Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 28, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSD 04-1094: (JOYCE BLVD. MED. & PROF. CENTER) Approved Consent CCP 04-1051: (TWIN SPRINGS ESTATES, 357) Approved Consent ADM 04-1122: (SALEM VILLAGE PUD) Approved Consent RZN 04-12.00: (LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES, pp 169) Forwarded to City Council Page 6 PPL 04-1081: (SUNDANCE MEADOWS, 436) Forwarded to City Council Page 23 ANX 04-04.00: (TIPTON/SLOAN, pp 475) Forwarded to City Council Page 31 RZN 04-10.00: (TIPTON/SLOAN, pp 475) Forwarded to City Council Page 31 ANX 04-01.00: (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) Forwarded to City Council Page 48 RZN 04-11.00: (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) Tabled Page 48 ANX 04-02.00:(McBRYDE/SLOAN, pp 477) Forwarded to City Council Page 66 RZN 04-09.00: (MCBRYDE/SLOAN, pp 477) Tabled Page 66 ANX 04-1083: (MARINONI, 478) Forwarded to City Council Page 71 RZN 04-1084: (MARINONI, 478) Forwarded to City Council Page 71 CUP 04-1095: (SUNBRIDGE LEARNING CENTER, 289) Approved Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 2 Page 79 CUP 04-1097: (CRUMBY CHILDCARE, 408) Page 81 RZN 04-1111: (THE MILL DISTRICT, 523) Page 83 RZN 04-1104: (GOFF, 607) Page 86 RZN 04-1099: (BRISIEL, 363) Page 91 RZN 04-1102: (BRADBERRY/WOOLVERTON, 523) Page 94 ANX 04-1090: (HAYS FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 475) Page 97 Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council RZN 04-1091: (HAYS FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, LLLP, 475)Forwarded to City Council Page 97 RZN 04-1103: (COLLINS, 404) Page 101 ANX 04-1100: (HARPER/BRANDON, 61) Page 113 RZN 04-1101: (HARPER/BRANDON, 61) Page 113 Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught James Graves Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 4 Ostner: Welcome to the June 28, 2004 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the June 18`h meeting. Do I have a motion? Clark: So moved. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there any discussion? Shackelford: Are we voting on the minutes and the consent agenda separately? Ostner: Separately. This is for the approval of minutes. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. LSD 04-1094: Large Scale Development (JOYCE BLVD. MED. & PROF. CENTER): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at N OF JOYCE BLVD, W OF SUNBEST AVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.93 acres. The request is to approve the development of a professional office complex with five structures totaling approximately 39,180 s.f. and 169 parking spaces proposed. CCP 04-1051: Concurrent Plat (TWIN SPRINGS ESTATES, 357): Submitted by DON HILLIS for property located at 0.8 MILES SOUTH OF WHEELER RD, WEST OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to approve the development of Phase I of a residential subdivision with 5 single family lots proposed. ADM 04-1122: Administrative Item (SALEM VILLAGE PUD): Submitted by HANK BROYLES for property located inside the subdivision. The request is to amend the approved PUD to allow the construction of a swimming pool and clubhouse. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. There are three items on there. I will read those items. The first is LSD 04-1094 for Joyce Blvd. Medical and Professional Center. The second item is a Concurrent Plat for Twin Springs Estates. The third item is ADM 04-1122 for Salem Village P.U.D. If anyone in the audience or on the Commission would Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page S like to hear some of these items we can remove them from the consent agenda. Otherwise, we will have a motion for approval. Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 6 RZN 04-12.00: Rezoning (LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES, pp 169) was submitted by R. Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties, LLC. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 39.86 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is a Rezoning for Leigh Taylor Properties. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 39.82 acres of vacant property. It is located north of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell Road and east of Hwy. 112. The property includes a 29.86 acre tract requested for annexation and an additional 10 acre tract zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2004 with an accompanying annexation request for the 29.86 acres. The Planning Commission did approve this request and it has been tabled at this time at the City Council level. The applicant has held neighborhood meetings and has submitted a Bill of Assurance that limits development on this property to a maximum density of 99 lots or approximately 2.48 units per acre. The applicant has also submitted a traffic analysis conducted by Peters & Associates Engineers and the engineer is present. The applicant's intent is to develop a single family residential subdivision with the zoning of RSF-4. The General Plan 2020 does designate the northern 29.86 acres for residential and the remaining 10 acres is designated for mixed use. Staff is recommending approval for this rezoning request based on findings within the staff report. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Branson: My son in law is Chad White, I'm Cleve Branson. We welcome the opportunity to address the Planning Commission and the Washington County residents and the City of Fayetteville residents. We are pleased to report that since our last meeting with the local concerned citizens about a month ago that we had an open dialogue and a lot of conversation and we both expressed our concerns. We did have some differences. We tried to address those on both sides of the fence. On many of the issues we were able to work some items out but I would be remiss without saying that we did end up with a few differences. Not everybody is entirely on the same page as Chad and I would expect. The main issues being traffic and density and we have brought some specialists tonight to hopefully show that there shouldn't be quite as much concern as initially thought at our last meeting two months ago here. One of the main issues I think was drainage and certainly to those Fayetteville citizens to the south that is an issue. Art and the Planning Department certainly will address that if we are so approved with appropriate catch basins. Secondly, as far as the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 7 density goes the RSF-4 allows up to 160 homes in that 40 acre subdivision and we have included in our Bill of Assurance, which all of you have a copy of and hopefully the local residents have that also. We want to assure them that we will not build over 99 homes if so approved by the Planning Commission. We think the size of the lots that we are proposing is comparable to the neighborhood. Certainly some of the lots to the north and south are larger but the majority of that reason is because they are on septic systems and not city sewer like we are going to bring to that particular subdivision. Chad has some issues that he wants to talk about like square footage. White: In the Bill of Assurance also, we have stated that there would be a 2,400 sq.ft. minimum size on this particular subdivision. In looking at the homes in the Forest Hills subdivision to the north through the county records is about 400 sq.ft. larger than the average in that particular subdivision. We are actually staying in consistence with what is to our south. In the Lee subdivision those are a little larger in average with what we are trying to do. These are a little larger than what is to our north in the Forest Hills subdivision. We are staying consistent in that size and also in lot sizes and that sort of thing. I know that the subdivision to our north has around 75% of the lots as you will see on the plat that you have there of the Forest Hills subdivision, about 75% of those lots are '/2 acre and under. We are staying real consistent with the size of lots as well with what we are proposing. Some of the citizens there had mentioned a buffer zone between our northern border and their southern border and also connectivity was an issue to their subdivision. They would not like that much traffic going into their subdivision. Of course we will ask that the city take that into consideration not to have connectivity or some other alternative. We are doing all that we can to help them out in that area. Our hands are tied due to what the city wants in that area. At this time I would like to ask Art Scott, the engineer on the project, to speak on the possible layout of the subdivision as far as drainage and buffer zone and that sort of thing. Scott: Hello. My name is Art Scott. I would like to talk about a couple of the issues that came up in the neighborhood meeting. In talking with some of the neighbors on the south border of the subdivision to our north they all had a concern with I have no neighbors now and now I'm going to have three neighbors on my direct lot. What we tried to do is make the larger lots and some tree preservation area and greenspace area on that north side. Probably the western half of the north side is going to be all tree preservation area so the trees will be left in place there. On the east side the developers have agreed to add additional setback buffer area, no build area if you will, to buffer putting any out buildings or any homes next to the property lines next to the neighbors to the north. That subdivision at our north has five lots along that border. We propose eight so you can see Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 8 it is not a huge difference because of that tree preservation and greenspace area. One thing that Chad touched on was connectivity to the north. That was a big issue with everybody that we talked to in the neighborhood. They actually didn't want connectivity. We agreed with our two very good access points on Hwy. 112 that we didn't need to connect to the north. We are going to propose to connect to the east where there