on the city's infrastructure needs. That is something that you must make an individualized determination about. Shackelford: I guess with that, a follow up with staff. As I reviewed this, I anticipated to see a rough proportionality for improvements on 54`h Street. I somewhat struggle thinking this eight acre development would have to pay for all of those improvements when I envision three or five years down the road a significant amount of development in this area that will directly adjoin to 54`h Street. My question is in situations like this where you apply rough proportionality how is that applied? Obviously, there is no specific mathematical equation, which is one of the reasons that I asked that question of Kit first was to get that. How would that be applied and how would you go about doing that? Warrick: In this particular case, we are looking at these things case sensitive as they come to us, we are looking at a project that will more than double the number of vehicle trips generated by residents on Tackett Drive. Tackett is a dead end street. There is no public right of way that accesses Tackett with the exception of 54`h Street, which means that every person coming or going from this new development will access this leg of 54`h Street. They have to if they are coming from Fayetteville. There are approximately 20 residential units along Tackett currently. We are talking about adding 25 additional ones. That is more than 100% increase in vehicle trips per day generated on Tackett Drive, a dead end street with one outlet. We are not asking for a full street improvement, we are asking for 20' of pavement. That is a fire lane. We are not asking for even our smallest street standard, which is 24'. We are looking at a reduced amount of improvement but enough so that there is a safe driving lane for vehicles passing at this location on 54`h Street. We felt that that was appropriate with this amount of increased traffic. Shackelford: I look at this area as being one that is going to see a lot of growth in the future. I may be the only one here who has this opinion but I would rather see a rough proportionality test applied to anticipated costs of bringing this road to minimum street standards and apply that to development as it occurs going forward in this area. Kind of like we did around the new middle school off of Mt. Comfort. We didn't make the first person who went out there to develop build the entire bridge and road system. We tried to do a rough proportionality system so that each person who developed paid their fair share for improvements that would be needed on that specific infrastructure. Warrick: That is understandable but in that particular case the city was and had plans to go in and build that street and recover those costs as the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 21 developments occurred. There was going to be a safe street once those improvements were done and once those developments started building out. In this particular case there are no plans for the city to improve the infrastructure and we felt that it was important that a safe street, as best we can get there. We are not requiring that it be fully improved but a safe width be provided because it was relative to this development. Ostner: Is the 20' with shoulder and ditches or with curb and gutter? Warrick: Yes. There are some engineering issues that are going to have to be looked at. As Mr. Bates said, there are deep ditches on either side of 54`h Street currently. It is going to have to be reviewed and our Engineering staff is committed to working with these developers on coming up with a satisfactory solution to get 20' of safe pavement width. Ostner: The way I see it the biggest difference between the 20' and our city standards are if we are looking at rough proportionality, in my mind, we need to look at the whole street, 28' curb and gutter, buried water, which is a significant amount. I don't think that's fair. All I think is fair is vehicle safety. When this was rezoned there is a provision in rezoning that we didn't have to allow the rezoning if there was a safety issue. I voted for it and it passed all of the appropriate bodies but I believe this is a safety issue and I would hate to vote against this project simply because of this seemingly small detail when you consider how many times we have looked at this project and how hard you all have worked on it. That is my take on the proportionality. Shackelford: I wish our City Engineer was here because as I go and look at this property I don't understand how you are going to widen the road as it is without filling in the ditches, which means you are going to have to do something with storm water runoff to meet that ordinance. I need a third party to explain to me how they can meet the requirements of condition number three without addressing a whole lot of issues off site to be in compliance with the other ordinances from an engineering standpoint. Clark: I certainly understand the concerns about sharing the burden of the cost. It was on my first Planning Commission that I made the comment that eventually some developer, if we continue to let things slide, some developer is going to get stuck with a disproportionate part of the cost. That could be what's happening here. We went out on tour to this specific property. 54`h Street is incredibly dangerous in its current condition. My sympathies for the people who have to live out there and my concerns for the school children who have to stand on that corner waiting for a bus. This development is going to increase 100% the traffic that has to go on that very narrow street. I agree with Alan that I would hate to vote against this because of the improvements to 54`h Street but I think they are an Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 22 absolute must. We talked about this in Subdivision. The city has no answer. I'm not a trusting enough person to say build it and they will fix it because I don't think they will. I think we have to put safety first. We had to pull over twice when the van was confronted by traffic on that street. I'm not sure about that corner, it seems that you are going to be compounding the safety issue. More importantly, possibly this is out of my realm as a Commissioner but just as a person, if I were going to buy one of those lots and build a home out there I might be dissuaded if I looked at 54`h Street and I might think what the heck were you thinking putting families out here in an unsafe situation. That is just me as a person. Me as a Planning Commissioner says safety is an issue. If 54`h Street is not improved however we possibly work out compromise to do it, I cannot support this development. I am really sorry I was the new kid at Subdivision that kind of put the kibosh on this but I would rather have a clear conscious and keep people safe or at least voice my concern and opinion. We fix 54`h Street I'm gung-ho, let's do it. If we don't I can't vote with a good conscious. I think staff has come up with some excellent compromises and suggestions based on the Subdivision meeting and I commend you. I hope we can work this out to build this thing. Vaught: I have a question for staff. What is the narrowest point on 54`h Street of this part in question? Warrick: 16'. Vaught: That is somewhere in the middle where the canopy overhangs pretty heavily? Warrick: It widens out when you get to the bridge because the bridge is a wider section than the road south of it. We measured approximately 16'. Vaught: How wide does it get? Warrick: It gets to at least 20' at the bridge. Vaught: I guess my hard part with rough proportionality is I agree this increases traffic on Tackett over 100%. The 100% with the use of 54`h Street is what I'm having problems with as a rough proportionality guideline. I just wonder if there are other options. Like Commissioner Shackelford said, I wish the City Engineer was here to address some of these issues because I know it could get very expensive just to pave an area 400' long. Shackelford: The City Engineer is here, let's let him talk. Vaught: On 54`h Street in question, Commissioner Shackelford had this question earlier, what kind of work is it going to take to widen that road to 20'? Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 23 Coover: I think it can be widened but I think the main goal is to try to save the trees and the canopy on the street we have there. The pavement I think is about 16' wide. I think if you did curb and gutter on both sides and did some sort of a storm pipe along the existing ditch you would be able to save the trees. There are four very large sycamores on the east side and some nice standing trees on the west side as well. Vaught: I guess the question is because what we are requiring is for them to work with staff to figure out a reasonable solution. What we are saying in our condition is just overlay it with asphalt to get it to 20' wide. That is something completely different than a whole street with curb and gutter and storm water retention underground. Coover: What you have right now is a typical old Fayetteville street with 16' asphalt, straight drop-off, no shoulder and a pretty good size ditch on both sides, probably 2' or 3' deep. From there on the east side it goes up a pretty good size hill and on the west side is an overgrown fence row with some pretty good size trees along that. If you widen the asphalt you would have to do something about the ditch underneath. Shackelford: That was my question. Can you tell us other than putting storm water drainage through there is there any other way to meet our ordinances for storm water runoff? We would have to redirect that water through that system, is that correct? Coover: Correct. I'm trying to think if there is some way that the slope of that street, if you could catch it somehow and pick it up and let it run in the gutter and back down the other side. That might be one option. Shackelford: Can you estimate the linear feet of storm water culvert that would have to be put in for this specific condition to be met? Bates: It is 425'. Coover: You would need to put some sort of drainage pipe on both sides so you need to double that. Bates: There are going to be about 15 acres draining into that so we will have to go with a large 36" pipe. Ostner: Mr. Coover, the current shoulder and ditch design would not be appropriate for a 20' street section? Coover: You wouldn't have room to do it. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 24 Ostner: There is not right of way? Coover: There is right of way, it is just depending on if you want to take out a whole lot of trees. Ostner: We are talking cost and expense and that is the cheapest route it seems. Vaught: I had a question on the tree canopy that overhangs this pretty heavily. Is that something that contributes to the danger problem because it makes a narrow road? When you are looking at the pictures you see a little tunnel through there. Is that something we could use? I understand you want to save the trees but we also need a safe street. How do we do that? What's more important I guess. I still have a hard time putting the entire burden of the 54`h Street improvement on this one project, especially since 54`h Street is used by more cars than Tackett. Tackett I have no problem with. 54`h Street I'm having a hard time with the developer paying 100%, especially with the engineer's comments saying we are going to have to curb and gutter it and put the storm sewage underground, especially if that's the city's priority to save the trees. It sounds like that is the city's priority, which I understand but if the city is asking that then they need to possibly help. Warrick: The primary priority is providing a safe driving surface. Vaught: The way I read the condition says widen to 20'. The city and the applicant would work out a way to do that to make both happy. It sounds like there isn't another way. You could widen it but the city wouldn't be happy unless they save the trees. Coover: Trees can always be replanted too. As Dawn said, a safe road is the top priority. What we try to do whenever possible is try to work within existing landscape if we possibly can. Bates: We have agreed to widen Tackett, which is the one we are increasing 100% to 20' that they asked for which will help the intersection and everything coming onto Tackett. Shackelford: I am not arguing that improvements