are no homes along that border right now. If staff approves we will go with no connectivity to the north. We could put a stub out street with some type of barricade, maybe a break away emergency access for that subdivision since it only has one access for the 40 acres. I would think that might be something that would be useful in case of emergency at that other entrance of their subdivision. We would agree to do something like that. The one thing I want to talk about on density and traffic, before I turn it over to Ernie Peters our Traffic Engineer, is that the ten acres on the south that is already in the city is presently zoned R -A but is planned on the 2020 Plan to be mixed use. That includes anything from small convenience store up to a 40,000 sq.ft. grocery store or 350 apartment units could be into that mixed use type plan. That would be considerably more traffic than we are generating with a subdivision of this size. At this time I would like to turn it over to Ernie Peters our Traffic Engineer. Peters: Mr. Chairman, my name is Ernie Peters. I'm with Peters & Associates Engineers. We have done a traffic analysis related to this development. This development consists of 99 lots. It is a residential development, which is the lowest trip generating land use that is typically found in urban settings. We found as part of our analysis, which we have summarized in a letter dated June 23`d, which I believe you have in your packet, the list of our findings. Presently Hwy. 112 in this vicinity carries anywhere in the neighborhood of 4,300 vehicles per day as a two way volume. That is in the area just east of the curve or the intersection of Howard Nickell. North of that location around the curve the volume drops to about 3,600 vehicles per day, that is a two way volume. Hwy. 112 is currently just a two lane roadway in this area. The volumes that I cited are well below the capacity of a two lane roadway of this type. Capacity is simply not an issue. Hwy. 112 being just a two lane roadway, could easily carry 10,000 vehicles per day. The site is estimated to generate approximately 950 vehicle trips per day. This is based on standard trip generation values by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These are broken out to be about 74 vehicle trips, either leaving or entering the subdivision daring the a.m. peak hour and approximately 100 during the p.m. peak hour. The two access points or street intersections proposed as part of this development are configured at appropriate locations. They are well back away from the curve of the road. There are some horizontal/vertical curve situations there where sight distance is not good at all locations along the boundary of Hwy. 112. At the two locations where the street intersections are proposed the sight distance is in excess of 500' and 450' is the minimum that would be Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 9 necessary to have safe intersection sight distance for this location. Traffic accident history has been examined for the accidents of record for the years 2000 through 2002. Accident numbers have decreased during that time period ranging from 16 accidents during the year 2000 and down to only four accidents in this vicinity in 2002. There have been no fatalities but there have been some injury accidents in the vicinity. Art mentioned that 10 acres of this 40 acre tract is currently on the 2020 Plan as mixed use development. That could accommodate a variety of uses but just to put the trip generation of this residential development into proper perspective, that ten acres under a mix of office and retail type uses could easily generate 5,000 vehicles per day compared to the less than 1,000 that we would expect this residential type use to generate. If there are any questions I would be glad to try to answer them. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Peters. At this point we will take public comment. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Futrall: Hello, I'm Charlie Futrall, I live at 3804 Woodside Drive. I am in the development directly to the north and I border on the northern border of the Taylor property as it approaches. I am in the northeast corner. When we were here last time, I say we as a group. There are a number of neighbors here now not just from our neighborhood but also from the houses to the south there. Most of us had not had any knowledge other than seeing the red sign out front and then coming up and getting some initial idea of this plat that had 108 houses on 108 lots and we were quite shocked not knowing what was going in. The last time we were here you asked for the developers to meet with us which they did. I give them great credit because they came around and put an introduction and come to this meeting in every mailbox and sure enough, they had a number of people there. Part of what is going on here is education on our part as a neighborhood. We are not developers or builders, we have lived here a long time. I have lived there nine years. We have some people in the audience that have lived there for 20 and possibly even 30 years in this neighborhood. It is a long, established neighborhood. It is a mixed neighborhood. We have small children, preschoolers and high school kids. We have people in retirement and we have people who work for the city and work for the government and work for the university and a number of corporations around. It is a wonderful area that we live in and we all love it. As we try to learn what was going on here, I am speaking for myself and can tell you kind of what has gone on with us as a neighborhood and other individuals can have their own say and own opinions about what has gone on here. Essentially, the developers that have come up I think are honest and have an intention of building a quality development. I say that from meeting them. They showed us some examples. They mentioned Stonewood over off Hwy. 265, Candlewood Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 10 which is a little more upscale but has some smaller homes in it that we could go and drive by and look at. I'm sure you all are familiar with these developments, they are beautiful. Their intents as I've heard this evening have changed some. They are really trying to accommodate the neighborhood. What we have done as individuals, I know I have and I know many people in the neighborhood have come around. We wanted one acre lots back there. It doesn't compute economically. It doesn't fit with bringing the sewer in and doing the things that you need to do. We are faced, like everybody else in this town, with the growth that is going on. We are right on the edge of the annexation issue and so on and so in trying to understand what is happening here we have done a real turn around. We have recognized that we have good developers here. I think their comment about wanting to provide the Bill of Assurance to make it 100% residential we are very much in favor of. We don't want the traffic that the gentleman eluded to. I didn't have a study of what that meant in terms of actual numbers but I think it is significant and it is a real point. As we look at this I can say it this way, I like the developers. I think these guys are sincere and I think they are going to build quality homes. I think it shows in the size of the homes. You can not build a 2,400 sq.ft. home in Fayetteville today and do it cheaply as far as real dollars. They are going to build nice, quality homes which will enhance our neighborhood in terms of dollar value, which is one of our big concerns when we first looked at the density, as it should be. Here are concerns as we might express them today saying that we recognize there is quality coming into our neighborhood and we appreciate that. The density is still a concern. I think that Mr. Branson stated it and I think that our neighborhood would still state that. At 99 homes he is still at the high end of what his expectations were when he walked in here. That has not changed. If you take 108 homes originally and take 10% off that is about what a builder is looking for. A R-2 would put 80 homes in there on 40 acres. That is a density that most of the people in our neighborhood would be thrilled to see and be happy with at this point, as opposed to when we first walked in here and not understanding the whole process and really trying to take a look at it. I know that is a turn around for many people in our neighborhood. Maybe there is a compromise between that 80 and the 99 homes that he is asking for. I think that what I would ask you to do, because the ultimate decision is going to be with you, is to look at this and where that compromise is and make sure it is here in writing on this amended Bill of Assurance. 99 homes is still 200 cars. Despite what the gentleman said as an engineer, I don't know how many of you have driven out and looked at this stretch of road. All of you have driven it at one time or another. It is narrow. It is narrow and it is short, quick turns and in spite of his discussion, right on the edge of this property at the 90° we have had a fatality there, maybe two fatalities since I've lived there in nine years. There was a runner hit down in front of the movie theater on this same Hwy. 112. Why were they hit? Bad shoulders, not enough room Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page I1 and because of drivers swerving, pay attention to cell phones and all the reasons why wrecks happen. We cannot stop growth in our area. We can only ask you to consider that you are moving out into a more rural area. You do not have a road structure there. You are dealing with a state highway, it is not going to get corrected by the City of Fayetteville whatever you do. There is a real difference between 160 cars and 200 cars is my comment to this about density. I also think the comment about being in line with the neighborhood, our neighborhood at the minimum is '/2 acre lots. I'm on a square acre, both of my neighbors are on two. The next neighbor is on three. Yes, they are on septic. Yes they are not going to get cut down to'/4 acre lots. Across the street the neighborhood above it is .65, .70 size lots. That is seven beautiful houses right there. The next thing is talking about not having a road into our neighborhood. I think that I can say with 99.9% our neighborhood does not want a road cut through connecting Woodside Drive. There are several reasons. We like the privacy that it gives us in terns of not having neighborhood traffic as it is. I think on an important level our subdivision was developed back in the late 1970's. Our road system, we pull over and let the other person pass. In doing that we haven't taken out the flowering tree or the pine trees or something else that is hanging over that road a little bit. Our roads are not designed for two way traffic and not opening up a subdivision like this into our subdivision. What you are going to be doing if you did that is creating real bottlenecks and constant traffic on roads that are not designed for two way traffic of that nature. It works well for 26 or 30 homes but it doesn't work well if you open this up to a subdivision which they will definitely use it both ways at all times of the day. We also discussed a buffer zone. I couldn't hear at the back of the room what they were discussing in terms of the northern boundary there which borders our neighborhood. We would like to see a 50' preservation area of trees to buffer the two neighborhoods. It would be appropriate and it gives a nice separation to what is going on there. That is something that we would like to see if at all possible. Again, this is something that you would dictate. I do not see it in the Bill of Assurance here. I did get a copy of it so I could look this over before the meeting. I want to go back to this Bill of Assurance. I understand that you all are faced with R-2 or R-4. If you just gave a blanket without this you would be giving them cart blanche obviously, to fulfill whatever they wanted. You would be giving them legal right. This is your only limitation if you do not put it to an R-2. I ask you to think about it carefully as you are doing this and make sure that any decisions that you make regarding this has that in it, that it is conditioned upon the builder being able to give a Bill of Assurance to the Planning Commission. I think that in essence the neighborhood has had a lot of discussion. We had after their meeting another neighborhood meeting. It was small town politics in motion I suppose. We met under the old oak tree behind Bill Forbes house and brought our lawn chairs and had plenty talk about. We are concerned about the safety issue here and I Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 12 think you should be too. We are very willing to compromise and accept the idea that we are going to have neighbors next door to us and I do want to say that I think that these developers will do a good job and build a quality neighborhood. If we could have some consideration with this buffer zone, if we could have some consideration for any safety considerations that your planners might give you in relation to dealing with the state highway. If you could consider less density, not going below 80 but less density than what has been requested we would appreciate it. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Forbes: I'm Bill Forbes, I live directly to the neighborhood to the north. When we were here on the 17`h of May and the vote appeared to be going the wrong way Mr. Vaught and the lady said we would like you to come back with a different plan and you guys get together and have a meeting and talk it over. They bought us barbeque and we were 15 minutes into that barbeque before we finally figured out there was no different plan, it was still 108 houses. We were unanimous in this cut through. We don't want it coming to us. I'm one of the few people in my neighborhood who met Mr. Ingalls who developed this neighborhood. I met him because we have a covenant out there and they moved a double wide in on us. Mr. Ingall told me if you will look at your little plat there between the southern border and the end of that driveway is 10' that belongs to our neighborhood. It does not but up against that south property line. The property values we are still all afraid of will go down. I'm sorry I don't know the developer's last name but Cleve, he said our property values will rise with theirs all at the same time. End of quote. I really hope so. As far as our small lot houses, we have 36 houses and I would wager none of them are on %z acre lot and most of them are on 1, 2, 3 and 7 acres. The developer is willing to sign a Bill of Assurance. They brought that up. I had never even heard the term. He said that would be presented to the Commission. I have not seen it. When he started telling us houses built 2,300 to 2,600 sq.ft., that was nice. $100 per square foot, then he said three car garages. I said three car garages? He said three car garages. None of our houses have a three car garage. We don't even have three car carports. Custom homes, no cookie cutters, a lot of brick are all their words. He even brought up masonry walls around the perimeter and that sounds good. The cut through we really don't want. A lot of us took notes and I have a copy of those notes that we took. I would like to see how those notes compare with the Bill of Assurance. I will give you each a copy of these and I'm through. Ostner: Are there others that would like to speak to this issue? May I first ask that if there are other comments that you agree with let's just say I agree and try not to belabor the issues. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 13 Myers: I'm Bill Myers. I will restrict myself to the safety issue. I am not a traffic engineer but I am a registered professional engineer. I was taught and I try to teach my students that if you can possibly design 99% safety into a project don't ever design 98% in. Something is liable to happen and when it happens you will bear not only the moral responsibility but you as an engineer will bear the legal responsibility for what happens. What I am concerned about is the traffic that is on the road now, the shape of the road because of the curve and Howard Nickell and Deane Solomon coming in at the corner and the significant dips by Chris Hollow Road. We have already committed for all of the traffic that is going to be added as a result of the Clear Creek development. There is more traffic that is going to be added to it with this. I am continuously reminded that the decision makers have to make their decisions based on a lot of things but I hope you will not do anything that compromises the safety. I'm just a little country engineer, but I want to discourage you from adding anymore traffic to that road than is absolutely necessary. I also would be happy with 80 houses. I would vote for it. The traffic is a significant thing and there are going to be people injured if we add much more to it. Thank you. Ostner: Are there other members of the public who would like to speak? Borden: Hello, my name is Jim Borden. My wife and I have lived out 112 since 1978 or 1979. We used to drive Hwy. 112 when a not a whole lot of traffic was on there. Peggy, my wife, worked at Mary Maestris and we drove back and forth. Hwy. 112 is a really windy road with a lot of dips and 90° turns. It is really dangerous, not just in that one area. I had the opportunity of taking video of just one afternoon. I can bring that to you guys if you want to see what happens out there everyday. We also have some aerial video of that area. The main thing about that is we have been out there a long time and I have seen a lot of people go off the road a lot of different times. Some of those people died. That is going to continue to happen. I believe that just by watching the people at those curves taking that little risk. One of these days they are not going to make that little jump out there. It is happening more and more because we have now I think four or five other homes going in just southwest of there by Holcomb Elementary. You have Salem Estates and Salem something else and then there is Salem Hills out there too. All of those people want to come out that way, especially if they are going to Springdale or north. You can see it all the time. It has grown and grown and grown. It is extremely dangerous out there. I know these guys had a traffic engineer come out but unless you are out there everyday it is something that you would really have a big concern about if you guys lived out there. I know these guys are probably going to try the best they can. I think as a neighborhood we would really like to see the R-2. That is the compromise that we thought was going to happen, not R-4 and then the compromise Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 14 would be R-4. If they get R-4 the assurance should be a lot less than the 99 homes, closer to the 80. I think they could still come out pretty good financially. That's all I have to say. McWhorter: I'm Rick McWhorter. I'm at 3791 Midside. My property is directly to the north of what was originally going to be three lots that went across the back of my property. I'm a runner and I am a biker. I moved there in 1994. You will never catch me running or biking on Hwy. 112 it is so dangerous. It is not the capacity that is really the issue. An engineer can show you the capacity, show you the number of vehicles that go across there. What they cannot show is the dangerous curves and the location of the sight lines that are really difficult. We agree with the R-2. We could live with the R-2. When I heard the developer say something about a buffer zone to the north of their property, I didn't hear anything as to what kind of a distance they are looking at. I would hope that would be a strong consideration. There is some property there that the association at Woodside and Forest View does have along the property line. We would hope that would be a strong consideration. The cul-de-sac I think the developer was a little misleading in what he said when they were saying about an emergency break through. At our meeting at Ozark Electric there was absolute when you say 99.9% it was probably 100% that we do not want a road cut through our subdivision. We don't want any traffic to go through there whatsoever. If you put a break away emergency thing that will just encourage traffic to go through. Please consider that as a safety issue for us. We like our neighborhood and I will also mention the other thing that was brought up that has not been addressed is again, we are looking at development out our way. What kind of an impact is this going to have on the Fayetteville Public Schools? Our neighborhood is in the Fayetteville Public School district and what kind of impact is it going to be on an elementary school? You already know the developments that you have approved and you already know the figures. It will have an impact that is going to be long term, long reaching. I would hope that would be a part of your consideration. The developers are going to build a nice place. We have met with them. Our concern is how many nice places are going to go in. Please consider an R-2 for us. Ostner: Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to speak? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Allen: There certainly to me seem to be many traffic problems in that location that really couldn't be identified very well in the traffic study. I wondered if I could speak to the developer for a moment please. I wondered if you might be willing to be open to a compromise with the neighborhood in terms of a density maybe 89? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 15 White: On the Bill of Assurance, of course we started at 160 to 108 and now we have come down to 99 lots. Of course we know at this point once we get to the Planning Commission and start working on plats once you get into roads and drainage and that sort of thing you are going to start losing lots. 99 was just a starting point, a good round number if you will, 2.5 units per acre. That is something that we would be open to discussing. The reason we have come to RSF-4 is because there is no 2.5 zoning. To answer your question, that would be something we would be interested in talking about, sure. Branson: I think there was a question about a buffer zone. Art will address that. Scott: What I said was that the eastern half of the north boundary has the specimen trees that the city likes to see saved. That made an appropriate, logical tree preservation area. On the eastern half there are no real specimen trees that were found on the tree survey that related to the city's requirements. We could leave those tree specimens that are in there in place and leave a 50' buffer zone there and leave all of those trees there. They are smaller trees is what it is. They are newer growth. The older growth is on the west side. Vaught: Staff and Engineering, could you speak to that corner of Hwy. 112 at the corner of the property and what we can and can't do? I know we can't put conditions on a project at this level. We will do it when they come forward with a development proposal but what can we do with a state highway and what are some ideas we can have for the safety concerns in this area when we get to that point? Casey: Since that is a state highway we cannot make the developer improve it. We can make recommendations and have him coordinate with the Highway Department to see if they can get approvals for that but we do not have authority to pose those improvements on that highway. We can work with their traffic engineer to come up with some safe designs and present those to the Highway Department but it is not a city highway where we can make those improvements. Scott: In that area there is a home there that will be removed. There are also a lot of trees in that area that will be taken out. If you go west bound on Hwy. 112 the problem that would cause a lot of accidents out there is you can't tell at some times of the year the trees are grown over all the signs. Right now the signs are all covered up. You can't really tell visibly that that road goes to the right and turns north. Since 2000 they put in a lot of signs and you can see the drastic drop. It is down less than 25% of what it was in 2000 because of those signs. They really help north bound and south bound. As you approach that curve when we are done we will have a radius out on the inside of that curve that is much larger and much more Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 16 clear than is existing today. That house right there that is there will be gone and that will be a visibility corridor through there. That is our intention to help alleviate some of that visibility problem. Ostner: Do you know the radius of that curve right now approximately? Scott: We haven't actually analyzed the radius of the curve. I could tell you what it is in a few minutes. Ostner: I was just going to ask what the design speed of that road is. I know the speed limit is maybe 40 miles per hour. Scott: I think there is a suggested speed of 25 miles per hour. When you drive it you can tell that is the design speed. That is a comfortable speed. 35 is very uncomfortable and that is how you can really tell the design speed. As you approach it from the east moving westbound there are so many trees in front of the signs that some of those you can't even see the 25 mile per hour suggested speed in some locations. What I didn't want to do was increase the radius of that curve which would increase the speed. I felt like the fact that it is a 25 mile per hour and most people that drive it everyday know it is a 25 mile per hour curve. They will tend to stay at that speed. I felt like if we increase the radius with the intersection of Deane Solomon Road it will cause a problem with that. That right there is an appropriate sight distance and it is safe. That yard on the west side of the intersection is mowed well. It is very safe at 25 miles per hour. I didn't want to do something to increase it to 45 and reduce that time frame that drivers have coming off of Deane Solomon. Ostner: Commissioners, there has been discussion of a compromise of 89 lots if anyone would care to discuss that. Vaught: I would like to ask the City Attorney how you would do that. Obviously, there is a Bill of Assurance and we can't ask for that. The developer has to offer that. Can you amend that after they present it or would they have to submit a new Bill of Assurance? Williams: The applicant would have to amend that and they need to amend that without pressure. Obviously, what the Planning Commission can do when they make a recommendation, they could recommend a slightly different zoning. It is just a recommendation going to the City Council. If you recommended an RSF-2 that would actually only have 79 units the way I look at it because it is not quite 40 acres. I don't think it would be proper for you to request them to make a change in a Bill of Assurance. They may decide to make such a change to get in between the two numbers and submit that to the City Council if they so chose. We really can't get into a Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 17 negotiation with them about what number are you going to put in your Bill of Assurance. Vaught: Staff, it is my understanding when we are calculating density, for say in RSF-2, if it was rounded 80 acres when we calculate maximum allowable density we back out dedications, is that correct? Warrick: It would depend on whether or not that was an actual parkland dedication that was deeded to the city and then the remaining property would be calculated for density. Vaught: Roadway dedications and all of that is included? Warrick: No, that is all part of the gross property that is determined for density calculations. Vaught: My concern is if we say let's drop them all the way to an RSF-2, we are really not limiting them to 80, we are limiting them to 70 or 75 which is a drastic change. That is why I'm cautious to do that. Ostner: It is a perfect example of a PZD but that is not where we are tonight. Anthes: Staff, looking at the Future Land Use map and a finding on page 3.3 referring to the land use map identifying multi -use as the future use of this 10 acre tract along Hwy. 112 and it being a principal arterial. I would like staff to comment on what is happening in the general area and why our 2020 Plan has called for multi -use in that location. Warrick: There is a portion of property basically the ten acres along the south boundary continuing to the east that lies along the north side of Hwy. 112 that is designated on the General Plan future land use map to be mixed use. The majority of the property surrounding that is designated on that future land use plan to be residential. I wasn't a party to the 1995 decisions that enacted that or adopted that particular future land use designation for this particular area. That was a decision that went through approximately 26 public hearings, Planning Commission and City Council meetings. I don't know that I can tell you the exact reason. We are talking about a principal arterial which intersects another principal arterial and mixed use is a designation that gives the Planning Commission some latitude with regard to zoning decisions. It allows you to consider a variety of different applications and to choose the most appropriate ones. Obviously, a Residential Office is a specifically mixed use zoning district. A variety of different uses on different pieces of property throughout this area also creates a mixed use application on the zoning map. It is certainly within the Planning Commission's discretion and the Council's discretion to determine where residential is appropriate in a mixed use area, where Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 18 residential office or office type uses are appropriate and where some more intensive type uses might be appropriate. Based on the surroundings, based on the configuration of the property, based on traffic and safety issues those are all decisions that can go into determining the best, most appropriate use for a piece of property that is designated mixed on the future land use map. It does leave quite a bit of discretion but it also allows for more than just residential should it be deemed appropriate by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Anthes: Thank you. We are looking at lot at our zoning map and at our future land use map these days and normally we see big areas of residential as it leads away from the city. The fact that during the development of this plan a very specific mixed use zone was placed along Hwy. 112 has me question why with all of that public hearing. We are not seeing that in a lot of places and so I'm looking for the rational for that to see if we are missing something that other people felt were really important. The other question I have is for Mr. Peters. I understand what you are saying about the capacity of that roadway. I know that Garland Avenue heading south of I- 540 carries like 16,000 cars per day with a similar profile. What I would like for you to do is speak to the geometry of that road and those curves and the sight lines and tell me how that fits into your calculations of capacity on that road. Peters: They really don't go into the determination of the capacity. Capacity really is not an issue in an open roadway section. Where capacity becomes an issue is at intersections. There aren't any major intersections in the vicinity of this development. Capacity, in my traffic engineering perspective, is a moot point. I think probably what might be more realistic to look at is what would be an appropriate service volume. That is addressed in the city's regulations in terms of the volume that you could typically expect on a roadway by it's classification. As you have recognized, Hwy. 112 is a principal arterial street, although it is not built to that standard. If it were built to that standard and someday perhaps it will be. We did check with the Highway Department and they have no current plans for improvements to this section of Hwy. 112. Should it be built to what you would expect principal arterial standards to be it would be likely a four or five lane arterial street. That category of street at that number of lanes could carry as a service volume, in the neighborhood of 25,000 vehicles per day. As a two lane roadway in an open section where there are not major intersections it can accommodate much more than what is on it right now. It's capacity in terms of it's classification really isn't an issue I don't think. The 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day that are there now is not a high volume on a two lane roadway. To address the geometry, the horizontal curve, the major curve there at Howard Nickell is posted by the Highway Department at an advisory speed of 25 miles per hour. That is a safe speed for that curve. They have determined that. I Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 19 have driven it myself. Many of you probably have driven it too. You can safely negotiate that curve at 25 miles per hour. Sight distance can become an issue. Sight distance relates not only to curvature in the roadway, horizontal curvature but also the vertical geometry and any hills that might exist. We have examined both with respect to the points of intersection of the proposed streets to serve this subdivision. Both of those streets are at a point in terms of the vertical geometry with the dips and the hills, if you will, at such a point where there is adequate sight distance greater than 500' in both directions at each of those two intersection locations. As Mr. Scott has pointed out, the clearing in the curve without decreasing the curvature of the roadway but just clearing it out, I believe it will become safer in that you will be able, particularly for westbound movement approaching Howard Nickell, you will be able to see cars coming from the north on Hwy. 112 and I think that that clearing will make it even safer than what it is now. I think whatever has happened in the last three years the statistics indicate that the number of traffic accidents has actually gone down. In the most recent year that the Highway Department has summarized it is at 25% what it was three years ago. Another point that is a little off of your topic that I would like to make, and I think it was Mr. Morgan that spoke who has taken video in the area. Presently the volumes that we are seeing out there are likely higher than the volumes that I reported from the Highway Department because with the construction that is going on on I-540 right now I believe a lot of people are detouring and taking that as kind of a bypass. The volumes that we are presently seeing out there are probably greater than what it typically handles. Probably greater than what it will be when it goes back to normal and this subdivision is fully developed and the extra 950 cars a day are there. Anthes: You mentioned that you didn't believe there was really an intersection issue here. The corner of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell Road appears to be a pretty significant intersection to me. Can you talk about that? Peters: In that localized area you probably would consider it to be that. I think the volume on Howard Nickell is probably much less than it is on Hwy. 112. The difference in volume between a point east of that intersection and north of that intersection, the difference is about 700 vehicles on a daily basis. We didn't do volume counts on Howard Nickell. That is just not in traffic engineer's language that is not a major intersection. Anthes: My final comments I want to make to the developers and that is I'm really looking to the 2020 Plan and what the goals of that are. I want to talk to you about a few things that I've heard neighbors mention and you mention in terms of how you considered the design of this property and this subdivision. We do have a policy of connectivity that I believe that we are going to be talking about more when you come to PPL. Mostly I want to Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 20 talk about the fact that because our General Plan 2020 looks at Hwy. 112 as an arterial with mixed use along it, to me that says something about what kind of presence we want to have along Hwy. 112. What I'm going to be looking for and want to talk to you about is another policy that we have that discourages perimeter walls and that also talks about a presence on that road, i.e. buildings and homes facing the street rather than backyards facing the street. I just want to get that in there at the beginning and put that on the record. Allen: I was going to comment that as a long term resident of Fayetteville that has been on Hwy. 112 many times, I feel that as this stands the density of this project is not safe. To me that is our primary concern is to make sure that our citizens are safe. As this stands I will not be able to vote for this project. I feel like you have come a long way but in my view it is not there yet, it is not safe yet. Ostner: I would have to agree with Commissioner Allen. I would like for this to be somewhere near RSF-2 which is about 78 lots or the compromise of 89 lots which we cannot ask for request of you. That's where I stand. Vaught: My opinion is a little bit different since this is a rezoning to a designation. We will be able to revisit many of these issues at the time of a LSD, and we won't get to that Large Scale Development unless we rezone it to what we think is proper. Ostner: It is actually a Preliminary Plat. Vaught: Ok. Well, I'm more inclined to take those issues up and a lot of the safety issues have to do with possible improvements, curb cuts, the stuff about buffer zones and connectivity to the north are issues we'll address at that level. I'm more inclined if we think somewhere, I know RSF-4 is not appropriate with their Bill of Assurance they dropped it somewhere between the two. I am more inclined to approve this with the Bill of Assurance with the understanding that we would love to see it come back with fewer units and there is going to be extensive work and things that need to be done. For the safety issues, possible offsite improvements working with the state. Connectivity issues, buffer issues and all of those issues that will go through a Preliminary Plat. We are not giving them a right to go build right now. If we think this is an appropriate type density if the roads were ideal, that is what we are looking at. All of these other considerations if we think it could be safe for that density with some improvements is what I'm looking at. I'm more inclined to vote for it and see what happens at Preliminary Plat and see if they come back with less units. Those are all different options we have at that level. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 21 Ostner: Just to be clear, we are considering granting them the right to build 99 lots. Whether we like the configuration or not at the time of Preliminary Plat is yet to be seen. If this passes tonight this becomes law so to speak and they do have the right. MOTION: Shackelford: One thing I would like to add to that, this doesn't become law. A rezoning is a recommendation to the City Council. Whatever we do tonight has to be ratified by City Council. I'm more inclined in following along the lines of Commissioner Vaught thinking that we go ahead and recommend this rezoning with the RSF-4 with the Bill of Assurance as it stands for 99 lots. Obviously, the developers have heard this conversation. They have mentioned that they are open to negotiation. Although we can't require negotiation with the surrounding neighborhoods it might be in their best interest to consider reducing that and rewriting their Bill of Assurance between now and the time that they meet with City Council where this can be heard again. There is a little bit of difference there. What we do tonight doesn't have any finality, it is simply a recommendation to City Council. Two things that have been said tonight that I want to make comment on and just some personal opinion. The growth on Hwy. 112 is I'm afraid is inevitable. If you look at what is happening with Clear Creek to the north of this property that is going to facilitate growth all up and down this corridor. If you look at the growth in Northwest Arkansas, alternative corridors to 1-540 are going to develop, those being Hwy. 265 and Hwy. 112. We run into this situation. We talk a lot about density. That is something that we are going to have to come to terms with as our city grows towards the old boundaries. I think that it is unrealistic to think that new development in the outlying areas is there was no infrastructure in place and everybody was based on septic. As that infrastructure is put in I think that it is unrealistic to think that the density is going to stay the same as they become non -outlying areas. That is a struggle that we continue to have. My personal opinion the difference between 80 verses 89 verses 99 houses in this area isn't that great of a difference if you talk about the difference of 8, 9, 10 or 20 houses. I think the development in a five mile radius to the north, south and west of this property, any one development can have that much difference. This is a large area, a very growth oriented area and a lot of new development going on in a five mile radius of this. I'm not as hung up on the difference of 89 verses 80 verses 99 because I think if you will look in a five mile radius the addition or subtraction of 10 houses is going to be somewhat immaterial. I understand all of the concerns. Trust me, there are a lot of concerns out there. This is simply a recommendation for rezoning. I would encourage us to move forward with the RSF-4 with the Bill of Assurance as it is stated today. Obviously, the applicants have heard everything that has been said here and it might be in their best interest to reconsider reducing that number. We can't Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 22 require them to do that. The issues that we are talking about will be addressed at Preliminary Plat, those being connectivity. That is going to be a huge one to address. Buffer zone to the north of this property line is going to be something that we have to address and obviously, the ingress and egress in regards to safety on the corner of this. Those are all things that there will be lots more opportunity for us to have input on and make sure that we get this right for the community. Based on staff findings, based on the 2020 Plan I think this is in line with the development that we anticipated in 1995 for this part of town. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-12.00 with the Bill of Assurance as it is presented today to the City Council for approval. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: I have a motion and a second, is there further discussion by the Commission? Clark: Just to refresh my memory, Hwy. 112 is State and there is absolutely nothing that we can do to this developer to mandate any improvements to Hwy. 112, is that true? Warrick: As Matt said, the Planning Commission can make a recommendation for improvements. Any improvements that the city recommended for Hwy. 112 would have to be further coordinated and approved by the State Highway Department. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-12.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Clark and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to four. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 23 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: The next item on our agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Sundance Meadows submitted by Geoffrey Bates. If we could have a staff report please Mr. Pate. Pate: This item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting. This is a Preliminary Plat for Sundance Meadows at the comer of Tackett and Genevieve. At that meeting staff and the applicant were directed to go back and look at some alternatives for street improvements along 54`h Avenue. Staff is recommending approval of this subdivision, it is a 25 lot subdivision off of Tackett Avenue. There are 13 conditions of approval listed in your report with staff's recommendation for approval. I have included in the very beginning of your staff report an update memo essentially of what has occurred since that last meeting. I will go over a couple of those items with you for the public's purpose. At that last meeting in June, approximately 20 units are served by Tackett Drive specifically, which is a dead end street. Those single family homes on Tackett Drive yield approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. Traffic counters put out by our Transportation Division on 54`h Street yield a range of 604 to 775 cars per day. That is both a weekday and weekend number. With regard to reported accidents per year. Fayetteville Police Department accident reports from 2000 to 2004 yield an average of one to two reported accidents per year. There are 25 single family homes proposed with this subdivision, which based on our traffic calculations, yield approximately 250 additional vehicle trips per day to access both Tackett and 54`h. The applicant has submitted an alternative which I have included with your staff report. Essentially, what I have listed are three of the conditions that are pertinent to our Planning Commission discussion at the last meeting. Those are 1) Street improvements shall be constructed a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks and storm drain for the entire length of the project site. 2) Tackett Drive shall be overlaid with asphalt and widened to a minimum width of 20' from the project site's western boundary to 54`h Street. Both of these conditions the developer has agreed to in total. 3) The developer shall widen 54`h Street north from the intersection of 54`h and Tackett Drive to the bridge a minimum of 20'. The street improvements shall include the intersection of course. The applicant has submitted an alternative to that condition of approval stating they have offered to improve the intersection and sight distance at Tackett Drive and 54`h Street by widening the intersection with a 25' radius along with appropriate drainage structures and widening 54`h Street from the intersection 208' Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 24 with a minimum width of 20'. Staff has gone out and measured that 208' when we were out there at agenda session on Thursday. At that point the road measures 17' to 18' wide up to where the bridge improvements begin, which is approximately 150' to where it actually begins to become a safe travelable distance. With that, staff is recommending approval with the conditions as listed in your staff report. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Bates: Good evening Commissioners. I'm Geoff Bates. I'm the engineer on the project and I'm representing the developer tonight. You all are familiar with the subdivision already. I think the only issue is how much offsite improvements to 54`h is going to be required by the developer. We felt like everything that he has proposed to do with the intersection and 200 plus feet widening of 54`h was sufficient for this size of development. This is not a really large development so there are just not a lot of funds there. He would like to pave all of 54`h Street and curb and gutter it but there are just not the funds there. We feel like for the size of his development this is what would be the most fair. I believe we also included a cost estimate of the amount of offsite improvements he is required to do now with your packet. I'm hoping that you all consider that he is trying and he is not against any of this. We just want to move forward on this project and hopefully it will come to a conclusion tonight. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Bates. I'm going to take public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Clark: Mr. Bates, I appreciate the revisions that you all have done. This has truly been a cooperative effort and I acknowledge it and appreciate it. In terms of widening 54`h Street to 208'. In your cost break down it is not broken out. What is the cost out of the $26,508 cited for that 208'. Bates: It is about $16,000 for the intersection, the drainage structures and all the improvements to 54`h Street is around $16,000. Clark: You are including the intersection with that? Bates: You have to. You can't really do one without the other. Ostner: The $16,000 is for 54`h Street and the intersection? Bates: Yes. Anthes: On page 4.3 you've stated that the 208' was arrived at because that was the amount of TOPO survey information you had. The additional street Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 25 length would require additional field survey which makes me think that you know you are unsure whether you could accomplish the same grading condition without having to put in the other infrastructure like we discussed the last time on that additional 150' without a survey, is that what this letter is stating? Bates: It would be more accurate. The city TOPO can be off as much as 2' or 3' and to get an accurate survey of where the trees are and the ditch and the existing conditions now we would need a further TOPO survey of that area. Anthes: In your professional opinion when you look at that road do you see anything appreciably different out there between the bridge for 150' and the 208'? Bates: Just additional cost to build the street and the ditch. Anthes: You have not calculated a per foot on that widening where we would understand the impact of an additional 150' on your total cost analysis? Bates: You would just double the base and paving so that would probably be an additional $15,000 or so. Anthes: I wouldn't think that was true if 208' of overlay plus the intersection was $16,000 I can't imagine that 150' would be $15,000 with no intersection. Bates: There is a lot more grading. I would guess $10,000. I'm just guessing right now. There is no way to know without staking and having survey information. There could be more drainage problems. I just don't know. There are a lot of unknowns out there. Allen: It appears to me that some places are really just almost not meant to be developed. If they are then they need to be developed to be 100% safe not just part way there. Just to say that I'm letting you know that I continue to have concern about this project and it's safety. Clark: Staff, if they improve 208' from the intersection which leaves 150' to the bridge that is not in line with what they have done, is that going to pose some type of city problem with road consistency or construction? Is it legal to do that? Casey: We would have to ensure that the roadway was designed with the proper tapers and make sure that it was signed properly or perhaps some striping added to make sure that that was a safe situation. That way we don't have the problem with vehicles traveling in a wider section and then going down a couple of feet and leaving in an open ditch. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 26 Clark: Matt, you've been out there right? Casey: Yes. Clark: Do you think that that 150' the way it is now is going to pose a problem? It seems really odd to me. Coming off the bridge it is wide and then it is narrow for 150' and then it is wide again. Casey: Leaving that gap you would have a wider section with a narrow section for 150' and then widening back out so it could be confusing to some people. Clark: It could be a potential traffic issue and problem? Casey: That is a possibility. Bates: It kind of does that now. It is 20' at the bridge and then it tapers down to 16' and then it goes back out. It is the same thing except better. Trumbo: Being only at a few of these meetings and seeing a few projects come through as a new commissioner. Is this a common request to ask a developer for a development of this size to do this much city improvements, road works? Is this a common request or an uncommon request for the city to ask? Warrick: It is difficult to evaluate these in a lump. Every development that we look at is very site specific and we do see more offsite improvements when we are looking at an area that is not immediately adjoining improved infrastructure. Obviously, there is a need to get safely to that development as well as to provide a standard development that meets city ordinances. We see more offsite improvements in areas that are more remote, in areas that do not have immediate access to improved infrastructure. That is exactly the situation that we are looking at here. There is not a way to access this site without travel on substandard streets that are not even the width of a required fire lane. Shackelford: My feeling on this is this is somewhat uncommon. The reason I think it is uncommon is because this improvement that staff is recommending that we request is to infrastructure that this property does not touch in any way. It is a really large improvement on a part of the street that is not in conjunction with this development. I have had the problem, or the question, and I had it the last time and I would just ask our City Attorney one last time to discuss rough proportionality and ask your opinion if we are within what you consider a defendable rough proportionality argument by requiring this amount of development on this offsite improvement. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 27 Williams: I can say right now we are safe because the developer has offered this. He has offered more than $1,000 per house for offsite development, which is a fairly substantial amount. I know the City Council is going to look at a road impact fee. That would require a large study and even then if you take for example, our combined water and sewer impact fees are about $1,000 themselves. Here the developer has offered more than $1,000 per unit to build out this far. That is one issue you should look at, not just whether we have a street as nice as we would like to have it. Obviously, we would always like that. There are lots of places in town, I know near where I live, that streets are only 18' or 19' wide. Rodgers Street where there are some subdivisions at the end of it has a lot of usage. It would be nicer to have at least 24' streets and that is what we require for new subdivisions. We have not required that always for offsite developments. In fact, this is a fairly rare circumstance. I think at this point we are safe because the developer has offered that. I appreciate them offering to do this. There is a limit though as to how much we can demand and still stay within the constitutional requirements that we don't demand this developer to do something that the city as a whole should do. Obviously, this is not a very safe development. I would think that if they went this far it certainly would be something that would be much more likely that the city would look at and say there is a small area here that we need to link up and serve. I would think that the developer has gone a long way towards helping the city make that further improvement. Shackelford: As a follow up, in a perfect world we would take the developer up on his offer to do this 208' stretch. Then the city would come in and cost share some other places to do the 150' that we are talking about to make this safe, if you will, from this point to the bridge. Again, I will state my concern. I have a concern about the rough proportionality that we are requiring this developer to do in offsite improvements to this road that is not on his property and has no direct contact with his property. I would encourage that we consider, as the City Attorney has recommended, that we accept the developer's proposal as a proposal to do something that they are willing to do that we don't have to win the argument of rough proportionality on and hope that there is some compromise made or some input made later on that we can fix the 150' that we are concerned about tonight. Ostner: I appreciate your comments about the rough proportionality. It does seem a stretch to require such a length of offsite improvements. However, our Unified Development Code §166.05(C) (7) (D) lists six reasons that Preliminary Plats may be denied. The fourth reason is a development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. I would like to vote for this project. I have worked with you, the Commission and the office have all worked together I believe, and the neighbors who haven't wanted to speak tonight. I am going to vote against it as it stands today. I Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 28 believe you've made a great step towards the solution on 54h Street and I don't believe it is the full solution. Clark: As it stands the staff recommendation is to widen all of 54`h Street. Ostner: I am not open to your proposal. Bates: How does that work? Do you vote on the proposal and then vote on the plat? Ostner: If someone on the Commission wanted to make a proposed amendment to these conditions of approval we would first vote on those. Otherwise, the conditions stand. Vaught: To follow up on more of the rough proportionality and just the safety considerations. From our discussions and everything that I've heard, the main issue of safety on this road was the intersection of Tackett and 541h In my opinion, with the improvement to that intersection it is improving the safety of this area even though we are not requiring the widening of 54`h all the way to the bridge. This is making a substantial step. This is the area where kids wait for the bus stop and I know they have had one fatality on that intersection before. With that in mind, it is not compounding the problem, it is actually helping improve the problem. It doesn't solve all of the problems but it is a step. I would also, as would Commissioner Shackelford, be willing to accept the developer's compromise agreement. We ask people to compromise all the time and I feel like this is a reasonable compromise, especially with it being, to me the most important improvements were that intersection and the width of the road, yes it would help in an ideal world to have it but it doesn't add to the danger as much as that intersection. Clark: I would like to follow up with what Commissioner Vaught said, I agree with 98% of what he said. I think the intersection at Tackett and 54`h was one of my major areas of concern because that is where kids wait on the bus and you are going to make those improvements. I am more inclined to go ahead, here is my dilemma. It is the city. We can't, as far as I know, we can't fore the city to say we are going to widen the other 150' if we vote for what Loren has proposed. If we could that is exactly what I would be inclined to recommend. What I'm willing to do tonight is vote for this as it stands in the record stating I really hope when it reaches the Council level you will propose your compromise and maybe the Council can open up the purse strings and make some type of a commitment for that 150'. We can't do anything about that and that is unfortunate. I think leaving 150' not improved and not widened to 20' is just strange and borderline preposterous. I think also the city should meet you half way and kick in. We can't do that. If we vote for it the way it is and you Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 29 counter propose your 208' maybe the Council will step up and acknowledge that and do the other 150'. I don't know if they will or not. Bates: We really don't want to go to Council. We are wanting to go to work. If you look at this street, there are 54 acres to be rezoned west of 54`h. That looks like a big chunk there that could help out some. Ostner: We'll get to that. Myers: Staff, that 150' between the bridge where the bridge improvements stop and the 208' would start, what is the minimum/maximum width of that stretch? Warrick: It ranges probably between 17 and 20 feet and maybe a little less in one area where there is obviously some chipped out asphalt. Myers: So it is a possible difference of a maximum of 3' to no difference at all? Warrick: That sounds accurate. MOTION: Vaught: In the spirit of getting things going, I will make a motion to amend to accept the developer's proposal for improvements to 54`h replacing the original condition of approval number three. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion on this amendment? Could you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend condition of approval number three was approved by a vote of 5-4 with Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Clark and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to four. MOTION: Vaught: I will make a second motion to approve PPL 04-1081 with all stated conditions as amended. Shackelford: I will second. A comment for the record that this is not based on the fact that there is any question about the lack of safety. This is simply a concern about the rough proportionality argument and what we could Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 30 justify. I think this is something that we have to do and hope the city does the right thing on the remaining 150'. Ostner: For the point of discussion I believe that we are going about it backwards. Safety must never be compromised and I would've preferred the applicant appealed our ruling to the City Council instead of the way that we are going about it now which I feel is compromising safety, which is why I will have to vote against this Preliminary Plat. Is there further discussion by the Commission? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1081 was approved by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Clark, Allen and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to three. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 31 ANX 04-04.00: Annexation (TIPTON/SLOAN, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, adjoining the SE corner of the Legacy Point subdivision. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-10.00: Rezoning (TIPTON/SLOAN, pp 475) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of Robert and Minnie Beth Tipton for property located east of Double Springs Road, Adjoining the SE corner of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 29.31 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 04-04.00 for Tipton and Sloan. Morgan: This item was tabled at the Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2004. The subject property contains approximately 29.31 acres of vacant property. It is located south of Wedington Drive, east of Double Springs Road. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the north and a portion of it's western boundary is the Legacy Pointe Subdivision. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed annexation. Findings within the staff report support this recommendation. The applicant is also proposing to rezone this property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The applicant has offered a Bill of Assurance limiting density to 2.9 units per acre for the future phase of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. The General Plan 2020 does designate this site as residential. Staff, therefore, is recommending approval of RZN 04-10.00 for Tipton, Sloan. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Smith: My name is Raymond Smith. I submitted the annexation request on behalf of the Tipton's and Mr. Sloan of Sloan Properties. This 29.31 acres is located adjacent to Legacy Pointe Subdivision that has already been approved and is being constructed. The 29.31 acres is located to the southeast of Phase II of Legacy Pointe. Mr. Sloan will be able to answer any questions that you may have in regard to specifics on this particular one. Sloan: Hi, my name is Charlie Sloan. I am the owner and developer of this project. This will be Phase IV of the Legacy Pointe subdivision. It is the extension of Persimmon, which is at the south end of our property. The drawing that I handed you shows about 84 or 85 lots. We will probably end up with around 75 or 78 by the time that we work out detention. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 32 There are some lots in here that we don't want. We want a certain size and these don't quite meet that size. Our covenants will be just like it was at Legacy Pointe. We will use that as our base. These might have a little bit higher square footage minimum on these lots than what was proposed. That is on the first phase to just give you a general layout concept of what we are trying to do. The second page that I gave you shows the extension that we have been working on trying to extend Persimmon over to 54`h Street to make this connection from Double Springs over to 54`h. The other item coming up with the Haye's is the property just to the east of my property, which Persimmon goes through. The other part, neither one of us own that piece of property but I have talked with that land owner and he has indicated that they would be willing to work with us on this to keep Persimmon as a 70' right of way street for a collector street. The proposal is too, that we have a city park in Legacy Pointe right now that is about four acres. The neighbor to the north to me has property that he has indicated he would be willing to sale to us. That was the original plan when we did the park for Legacy Pointe in that area to go ahead and buy another three or four acres along that Owl Creek. The trail system will go in there and will give us some good flat land for soccer fields or something like for additional so we will end up with a seven acre city park out there. That's all I have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I would like to open it up to the public. Please introduce yourself and give us your comment. Davison: Good evening. My name is Sharon Davison. I would first, like to thank you all for being here and thank you all for letting me speak tonight. I do have a quick request to make. If you hear me out on this one time at the mic. I think it would be nice for all of to not have the agony of me coming back each time. I will try to be brief and I promise I won't mention a person's name unless I have a quick quote from our newspapers. This is just a reference to show the connectivity, the concern and the problems. I have been out of town so I have been behind on the newspaper. This is just a four day span. I will just have a couple of quick comments there and I do have specific comments related to this annexation and rezoning as we have discussed. I will quickly try to tie it up with two quick staff questions and then I will make a closing comment. I do want to make it clear that especially on these particular annexations that are coming up to you tonight. I don't consider these in the same type as some developers that have come in from out of town have done. I do not begrudge Dot Tipton's family. Their father made a good investment as a farmer years ago on that property. They deserve to have things come to them from that. We have Marinonis everywhere. They obviously deserve to have these things happen. I'm not familiar with Mr. Sloan or Mr. McBryde. The mansion there I can't blame anyone from changing and adjusting that. They are getting surrounded. Just quickly, before I make my specific Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 33 comments on the rezoning aspect and to point out the validity of the seriousness of the issues here. Again, the Times newspaper does give some good coverage on some decisions if we can't watch TV and keep up with everything. It is sort of disheartening to see that the biggest scandal in our town is the HUD scandal with how much coverage it is getting by our newspapers. Hopefully the Coody land deal will eventually get the coverage that it should be getting. We have seen the comments that all relate to development to the point of who is pushing the rezonings and who is making the deals and how come our city staff, and that is where the timing is coming from, respectfully asking you to wait, whoa, hold on. There is proof that our staff resources are being drained. You are going to be drained dry accommodating urban sprawl growth out west which is in our planned zone but that doesn't mean we have to have it all right now. Here in the paper for the whole picture of what is going on before you. The District Officials Seek to Discuss School Message. Fayetteville School District officials feel that they can efforts to replace the Jefferson Elementary School with a new central elementary school. According to District Administrators, several messages about school real estate decisions are being circulated by a few individuals who oppose plans to close Jefferson. Yes, I personally oppose plans to close Jefferson. That does not negate what I have to legitimately say. These are statements from our School Board. Ostner: Ms. Davison, I'm sorry but this project is not related. Davison: It is all related. Ostner: If you could keep your comments, we are considering an annexation of the Tipton Sloan piece of property. Davison: Ok. $125 million sewer project on schedule with the Mayor and a smiling picture. He can smile and shake hands. These connections are here. About what we are being asked to do, yes this is related to the pressure that is put on our infrastructure, our services, our people who are in town to protect folks that are here. Let's get on a little more topic here. Again, how our city is being run. Conklin said the affect these impact fees will have on the costs of homes will all depend on the developer. Even if the developer passes the costs along to the buyers they wouldn't be substantial enough to affect building affordable housing. The water and sewer impact fees already have been exempted for agencies such as Habitat For Humanity. There would be a possibility. Do you understand what I'm getting at? We haven't even addressed these issues because we are so far behind. The hillside taskforce, I sat here as Mr. Marr asked about that. He was told, sorry, we are too busy to deal with it now. These are people who have not only lived here for years. They are people on the corner of Olive and Spring who have generations going back in this town who are Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 34 being forced to accommodate someone because the old friendly Planning Commission did allow Greg House to push these things through. It got so bad... Ostner: Ms. Davison, I'm sorry. You must stay on point. Davison: It is on point because the main point is you are depriving the citizens that are in the core of your city. When you