don't need to be made to 54`h Street. There is no question when you drive out there and look at it. We've got a tough situation because it sounds real simple to go out there and widen the road 2'. It is more than just 2' of asphalt, you are talking all sorts of things so that that is possible and this will function. I'm just struggling thinking that it is a disproportionate requirement on the developer. If you look at rough proportionality I just don't know that you can honestly justify that this is related tin nature to the extent of the develorment being done given the current and future expectations and use of 54` Street with Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 25 the growing demand that we see for development in this area. That is what I'm struggling with. Ostner: That is an issue. I believe the heart of that issue is this is the only guy doing work out there. When you go to the far reaches of our city limits and you do a project that is somewhat remote, there aren't other subdivisions or really built out areas. It is an older part of town, houses have just been kind of built. I don't think there is any curb or gutter as far around as I can see. There is a price to pay for being the first guy in a remote area in a small project. That is, in my opinion, part of the annexation debate doing small projects is problematic. When there is a large project with several developers working together we see things in an overall plan and we see a bridge that is just south of the development off of Joyce Street and we know one developer is going to pay part of it and we know another guy is coming. It could be 20 years and that is unfortunate. Not to sound rude, but it is being created by the development, the excess problem. The 30% jump in traffic. On the CIP list it just doesn't even register. We've got much bigger problems to deal with. I believe it is the developer's responsibility to pay for this what I believe is a good compromise, this 4' in road bed width. We are not asking for 28' curb and gutter. Bates: It is not just 4', it is going to be that and storm drainage. There is no end. It is a major undertaking for 54`h. We can't go out and just throw some dirt down and put 4' of pavement and be done. We have to dig a new ditch down through there which is going to take out every one of those trees is the only other way to do it without putting the storm drainage in and that may not even work even if we put storm drainage and then asphalt over it without curb and gutter. That is going to form a new ditch and undermined the pavement down through there and flood the neighbor going down that road. It is not that we don't want to help. We want to help. We are not trying to get out of anything. We just want to do what's fair. It is a 25 lot subdivision. If it was a 200 lot subdivision it would be a whole other story. This is a very small development and we want to help all we can but there's only so much you can do. Ostner: Right. Allen: I believe that we would never want to put an undue hardship on you. I think our first responsibility has to be to the safety of the neighbors that exist in the neighborhood. Clark: In Subdivision we talked extensively about cost share and proportionality and tried to come up with some ideas then as to how to share the cost and the burden of the improvements that need to be made on 54`h Street. I'm still more than open to hear any ideas of compromise. The bottom line to me still has to be 54`h Street has to be improved to be safe, especially to Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 26 the new families you want to provide development for. I still, tonight, have not heard any other compromise ideas. I think Alan hit it on the head, I'm sorry you are first but it is a problem. I also agree with Commissioner Allen that safety has to be a primary concern. I am in favor of as the condition is stated. Graves: In my mind there is nothing roughly proportional about having a 25 lot subdivision flip the bill for 425' of street improvement, for 850' of curb and gutter. That is just not proportional in any sense of the imagination. The traffic condition that exists out there exists independent of this particular development. The 25 lot subdivision, to ask it to flip that type of expense when you are already asking that developer to flip the bill for Tackett, which is reasonable because it touches the subdivision. 54`h does not make contact with this subdivision and that is just a huge section of road to have this one developer pay and regardless of him being first, that is not proportional in any sense of the imagination. Ostner: Is there further discussion on this issue? I am going to make a motion that we approve this PPL 04-1081 with the conditions as stated. Allen: Second. Shackelford: A question of our City Attorney. If this motion is approved as is what sort of opportunity does the applicant have to appeal specific conditions of approval and would undue hardship or rough proportionality definitions come into play? Williams: I do believe that they have a right to appeal to the City Council because it is not, they won't be appealing a plat that they have signed off on and that you've approved. Instead, you are putting additional conditions on them that they have attempted to reject. It is almost a rejection even if you are approving the plat and so they would have a right to appeal as an aggrieved party. I think the issue of rough proportionality could probably also be raised at the City Council level. Also, at that level, the City Council who manages the budget, has the right to consider a cost share which this body really does not. You can make recommendations to the City Council and they are free to take them or not as they please even though I'm sure they do listen to you. Warrick: Just to further elaborate on that. A developer may petition the Planning Commission for variance of required offsite improvements on four grounds. I believe if this were appealed up to the City Council the same grounds would be applicable. They are listed under the variances section and they have to do with whether or not the development proposes to access an improved street or road, whether they have proposed an alternate to the required offsite improvements, whether they feel that there has been Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 27 an unfair imposition placed upon the development, or whether or not the city has plans with regard to that infrastructure. Ostner: Thank you. Shackelford: For the record, obviously I'm speaking against condition of approval number three. It is not that I'm against safety. This is a tough situation. It is a tough place that we're in out there but it is unsafe as it is. There is no question that things need to be improved here. I have always been one to believe that development leads to infrastructure improvement. I don't think that it is fair that the first person there has to flip the bill and I don't think it's fair that we half way do it. We have had situations in my tenure where we had sidewalks in the middle of nowhere that didn't go anywhere because that's what the ordinance said. We figured out a better way to do it where they could pay money in lieu and that money could go with other monies and work could be done at a better pace. I think that there is no way that you could say that this meets a rough proportionality test. I think to the extent that we are asking them to do it is way out of line with our rough proportionality would say. I can't support this as it is. With that being said, we have worked awfully hard, as has the applicant and everybody else involved to get this thing approved. I don't want to vote against the Preliminary Plat and have it look on the record that I don't support this development because of all the hard work and what's been dong at this point. I think I'm going to make a motion to amend by removing condition of approval number three and call that for a vote. Vaught: I will second. I would like to make a comment too. Here is one of the things that I worry about with this is we require this developer to come in, widen it to 20' with curb and gutter and put the sewer underground and in six months we get another proposal in here for a subdivision south of this for 400 lots that we are going to require to widen it to 28' with curb and gutter. Then we are doing the work twice. The way this condition number three reads right now not requiring the curb and gutter and putting the storm sewer underground. I know saving trees is something important but if we are to make this a 28' street section with curb and gutter most of those trees will probably be taken down anyway. I think that should be a definite consideration no matter what happens with this. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford on the rough proportionality and that's why I agreed to second his amendment. Williams: That is the appropriate way to express your position. Vaught: I think that needs to be something to consider as well. I wish there was some kind of escrow fund or something to put in there that we could apply like the sidewalks have but we don't. Right now I don't think it is Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 28 appropriate, not that I'm not for safety. I think there are some other things that we could possibly do. Ostner: The angle I would like to illustrate on the rough proportionality is that would have to be a rough proportionality of city standards, a full 28' street with curb and gutter and storm sewers. Shackelford: I agree. Ostner: That could be $50,000. Vaught: We are talking about 20'. Ostner: This would be their percentage of that $50,000, I'm just grabbing numbers out of the air. Yet, the Planning office has discussed with Engineering that a 20' section with no buried pipes and no curb could be adequate from a safety standpoint, which is all I'm concerned about, which is probably 1/3 of that previous cost. Shackelford: That cannot be done in this location based on the topography of the road as it exists. Vaught: And condition number eight. Ostner: It can be done. Condition eight is in a perfect world. We are going to try to save the existing trees as much as possible. I do not believe a tree is stopping this compromised road section. Shackelford: I'm not saying the trees are either. I think the ditch and storm water runoff is preventing this. Those are two things that we have no control over whatsoever. I don't think there is any way you can go out there, fill in that ditch, put asphalt over it and say it's fixed. We have a storm, the dirt goes away, the asphalt falls off and we are right back to where we were. I think there is a lot more involved than jus the simple 2' to 4' of asphalt that we like to think it is. That leads to a lot of other engineering standards that have to be in place in order to allow that. Ostner: I understand that. What I'm trying to say is the proportion of the full city street standard with curb and gutter could be really close to this compromise that we are talking about right now. We are not sure. We are just talking. All we are concerned about is that this development should be responsible for a safe street on 54`h. I believe it should. I don't think it is fair and I might've been misunderstood about the first guy is the unlucky guy. The first guy could've been very lucky if the infrastructure were better. He is developing an area that he understands. He drives Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 29 down the same road that we do. I don't want to stop this project. I understand it doesn't touch it. Shackelford: There are 200 acres or more that does. I don't see how you win the rough proportionality battle. Clark: I am going to oppose the amendment but support the overall project. Maybe I'm being pragmatic. Safety is an issue but as Mr. Williams pointed out, it is the City Council who has the power of the budget. I'm more than certain that should this proposal as submitted with these conditions that if that proceeds to the Council that Mr. Bates will be there arguing his case just as eloquently as he did tonight. At that point perhaps the City Council will read our concerns about proportionality and realize we have no say in that, and come up with a compromise that opens the city pocketbook to work with this developer to make those improvements on 54`h Street. I do not believe, and this is the cynic in me, that if we allow a development be it two lots, be it 25 lots, be it 200 lots, to proceed in an unsafe area, that the city will ever find benevolence in their heart to just fix that road because gee, it needs to be done. Sorry. I do believe it has to be mandated somehow and then we will bump it up to the Council to figure out how it is paid for. Otherwise, I am going to be forced to vote against every dad gum subdivision that comes before me unless the structure is perfect already. I don't want to do that. I want to find a way to build subdivisions, have our infrastructure safe and meet standards that it needs to meet and not put an unfair burden on anybody. We can't do proportionality in this body but we can certainly send it forward. I am going to oppose the amendment but vote for this subdivision to go forward. That is my pragmatic cynical perspective. Graves: I support the amendment and echo the comments made by Commissioner Shackelford and Commissioner Vaught for the record. I would also state for the record that I hope whichever version of this motion may pass, the original motion or the amended version, that our comments on the record, I believe the Commissioners seem to support the project itself in general and I would hope our comments to the affect that we recommend that the City Council engage in some sort of cost sharing for this particular section of 54`h Avenue would be taken into consideration whatever may happen. Ostner: Do I have a formal raised motion on this amendment? Shackelford: I make a motion to amend the original motion to omit condition of approval number three from the listed conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you. Does the seconder agree with that motion? Vaught: I agree. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 30 Ostner: Do we have further discussion on this amendment? Anthes: I don't know how much any of this costs so it is really hard for me to understand what is proportional and what is not, what kind of burden we are putting on a 25 lot subdivision and what we aren't. At Subdivision when we discussed this we strongly urged there to be some way that a cost share can be negotiated and yet we have no ability to do that at this level. If we pass this without condition of approval number three then they can build a subdivision without any road improvements. If we pass it with condition of approval number three then it will probably end up at City Council being negotiated. I don't think either of those are really great solutions. I'm not sure if there is any other way to have those negotiations happen, are there? Warrick: If the Planning Commission recommends a cost share the Council will have to have it heard in their public forum and make a determination as to budget and how to affect that cost share. Any deliberations that they may have with regard to cost share on a project, they hear those. Those are standard agenda items that they are required to consider. Anthes: Do we actually have a way to rewrite condition three with that recommendation? Warrick: You can make a recommendation. They have their options as to whether or not they wish to implement that. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Vaught: Staff or the applicant, has anyone put a pencil to paper and estimated costs of this? From what I'm understanding from the staff engineer is more than likely curb and gutter and storm water runoff would have to be addressed in this as well. Just so people understand what kind of a burden this is on a 25 tot development. Can that be estimated? Ostner: I believe the applicant has spoke of $20,000. Vaught: $25,000 and that was just the pipe. Bates: It was $20,000 to $25,000 just for the reinforced concrete pipe. Curb and gutter is about $9 a foot and the asphalt runs about $125 a foot. Clark: If I'm understanding what Ms. Warrick said, in a perfect world Commissioner Shackelford could amend his motion to not delete number three but insert something about cost share with the city into it and then it Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 31 would be to the Council to either accept, reject or negotiate, is that correct? Williams: I have in the past seen actual computations by the engineers when they bring forward cost share suggestions to the Planning Commission and then later up to the City Council. I don't know if that is possible in this case or if we only did that over by the Salem Road area. I don't know what our decision making was why we did not present something of what the cost would be and what the proportionate amount would be. It would be hard to rewrite that tonight. I don't know if the Planning Department has a way to do that. You could encourage the City Council to think about a cost share or do a cost share. I don't know where you would get any figures for that or percentages. Shackelford: I guess I'm intrigued by that because I'm not in favor of no improvement to 54`h Street. I just think that the developer should not be over burdened by the cost of that. I think that we are outside of the rough proportionality test. It might be better to instead of omitting three, trying to come up with some sort of verbiage that the developer and city had to work together in a cost share based on rough proportionality for improvements on 54`h Street to include a minimum width of 20'. Would that be something that the City Council could work with Mr. Williams or is that overstepping my bounds as a Planning Commissioner? Williams: Of course there is no guarantee that the City Council would want to do any cost share. Shackelford: If they don't and they can't meet that condition of approval then it would come back to this body would it not? Williams: You could possibly say it is a condition of approval that the developer shall pay its rough proportionality share of the improvement to 54`h Street caused by his development. That doesn't give terms but it does give staff something to work with. Even if the city wasn't ready immediately to fund this then that money could in fact be put in escrow to be used only for this project and if it is not used within five years it is refunded to the developer because we can't hold money like that indefinitely. It has to be expended fairly shortly. Clark: I thought we had a compromise Mr. Chair but this escrow stuff just bothers the heck out of me. I can't do it. To me I'm saying we have to improve the street. I would love to see a cost share on it happen but that does mean the city is going to have to come up and help you accomplish what we need to have accomplished. Putting money in escrow means build it, they will come, it will be in safe and somebody will go dam, it's Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 32 still the same street. Unless we can hammer out a compromise that would say cost share and 54`h will be improved. I'm going to have to back up. Shackelford: A new question of the City Attorney. If we make condition number four to state the developer shall participate in a cost share with the City of Fayetteville for improvements on 54`h Street to include a minimum width of 20' and the City Council decides we don't want to do that then the Preliminary Plat would be denied at City Council and it would be back before this board? Williams: I'm not sure exactly what would happen there. Dawn, do you think it would come back to this Commission then if the City Council decided not to go forward and if the developer was willing but the City Council was not willing? Warrick: I think that it would come back if the Council expressly voted to send it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Williams: I think they probably would. Shackelford: I will amend my motion to show condition of approval number three to state that the developer shall participate in a cost share system with the City of Fayetteville based upon rough proportionality to maintain, create improvements to 54`h Street to a minimum width of 20'. Is that ok with the seconder? Vaught: I'm trying to understand it all. That means that if it goes to City Council and they don't agree with it, I just don't want them to be out and have to start over. Williams: I think the City Council would certainly take it back and you would also include in your motion from the intersection of 54`h and Tackett to the bridge. Vaught: I would agree with that. Bates: Would it be better if we just tabled it and got with Engineering for a couple of weeks instead of wasting two months? It will take two months or more to go to City Council and then come back here and then it is going to take forever. We have already been doing this since Christmas. Vaught: If you could get with Engineering and work out a system where you are agreeable to the costs. What I'm scared of is approving it as is and them coming in, especially with condition eight, and saying no, you need curb and gutter. That's more than what condition number three is to me. That is why I would be up for the cost share because I do agree something Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 33 needs to be done. If you are willing to table it and get with Engineering to see if a solution can be reached that would be ideal I think. I have no idea what to do with all of these motions. Williams: I would recommend that you simply withdraw all of the motions. Shackelford: I will withdraw... Vaught: Let's see what the applicant wants to do. Bates: We need to know what are we estimating. Are we just doing a 20' street with ditches, are we doing 28' back to back with curb and gutter from the bridge to the intersection? Ostner: I'm willing for the applicant and Engineering and Planning to get together and come forth with a proposal. Personally I'm not interested in you all paying for a full 28' street section. I think others have voiced that clearly. All we want is a safe 20' road bed. With that being said, I would leave the design up to Engineering. Clark: Hopefully a proportionate cost up to whatever you can negotiate. At least we'll know what the numbers are and you can make a stronger case. Ostner: The point of trees which seems to be confusing everything, the way I read number eight is don't saw down the trees for 50' of right of way. If the roadbed and the ditches require 30' we saw down trees for 30'. In other words, let's be a little kinder, gentler and not swat the entire right of way. Clark: At Subdivision it was talking about trees on site, not on 54`h Street. Williams: Mr. Chairman, have you withdrawn your motion? Ostner: I will withdraw my motion. Shackelford: I will withdraw my amendment to the motion. Allen: I think a table overrides all of the motions. Williams: It can but then you are right back to all of the motions and I would rather have a clean slate when you come back. I think it would be better procedurally not to have these other motions hanging around. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we table PPL 04-1081. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 34 Myres: I will second. Ostner: Thank you. Do we have further discussion? Do you all need more information? Warrick: I think we're fine. Ostner: Renee, could you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table PPL 04-1081 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries eight to zero. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 35 CUP 04-1109: Conditional Use (CHI OMEGA PARKING LOT, 444): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at 626 LINDELL. The property is zoned RMF - 40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The request is to approve the construction of an off-site parking facility with 12 stalls proposed. Ostner: Our next item is a Conditional Use for Chi Omega Parking Lot, CUP 04- 1109. Pate: The subject property for this item is located at 626 Lindell Avenue, the block between Douglas Street and Cleveland Street. This is a Conditional Use request for an offsite parking lot facility with 12 stalls proposed. The lot currently contains a single family home which is proposed for removal. The use of the lot is for the Chi Omega sorority house which is located approximately 550' away. Our ordinances state that a Conditional Use request can be applied for before the Planning Commission for an offsite parking lot location within 600' so it does meet that requirement. As I mentioned, there is a single family home on the site. There are several existing perimeter trees located on adjacent properties which do shade this lot as well as several existing trees on the site. I have included some other background information. There is an aerial photograph on page 5.15 showing the overall location along Maple of the Chi Omega sorority house as well as the proposed location for the parking lot along Lindell Avenue. Additionally, there should be a University parking graphic obtained from the Transportation Department website locating some of the student parking lots and faculty lots in your packets. There are several University owned parking lots in this area. Obviously, this is part of the overall campus. This particular lot is owned by the Chi Omega sorority as well as the property on which their house is located. As I mentioned, there are several University owned lots within the general facility for on campus, off campus and resident reserve student use. The specific rules and permits from the U of A obviously govern the availability of those lots for student use and faculty use, etc. As you probably know, there is also a 2200 parking deck being constructed approximately 1,800 feet from this particular site on Duncan Avenue. The proposal tonight, the applicant representing Chi Omega sorority, proposes to construct a 12 space parking lot to serve the house. The private parking is to serve the 85 residents at the Chi Omega house which currently has 40 sleeping rooms. Currently 28 parking stalls existing on site, well below the 40 required under current parking ordinances. With reworking of existing parking on that particular site and the proposed additional offsite spaces the Chi Omega house would be compliant with City Codes. The applicant with the letter requesting approval of the Conditional Use does cite safety concerns for residents and the need for additional nearby parking. There is an attached site plan as well as a letter that describes the project pretty well as the applicant can probably describe it. A couple of points that I would like to Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 36 make, there is a pervious parking material on a portion of the lot that is proposed as well as a 6' high board fence proposed to surround the property on three sides. This is an RMF -40 zoning district, however, most of the lots on the east side of Lindell Street are single family use, primarily owner occupied. Several findings of fact directly reflect that. Staff is recommending denial of this Conditional Use finding that it is not compatible land use for this area. One of the findings of fact is that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. Staff finds that granting this Conditional Use will adversely affect the public interest. There are measures, as I mentioned, the 6' high board fence as well as the pervious parking. Those are measures proposed by the applicant to mitigate some of those potential conflicts of use. However, staff does find that a parking lot within this relatively cohesive single family, residential neighborhood is not a use that is compatible with or complimentary to the overall public interest. Across the street, as you may well know, driving down Lindell is obviously the University parking lot, the gravel lot that was recently constructed. I will just mention that that does not go through our city processes. That was not approved by the City of Fayetteville and we do not see that as an item to be considered as far as compatibility. Obviously, this parking lot would be compatible with another parking lot. However, Lindell Avenue is a very distinct dividing line between that type of use and the single family residential use currently on the east side of Lindell Avenue. The other finding I would like to call attention to is the last finding with regard to Conditional Use requests. General Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Staff finds that the proposed use for a parking lot is not generally compatible with those uses of adjacent properties and other properties in the overall district, especially on the east side of Lindell Avenue. It is very evident as you drive by that the east side of Lindell Avenue from Douglas all the way to Cleveland the entire block maintains a primarily owner occupied single family residential character which has not been compromised by parking lot development in this area. Staff finds that precedence set by allowing a parking lot to replace a single family home in this particular location is not in the best interest of the public and does not support the finding of fact for general compatibility with adjacent properties. I would mention that we have received correspondence from the property owner to the south that does object to this use as well. I believe that property owner is here tonight. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate, is the applicant present? Bunch: My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks, I'm here representing the Chi Omega Corporation this evening. We've got a couple of boards to show you. We do have some photographs to look at of the house and also a handout that shows the long term growth boundary of the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 37 University and a location of the house. I would like to start out by saying this is the last place we wanted to be tonight with a denial recommendation. That is always not a good way to start off. We have been working diligently with the Planning Department as you can read by the correspondence. We have been working for some time with the Planning Department and with the Landscape Administrator trying to find a proposal. The sorority basically has 28 stalls in their existing lot. They have 85 girls living in their house. Right now as I understand it, since they are owned privately, they are not considered residents of the University system and cannot actually buy permits for the lots that are adjacent there on Lindell and Douglas, as well as the lot to the east. What we are planning to do, we have evaluated their existing lot and we can add three stalls to the existing lot by some minor modifications, some driveway changes and a little bit of paving. What we have been trying to do here is endeavor to provide as many stalls as possible and still be within the ordinance criteria of the city. As we all know, as Jeremy pointed out, no one is extremely happy with the use across the street that the University changed to a gravel parking lot there. I think we are all aware that the university if they own the property can develop things as they see fit and do not have to comply with any of the city ordinances. That extensive gravel parking lot is directly adjacent from our site. There are a couple of issues that the recommendation for denial is stemmed from. The opportunity that this is actually a cohesive neighborhood unit right now. First of all, the property itself is rented in two pieces. Out of all of the adjacent property owners that I've notified for this project and another project at Oakland and Douglas for another sorority, only one has been owner occupied. The vast majority of these properties are rentals. I believe the property owner here tonight is representing the property owner who uses that property as a rental property as well. Basically, what we have been trying to do is provide parking, a safe avenue for these girls to park and walk to their cars. The first point I want to make is that this has actually been used as a duplex. If you will note on the pictures as well, we were finally able to gain access to it and we have talked to several of the board members and people who have toured the actual inside of the house and it is pretty much non -usable in it's existing state. There has been quite a bit of damage to the home and it is irreparable. The sorority has been looking to relocate the house and may have to actually go ahead and do the demolition. They are not in the rental business. They can't maintain that house. The monies that it would take to bring that house up to a level that anybody could live in are right now enormous and something that they are not interested in doing. Also, I want to point out when we talk about the cohesive nature of the neighborhood, the handout that I gave you shows that the long term growth boundary does encompass this particular lot. You can see the boundary here of what I would consider the cohesive neighborhood unit, if that, would be north of this location. There is an existing parking lot boundary that extends north of this house. This entire Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 38 area is within the long term growth boundary for the University. I think that it's future is in question. Also, note that there is an apartment building in this location and there are duplexes strung up and down Lindell in this area as well. I think what we've got is a difference in opinion in what I would consider a cohesive neighborhood. They are also recommending denial based on the character of this. To my understanding, we have to consider a Conditional Use in regard to use. This entire area, quadrant north of Cleveland and past Leverett is zoned RMF -40. As we have seen be the trend, several developers come in and buy two or three house lots and put up apartments because that is the highest and best use in the sense of the zoning terminology. To me it is not a single family residential neighborhood as owner occupied single family. It is not all rental units and the majority is University students. I know my RSF-4 residential neighborhood actually has a house full of University students that rent. I can tell you that's not a cohesive use in my RSF-4 zoning either. I wanted to point out those highlights. Also, in regard to the enormous parking structure that is being constructed on Duncan. They have the measurement as 1,800 feet. This existing lot has been termed "the rape lot". Several attacks have happened in this particular lot. If we are talking about something within 600 feet of the house. The Tri Delta house is here, the Zeta house is here. The ADI Pi house is here, the Chi Omega house is here. Within this zoned you have well over 300 women that have to park on the streets lots of times. There are not safe avenues for them to park. I'm sure you are well aware that this has not been a cost affective approach here. These women need to provide safe parking for the residents of the house, period. They don't have any other avenues. Everything contiguous to them is owned and nobody is selling. I think we all know where their house is located on Maple. They do an excellent job of maintaining their property, it is always immaculate. This house to date, since I've been involved with this project in late November has been in disrepair at best. I wanted to make those points. Also, I guess we've already made the point that the University doesn't have to follow any of the guidelines. If they purchase any property in the area they can do what they want. We have had three iterations of parking plans trying to satisfy the city ordinances as best we can and provide some parking. Our original lot had 16 stalls, which is 1/3 more than we are ending up with here on this lot. The issue on the trees, I know you guys toured it, but the lot to the south is actually an average of 3' higher. The lot to the north is an average of 3' lower. There are retaining walls on either of these sides. When we are talking about incorporating a gravel paved system or something with a pervious system that will generally only disturb the top 12" to 18". What we've got here is a situation where we've got trees growing against retaining walls that have been there for years so their root zones are already impeded in the direction of our parking lot. We don't see that as any constraint. We have been out on the site with the Landscape Administrator, our Landscape Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 39 Architect has looked at this and we feel like this is a viable solution. We feel like we've addressed all of those issues. When I spoke with the adjacent property owner it was basically the same issue that Planning is recommending denial on is that they hate to see a parking lot there. There is nothing more structurally that we can do to impede any of the affects on the surrounding property owners. We have got basically a 50' x126' lot. We are just as tight as we can be. We can't even plant vegetative buffers, which we were hoping to do in addition to the fence, but there it is not a viable issue there. I think that is basically it. We are available for questions and I do have members of the board here that want to speak to you guys as well. Did you read my memo in the submittal with the rape statistics? Ostner: Yes. Bunch: I don't want to belabor those but it is a very real concern and it is a frightening issue for these women. Thank you. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the public. If there is anyone who would like to speak to this issue. Speed: My name is Carolyn Speed and I am President of the Housing Corp. this year. Thank you for letting us be here. We all feel... Ostner: Excuse me Ma'am, are you a part of Chi Omega? Speed: Yes. Ostner: I'm opening it up to the public and we can get right back to you if you would like. Davison: Good evening, I'm Sharon Davison, I've come to speak about two other matters tonight actually. The parking situation in this town has always bothered me and this is a good example of where we need to get a handle on it. I do appreciate it if you, even Christian and Loren, will listen to staff on this and approve what the staff is suggesting here. Which is that it is not in the best interest of our community to replace a single family home with a parking lot. I don't know all the details of our tax situation. I know as the churches have acquired more parking lots I was told we don't get the tax revenue from the parking lots. We do know that we don't get the business revenue 5 out of 7 days a week out of all of those parking lots and of course, we do understand the aesthetic aspect. I do hope you will consider those things. There are options here for these ladies. I don't think it is a right or entitlement for every college student, not every college student can afford a car, and therefore, I don't think it is just a right because you can afford one that you have a parking space. That's not the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 40 way it is in a lot of colleges. It is a luxury and we are wanting to accommodate a luxury here but at what price? We are at a price to the neighbors, we are at a price to the neighborhood, we are at a price to our city as to revenue and aesthetic value. I think there are things that this house could be. The big parking lot will be open and they can rotate their positions or take turns on those things. I think it is sort of unfair to put the safety issue out there. Can no one park anywhere and walk a block to their house. I understand these issues about parking and safety and lighting but I don't think it is right to bring it up so you can approve this so these girls can not park on the street. Again, look at what they've done. They bought this house with the intention to try to convince you to allow them to turn it into a parking lot. They knew they took a chance when they bought that house because they know that that is something they have to come and ask a favor for you. Yet in their asking a favor they say the house can't be fixed and they don't want to pay the costs and you should feel sorry for them. Let's understand what the real process is here. I think there are options and I think we have to understand that parking is a big issue and every time you turn a lot into a parking lot you've said that's it, it is asphalt and cars. There are neighbors impacted where you have more reflective heat. There are these issues. I will leave this up to everyone else and speak more later. I will have to tell you that I just came in from out of town and was not even planning on coming to this meeting. I turned on the television to see one of the rudest displays I've ever witnessed on a panel. I could not believe that Mr. Vaught and Mr. Shackelford were as rude to our chairman earlier. I didn't even know the specifics of that and I will be filing a complaint against them for the record. They interrupted you twice. They were attacking the chair. He would never have treated Bob Estes that way. Thank you Sir. Ostner: Ms. Davison, excuse me, if you could refrain from personal comments and personal attacks in the future please. Zissner: My name is Stephen Zissner. I represent the property owner to the south adjacent to this property. I hope this issue is a lot simpler than 54`h and Tackett. The University tore down a lot of homes to make the gravel lot across the street from the proposed site where Chi Omega wants to put a lot. The University did not consult the city staff on entry and exit for the parking lot, which is on side streets and the University stated that it will also become a multi -story parking lot in the future. We are opposed to more parking. It is more cars onto these side streets, not onto the collector streets or main streets. Yes, Chi Omega bought the property with these homes in their existing poor condition. They were aware of that. They bought it to put in a parking lot, not to improve the homes or replace them. We request you deny the request. Thank you. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 41 Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this issue from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I believe you had something you would like to add? Speed: Thank you. My name again, is Caroline Speed and I am chairman of the Housing Corporation. I think I can speak for the Board and all of us, in saying that we feel a tremendous responsibility to provide safe housing and safe parking for the girls in the house. We currently have 85 who live in the house and we have 28 spaces. I wasn't even aware until tonight that we are supposed to have 40. If you look at the plats and the lots and everything you will see that we are landlocked. We have been begging the Baptist for years to lease the parking that is right next door to us. We have gone knocking up and down on every house on Lindell can we lease your parking? Everybody said no. We don't know what else to do. When this piece of property came available we purchased it thinking that maybe this could be a possibility. We are not in the rental business. That's not our purpose. We are willing to accommodate you in any way. You tell us what kind of trees you want, what kind of sidewalks, what kind of fence, what kind of lighting. You tell what we need to do to get this done and we will do it. We are certainly willing to work with in anyone way we can. Please take our needs into consideration. We are trying to alleviate a parking problem. The cars aren't going to go away and the students aren't going to go away. We are willing to do this to help the University out and to help the City of Fayetteville out at our own expense. I'm looking up at your goals now and we would like to join you in improving the mobility and street quality and we would think we would be forming a small partnership with the University in helping with this problem. We appreciate your consideration and hope you will help us out with this. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have discussion on this issue? Staff, I'm not sure how really relevant this is but how was the 600' measured? Warrick: As a crow flies. Ostner: I took a strip of paper and walked it down and it is almost 900'. That concerned me because the Chi Omegas can't walk as a crow flies. They have to walk in the street or on the sidewalk and that is well beyond our threshold. Anthes: I appreciate Ms. Speed talking about she feels a tremendous amount of responsibility for the safety of the girls who live in this house and being able to accommodate their needs. I would also like to say that this board has a tremendous responsibility to look at the development pattern and land use in our city and do that in a way that we feel is sustainable in a long run in our neighborhoods. We had a lot of discussion during the Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 42 downtown master planning process with our consultant that we brought from out of town. While this neighborhood isn't directly inside that boundary it is similar in nature to some of the areas that we have downtown and I consider it part of downtown. We were chided by that group about the pattern of removing houses and inserting parking lots as being an unsustainable way to accommodate parking by eroding neighborhoods. I'm really struggling with this because if we are adopting those general plan principles in downtown and then allow projects like this to happen very close to it that is in conflict. Also, this is something that I've been trying to talk to University Administration about. I have also asked the aldermen that represent the constituents in that neighborhood to talk to me about that because there needs to be some sort of cooperative planning process that allows for everybody's needs to be heard and planned for in that neighborhood. There is not a cohesive effort happening there. I look at this growth boundary. It was established and adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1998. I know that that has been under some discussion since then although this is the regulating document. I also happen to know that the University is looking at studying transportation systems within the campus and particularly within this part of campus because they understand that there is a big problem with parking and moving pedestrians and keeping people safe in that area. I guess what I have to say is that just because I feel like I have to support staff's recommendation in this particular instance because of the overall pattern and detriment to the neighborhood. Yet, I do feel really positive that there is going to be a lot of attention paid to this neighborhood in the very near future and forums will be available so that these problems can be cooperatively solved with the neighbors, the sororities and the University. Thank you. Vaught: I would just like to follow that up with I know the University is doing several things in that area. The gravel lot for instance. They are not regulated by our guidelines and they would not have been able to do a lot of what they've done if they came before us. Just because the University has done something it is not something that I want to take into consideration for the adjoining neighborhood. We have a different set of standards and regulations to uphold and protect. I know there is a lot of on street parking in that area as well. I know that's what has been going on for years. It is difficult but it is there. Ostner: Other Commissioners? MOTION: Myres: I would like to move that we deny this request based on staff's recommendations. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 43 Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Shackelford: I concur with what Commissioner Anthes and what Commissioner Vaught said adding one small caveat. Obviously, this is an area that is proposed to be in the growth area of the University of Arkansas. While I do agree that we are challenged or bound by our Commission to uphold the city standards and the city ordinances, you do need to be aware that there could be a lot of changes outside of that within this neighborhood. I would encourage the folks that are living in this neighborhood to get involved in that Planning process. Just because we are potentially making a decision now there are a lot of other aspects in play that could have an affect. That is really the only thing that makes this an intriguing situation. This could very well be a situation that in five years from now is very compatible with this area depending on what the University does and what other properties become available in this area. I am going to vote with the motion in this case because I feel that that is what I'm challenged to do by the folks that put me in this roll. I think the neighbors need to think about the future of your neighborhood and work with the University of Arkansas so it is something that you want to be a part of. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny CUP 04-1109 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 44 LSD 04-1078: Large Scale Development (BOTANICAL GARDENS OF THE OZARKS, 99): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at HWY 265, W OF HEARTHSTONE INTERSECTION AND N OF ZION ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 6.44 acres. The request is to approve the development of Phase IA of the Botanical Gardens with office and meeting room facilities, garden areas, and a parking facility with 28 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is Large Scale Development for the Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks. It is LSD 04-1078. Ms. Morgan has our staff report. Morgan: The applicant requests approval to construct Phase lA of Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks. This site is approximately 6.44 acres of an overall more than 90 acre tract of property bordering Lake Fayetteville. The project site is located west of Crossover and Stonewood Subdivision. It is zoned R -A. The proposal consists of the construction of approximately nine gardens with varying flora, accessory structures, including a studio and workshops, a greenhouse as well as a parking lot with 28 spaces provided as well as associated bike racks. Surrounding uses and zoning include R -A to the north, south and west as well as R -O and RSF-4 to the east. Land use in these areas consist of Lake Fayetteville to the north and northwest as well as single family residential and large, vacant tracts of land. Right of way to be dedicated with this project is an additional right of way along Hwy. 265 for a total of 55' from centerline to be done through warranty deed. At Subdivision Committee there was discussion regarding streetlights, sidewalks and the fence along the property boundaries. Staff has met with the applicant regarding these three issues and presented solutions to you in the staff report details. No mitigation is required for tree preservation. Staff recommends approval of LSD 04- 1078 with 11 conditions. Three of which require Planning Commission determinations. First, Planning Commission determination of installation of streetlights per city standards. Staff recommends the installation of one street light at the intersection of the drive aisle and Hwy. 265 and the installation of conduit and electrical wiring for the installation of two additional streetlights with maximum 300' intervals along the project site boundaries. Second, Planning Commission determination of sidewalk construction along the project site boundary. Staff recommends the construction of a 6' sidewalk through the driveway located at the Master Street Plan right of way and installation of a temporary sidewalk for the length of the project site boundary. Also, payment of fees in lieu of the permanent sidewalk less the cost of installation of the temporary sidewalk. Third, Planning Commission determination of a removal of barbed wire fencing located parallel to Hwy. 265. Staff recommends the removal of the fence prior to submittal of any new development proposal of this development. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 45 Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Bunch: My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks. I'm here tonight representing the Botanical Garden Society of the Ozarks. Basically, they are proposing Phase IA, which is a very small piece of their Phase 1 by the Master Plan that everybody has seen and approved. We have the timber structure on the site. I'm hoping everybody has seen the site and is familiar with it. We are proposing to construct a parking lot and some gardens to start promoting the garden and get the major fund raising phase underway. The gardens are very excited about it and we are coming through the large scale process so that they can start on their parking lot facility. The conditions that were enumerated by Suzanne have been agreed upon. The fence, as the Subdivision Committee is aware, was under some consideration as well as the sidewalk and the streetlight location but we have come to an agreement through some meetings last week. We are here for questions and I know that there are members of the Botanical Gardens here that may want to speak to this issue more if you have questions. We are basically requesting approval of this phase of Botanical Gardens. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public 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: Anthes: I would like to move for approval for LSD 04-1078 subject to the eleven conditions of approval and in support of staff comments on items one, two and three. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Myres: I'm happy to say I can enthusiastically support this motion. Clark: Do you have the overall master plan? Warrick: It is on a board over here, Suzanne can present that. Clark: Mandy, can you show us where we are in this? Bunch: It is this small little piece up here on the highway. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 46 Clark: This is a wonderful kickoff to a wonderful full scale development. I think staff is commended for working with Mandy to hammer out these small problems. I'm enthusiastic about it. Ostner: Build it and they will come. Start it and it will get the ball rolling. Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1078 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 47 R-PZD 04-1075: Planned Zoning District (CAMBRIDGE CROSSING, 175): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at LOT 6C, VANTAGE SQUARE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 11.525 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property with 57 dwelling units proposed. Ostner: The next item is a Planned Zoning District for Cambridge Crossing, R- PZD 04-1075. I believe Jeremy has the staff report. Pate: The subject property is located off of Joyce Blvd. near the new Regions Bank which was just recently completed. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 11.52 acres. The request tonight is to approve a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District. The proposed use of the site is for a townhouse style development consisting of 57 attached residential units and one lot reserved for community greenspace. A future phase identified on the western portion of the subject tract to be reviewed as a planned zoning district at the time of that development. The site is currently vacant. The proposed land uses on this particular site are listed there in your staff report on page 7. 1, Use Unit 1 which is city wide uses by right. Use Unit 10, three family dwellings. In the townhouse development no more than three attached units. Use Unit 26, multi -family dwellings, townhouse development more than three attached units. The applicant and developer have limited four as the maximum number of attached units for this particular Residential Planned Zoning District. The total proposed dwelling units on the entire 11.5 acres is 57 yielding a density of 4.9 dwelling units per acre. As you can see, there is a Phase II. What I did is I calculated the eight acres that is currently being developed so the more actual real density of this project currently is 7.1 dwelling units per acre. The developer does propose a subdivision with attached units with all access and services to be from rear alleys and dwelling units to be built to a build to line which means the most forward point of each structure must be built to that line. Lot sizes and setbacks are proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts. Therefore, the request for a Planned Zoning District is appropriate in this case. For surrounding land use and zoning, as I mentioned, the Regions Bank is located sort of to the west and north. Butterfield Trail Village is immediately to the east. Mudd Creek and the trail system is located directly to the south and the Community Bank with one vacant commercial lot is adjacent to the north along Joyce Blvd. This particular proposal accesses from Vantage Drive, which is a brand new street just recently constructed. There is a future traffic signal planned at that location. A connection south in the future is also planned. It is on the Master Street Plan and it will require a bridge over Mudd Creek to go any further. The developers in the area are being assessed a proportionate Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 48 share to construct and staff has made a recommendation that this developer be assessed a proportionate share for that bridge as well as the traffic signal. Interior to the project public streets are being provided within a 40' right of way. A 24' cross section is proposed with sidewalks on both sides. All lots are prohibited from having street front facing garages. As I mentioned, access is all from rear alleys. Those alleys will be private to be maintained by the H.O.A. The Parks and Recreation Board did meet on this project and is recommending money in lieu of land. They obviously have land directly to the south. The city maintains the trail system there and constructed the trail system. They are recommending accepting money in lieu in this location in the amount of $32,190. A draft of protective covenants has also been submitted. I will mention at Subdivision Committee the majority of the discussion centered around what is on page 7.3 under the background section. The Subdivision Committee spoke a lot about the covenants, what items were not identified. I will mention a couple of those for you. The revised covenants have been submitted including architectural treatment of proposed residential structures. The allowed use units that I mentioned. The street tree commitment which is also included as a conceptual street tree plan on the grading plan. As well as language in the covenants that address that 1 per 30 linear feet. The mail kiosks have been identified. On street parking is allowed, not permanent property. Those are specific items that the Subdivision had questions about. Additionally, there has been some concern about a reservation for community open space within this development. The applicant at this time has recommending Lot 1 and Lot 11 for that open space and pedestrian connection to Mudd Creek Trail. Additionally, they've also provided sidewalk at the mid -block alley connection which is not in the Subdivision Committee packets the last time. Also, the developer has acknowledged that a vegetative enhancement buffer between the alley and the trail is necessary. A couple of the many findings that staff is charged to make with this and the Planning Commission is charged to make with this request. I would direct your attention to page 7.14. Staff does feel that this property is appropriate for the Residential Planned Zoning District that is before us. It is identified as residential on the Future Land Use Plan. Proposed density and land use is compatible with adjacent development and will not negatively impact surrounding developments. Also, this proposal does meet several residential guiding policies in the General Plan 2020. It is utilizing principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable and accessible neighborhoods. Traffic is minimized on minor residential streets through this development. Additionally, it is also sited with access to roadways, alternative transportation modes and community amenities. Based on those findings of staff as well as public service providers, staff is recommending approval of this Planned Zoning District for the proposed Preliminary Plat as well as recommending this PZD be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 49 approval of the rezoning request. There are 19 conditions. We have received signed conditions of approval. I believe most of those I have discussed. There are a couple of Planning Commission specific determinations that do need to be made tonight. Item number three and five are directly related to those offsite assessments in the amount of $46,167 for the assessment for a future bridge crossing. As well as $5,544 for an assessment for a future traffic signal at Vantage and Joyce. Item number five, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for minimum street standards for radius of a curve. That is obviously the tightest curve in the development at the southwest of the site. Item number six, Planning Commission determination of the community open space lot location. As I mentioned, the developer identified lot 1 or lot 11 as options for that. The designated lot shall be labeled as such on the plat. Staff has actually made a recommendation on which lot we would prefer to see. That is lot 1. It is the least desirable for a dwelling unit. It also allows for more usable space, it is a larger space than the other lots and additionally, the mid -block connection has been made with the sidewalk. If you have any questions I will be glad to answer them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. Jeremy did an adequate job in presenting the issues and we are in agreement with the 19 conditions of approval. I would like to point out however, that items three and four, the assessments made for the streetlights, we are not opposed to. We would like to stipulate that a time be placed on that. The $46,000 for the bridge improvement we are still working with and question Engineering staff as to the actual determination of that use. We would also like to see some time limit placed on that, three to five years, if that money is placed in escrow and not used for the construction of that bridge that it be returned to the owner. The other thing that I would like to point out and have on record is that there is a detention study underway. We have made contact with staff. We are talking to the Engineering Department on a methodology and usable data in which to return the designated detention areas into open space, which are all recommendations that we have discussed at Subdivision level. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. I appreciate your approval of this project. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Jefcoat. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this project? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments or questions. Anthes: I just had a couple of questions on the protective covenants on item number four, would you be willing to insert some sort of support for the guest parking on the street as a strategy in the covenants so that the tenants understand that? Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 50 Jefcoat: Certainly. Anthes: There was one other thing. On item 21 there is a conflict between this and the items of approval. It says that each individual lot owner shall construct a 4' sidewalk 4' from the back of the curb but I believe that has been changed to 5'. Jefcoat: Yes it has. Anthes: Sidewalks shall be of a light broom finish with expansion joints 8' on center and I believe that our requirement is that those would be constructed through the drives. Jefcoat: Yes, we do show those as constructed through the drives. Anthes: If you would just make those amendments so that is clear I would appreciate it. Ostner: This community open space that we are looking at lot 1 right now, what is that going to look like? How is it going to work? It is maintained by the H.O.A., is it accessible to the public? Jefcoat It belongs to the H.O.A. and the use of that would be left up to the determination of the H.O.A. Ostner: I started thinking about it and the verbiage is very clear that the P.O.A. is responsible for the upkeep. I am reading 27 of your protective covenants. "Responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and repair... and any common areas or greenspaces." For me, I don't think I picture a little sign for Property Owners only please. I know we are not calling this a park. I wanted to know. It sounds like a private park. Jefcoat: You say park but it is common open area to be used by the P.O.A. Ostner: It is foreseeable that says only P.O.A. please? You are not ruling that out? Jefcoat: No, we are not ruling that out. I am just questioning as to why the need for a sign. Ostner: I don't think there should be a sign at all. I was thinking back to Subdivision. Jefcoat: There would be no sign. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 51 Ostner: I would hope not. Our discussion at Subdivision, we talked about where this should be and how it should operate and I wondered if it was open to the public. Jefcoat: There will be no sign that says that this is a private open area. Ostner: Thank you. That's important. On number fourteen you are talking about visual screening. "Everything... garbage cans, equipment shall be screened by fencing." I wondered if you were interested in offering another form of screening that your C.C.A.C. could approve. I hate to see fences mandated if two neighbors want to grow a thicket between them. Is that something you all have considered? Jefcoat: That would be a consideration of the P.O.A. They would have that option. Ostner: The way this reads it doesn't really have the option. It just says fencing is the only screening. Jefcoat: Let's say that they would be screened, it would leave that up to the option of the P.O.A. We will change that wording. Ostner: On number four talking about the garages, a minimum of two cars with dimensions of not less than 22'x22'. You don't really refer to the dimensions of the driveways approaching those driveways, are you all interested in dictating how large or small? A lot of people would build a 22' wide driveway. Seeing as these are 35' lots. Warrick: The city has a maximum driveway width for a residence of 24'. Ostner: Their sketches have called out a 16' driveway which I think would be better. Those are my only questions. Vaught: Is there a reason, I know there has been some issue raised at Subdivision and I believe we talked about it at agenda session about the greenspace. When you take out Phase II the density per acre goes way up. Is there a reason why we are not seeing it all together so we could get a better picture of the greenspace for the overall development? It looks like you guys are going significantly less dense in Phase II of this PZD is that correct? Jefcoat: Phase II will be a later development. Vaught: Significantly less dense? Jefcoat: That has not been determined at this point. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 52 Vaught: In our numbers it is showing that. That's why I was just trying to understand. Jefcoat: I think Jeremy addressed that with what the actual density is for the acreage that is being developed. Warrick: The numbers that are in there indicate Phase II included with zero units on it or Phase II removed. Vaught: So really our density is 7.1 units per acre. Warrick: That is the density on the project site for this space. Ostner: Do you all have approximate prices for these individual units? Jefcoat: Not at this time. Clark: The conditions of use that you all have hammered out are admirable. I thank you for those. I have a question about number six, the community open space, are you leaning towards lot 1 or lot 11? I know staff is recommending 1 but I'm not sure that it is in our rights to dictate. Warrick: Staff has made a recommendation. The applicant has agreed to the conditions of approval. I don't know if they have any further comments on that but we expect that their agreement concurs with our recommendation. Jefcoat: It does. Clark: Ok. Ostner: If it is approved as worded here it might be built either or and that would meet the condition of approval. Clark: Is the developer leaning one way or the other? I really like Lot 1. Jefcoat: We also liked Lot 1 at Subdivision Committee but we were dictated that 11 should be included so we therefore included 11 as a consideration. Clark: If it is an or, I'm agreeing to the or here, 1 is acceptable to you all? Jefcoat Yes. Clark: That would have to be a motion is that correct? Ostner: Yes. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 53 Vaught: The study about the detention is still under consideration, is that correct? Jefcoat: Yes. We have met with city staff and talked with the Engineering Department as to what available data they may have, where available data can be obtained and how they would like that data presented. We are in those stages of obtaining that data through the Engineering Department or through other sources and a methodology is being determined at this point. Vaught: If it is found detention is not needed, that won't be parkland dedicated, that will be private open space and it won't affect the parkland dedication correct? Jefcoat: That is correct. That will then be open space. Ostner: You eluded to an issue with conditions three and four, the traffic signal and the bridge crossing. Jefcoat: We are willing to be assessed for those improvements. The dollar amount for the bridge is somewhat in question. We have asked the Engineering Department to take a second look at that so we can get in agreement with the exact dollar on that. The traffic light and the bridge we place that money in escrow, we would like to see a time period placed on those funds. Warrick: By ordinance there is a time period established. The final numbers will again be reviewed and confirmed with the Final Plat for this project which you will see at a later date after infrastructure has been installed. With regard to the time frame, the ordinance calls for when an offsite improvement is not constructed within five years from the date of payment into the escrow account the Planning Commission may hold a public hearing. Generally that is at the request of the developer who has paid into that escrow account. All affected property owners would be notified and the Planning Commission then has three options as to how to determine what happens with that funding. Either the improvement would be found to be necessary that there might be a timely project coming down the pike that the money would be applied to or the improvement would be deemed unnecessary and the monies would then be either returned to the developer or to those person affected. The last option would be with written consent of the majority of property owners who have purchased lots in the subdivision may petition the Planning Commission to direct that money towards other improvements. You have got some options and those would be presented to you at the time of the applicant requesting a hearing at five years. Jefcoat: We just wanted to make that point to make sure that it is on record. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 54 Williams: I want to be clear though that the monies are refunded to the then property owner so it would not necessarily be to the developer who paid the money unless you still own all the lots. That was a hotly contested issue a couple of years ago and the Planning Commission decided to refund the money to the current owners and then the ordinance was changed to make that true in every case. Ostner: Do other commissioners have an issue with number five, the radius of the curve standards? Does anyone have a problem with number six? Clark: I would like to see a determination made. I would like to see lot 1 as a designated greenspace. Quite honestly it seems to be a more functional choice. I do have another question. At one point we talked about Lot 58 being a dedicated guest parking and then you said it would go to greenspace. Jefcoat: We were just talking about at that point it would be an option for that lot. Clark: Ok, so it is going to be a sellable lot? Jefcoat: Yes. Clark: I would definitely like to see that condition mandate Lot 1. Ostner: Is that a motion? Clark: So moved. Ostner: I will second that. I think it is good sense. It is the least developable and it makes good sense. Shackelford: Is the motion to change the condition of approval or is the motion for approval with that condition being changed? Clark: My motion would be to change that condition of approval to read "The developer has identified Lot 1 as open space." Then we will vote on the entire thing. Vaught: I guess as a question for Mr. Williams, is that the proper way to do it? Normally we go ahead and make a condition of approval and then change it. Williams: It is probably better to make the changes before you make the final adoption? Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 55 Shackelford: I'm just sad to learn we've been doing it wrong for the five years that I've been here. Jefcoat: I would like to point out one additional thing. It was discussed in Subdivision and it was our understanding that should the detention facilities become usable open space then Lot 1 would also be gained back at that point. We have a considerable amount of open space and if those detention facilities become open space then those would satisfy the need for open space in three different locations instead of just one. Ostner: I understand that. Clark: That is not what I understood at Subdivision. I understood it was in addition to. Jefcoat: No. The detention facilities are greenspace and the question came up as to the need for open space. If those green areas that are now detention facilities no longer exist as detention they would be our open space. We have three locations for those instead of just one. Warrick: I think that that throws a few unknowns into the pile here. The study will be completed prior to Final Plat because of course that affects the infrastructure requirements. I think it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a determination as to where they feel the community open space is appropriate based on the Preliminary Plat that you are looking at now. Understanding that based on this detention study there could be some changed conditions with regard to three other areas identified on the plat currently as detention. I'm not saying that Lot I should not be open space, because staff is obviously recommending that. We feel that it is appropriate. If there are changed conditions at the time of Final Plat I think it would be appropriate then to reevaluate that. We don't know that conditions are going to change. Clark: What you are saying if we approve this amendment Lot 1 is the designated greenspace. But if the detention ponds are proven not necessary you could come back and petition us to reconsider what to do with those? Warrick: Yes. Clark: I'm not agreeing that if the detention ponds are not needed that you get Lot 1 back. At least me, we will discuss it as a whole panel but if you are going away thinking that that is not my impression. Lot 1 is my preference. If it changes we'll see it. Ostner: Is there anymore discussion on this proposed amendment to Condition 6? Could you call the roll please? Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 56 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the amendment to the condition of approval was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Anthes: Just to follow up a little bit on that last bit of discussion. Personally I would probably be looking for Lot 1 and Lot 58 to be greenspace if the detention was not able to be greenspace. Jefcoat: Detention areas will always be greenspace. Anthes: Right but not usable by the community. Jefcoat: We more than adequately meet the greenspace requirements. Anthes: Yes but this is a PZD and we are able to look at a goal of the Planned Zoning District is to promote community and if this board feels that that open space is required we can ask you to do that. That said, I will move for approval of R-PZD 04-1075 with a positive recommendation to the City Council and subject to all 19 conditions of approval as amended. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: I have a motion by Ms. Anthes and a second by Mr. Shackelford. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 04-1075 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Graves: I have a point of information because I'm requesting information. I understand on conditions three and four that that is going to come back up at Final Plat approval. Number five is a request for a determination on a waiver and I just want to make sure that we approved that waiver is what we just did because I don't know that we ever said that. Ostner: We didn't discuss it. I asked for comments and basically got none. Williams: Even though it is out of order why don't you make a specific finding on that waiver. MOTION: Graves: I would move that we approve the recommendation of staff with respect to the waiver and that we waive the minimum street standards for the radius of the curve. Shackelford: I will second. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 57 Ostner: Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the waiver to waive the minimum street standards for the radius of the curve was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Jefcoat: I just want to make one additional comment. We are very excited about this project and enthusiastic over what the results will be and we appreciate your cooperation and participation in this process. Thank you. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 58 ANX 04-1071: Annexation (JONES, 569): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 1341 ROBERTS ROAD AND EAST OF STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PHASE I. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1072: Rezoning (JONES, 569): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 1341 ROBERTS ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R- A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. ANX 04-1073: Annexation (AMES TRUST, 569): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at W SIDE OF ROBERTS RD, S OF HWY 16E. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1074: Rezoning (AMES TRUST, 569): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at W SIDE OF ROBERTS RD, S OF HWY 16E. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next items on our agenda have been tabled by the applicant. However, they are on our agenda. If people from the public are here to speak on these issues we will get to that. The next item is ANX 04-1071 for Jones. We have no staff report but if anyone from the public would like to speak. Davison: Hi, again, Sharon Davison. This is a really important issue to me. Thank you and to our city and we all know that because we do have our taskforce in tact on Annexation/Rezoning. It is a tricky subject, we know about that. I do believe that it is appropriate at times. I don't agree with Mayor Coody that it is appropriate all the time as he said. The issue for me is not annexation, I have an issue with rezoning. The last time I had asked a question for staff to address, even though to me it seemed self explanatory that these are separate issues, meaning we address annexation, that can be approved if it is approved you go to rezoning. I am not quite sure why we seem to feel if we annex that we are immediately obligated to accommodate developers to rezone. That is what I'm asking you here tonight. First I would like to ask that question Mr. Chairman as to we do not have to automatically grant rezonings when we give an annexation, correct? Ostner: That is correct. However, this is where you simply speak your peace and we try not to dialogue. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 59 Davison: I understand that but I had asked that question last time and I didn't get a clear answer. That is the only reason why I was asking it. I was not supposed to speak to staff so that was the way I presented it was I didn't get that clear answer even though to me it seems that way. That's what I'm asking here is that you all consider under the current situation, again, we see how much is coming through even when at one time we had a moratorium, we had a sewer issue, etc. That gets back to sewer. Our plant is not even planned to be online and as far as I know it is not ahead of schedule. Usually on a sewer plant if we are lucky it will come in on schedule. On schedule would be Fall, 2006. I do not think that it is at all unreasonable and you have been here long enough to see how many are coming at you for annexation right up with zoning, rezoning generally to the maximum of four units per acre. I think what I'm asking you to do is to consider our infrastructure needs from streets to sewers to everything and if you feel it is appropriate to annex, annex. I think it is fair if it is a choice and request by a citizen for annexation to maybe as you do sort of discuss your feelings to say annexation is good but we will postpone most rezonings until our sewer is online. That is not unreasonable. We are really about to hit max load point. What has been approved in the last six months, much less the past year, we are not seeing that impact yet. We are only seeing impact from the small scale things that have come up the past couple of years. It is so prudent and it is so reasonable I just can't get it why when we have this issue with roads, with infrastructure, we have a taskforce, we are trying to understand and get a handle on it. Why can't we wait? I would appreciate it if you as a board would come up with maybe, especially these, again, look at the total units requested. That you grant whatever annexations as each comes to you, you feet appropriate but could you not maybe discuss with yourselves, if not tonight, the reasonableness of not granting these rezonings and allowing this development until we do see closer to Fall, 2006. That is 2 Yz years away at the earliest that we will get our additional sewer capacity. This is a big deal and I don't see why it is unreasonable to say we will wait on major rezonings until our sewer is online but if you want to be annexed now and know that it is coming and make your plans while we make our plans to catch up, that would be appropriate. Thank you and goodnight. Ostner: Are there any other comments from the public on this issue? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Warrick: In response to that and to elaborate a little bit on annexation. Staff is guided by our General Plan, which is a policy that was adopted by our City Council and approved by our Planning Commission. Chapter 11 of that General Plan is annexation. Chapter 11.6 are the guiding policies with regard to annexation. One of those under administration states "designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 60 process." As questions arise as to why we are looking at rezonings at the same time that we are looking at annexations, it is because we are directed to do so through this policy. This is the same policy that our annexation strategy taskforce is looking at and will be making some recommendations with regard to. Right now this is our directive and that is why we recommend that the applicant requests their rezoning for a district that they feel is appropriate that we will evaluate and make a recommendation on with regard to appropriateness at the time that annexation is requested. Ostner: Thank you. I am sorry that our speaker left. I think that's what she wanted to hear. We need to go ahead and individually table these items to stay legal. They have been voluntarily tabled by the applicant but it would be best to move in that manner. MOTION: Anthes: I move to table ANX 04-1071 at the request of the applicant. Shackelford: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 04-1071 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1072 MOTION: Anthes: I move to table item RZN 04-1072 at the request of the applicant. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? I agree with Ms. Davison that there is a big difference between annexation and rezoning. I've often wondered this. Why can't we annex open area? It seems counterintuitive to only annex areas we want to develop. If the city is going to master plan or plan in advance, it seems an important tool would be to have space that is not zoned for development but is on the maps to be a certain way. That is sort of like the downtown master plan sort of goes in that direction. To only annex areas that applicants want to develop immediately is difficult for us. It makes things very difficult. This is a rezoning and that is my comment. I wish we had more tools to work with on the annexation and rezoning issues. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 61 Warrick: You have directed your statement to the issue of the reason we have an annexation strategy taskforce. Those are some of the debates that I'm sure they are having in their meetings. We do have a master plan that encompasses all of our planning area. That is a tool that we can use when we are looking at these annexations that we currently are experiencing that seem piecemeal. There is a plan that oversees everything. Ostner: It just seems though that they only come to us when the market or the applicant brings them a piece here and a piece there. Things change over time and we lose sight quickly of our overall goal. I'm encouraging the taskforce to come up with more tools. Is there any further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-1072 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 62 Ostner: The next item is ANX 04-1073 MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we table ANX 04-1073 at the applicant's request. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 04-1073 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission June 14, 2004 Page 63 Ostner: The last item is RZN 04-1074 for Ames Trust. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on the applicant's request I will make a motion that we table RZN 04-1074. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-1074 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Announcements Meeting Adjourned: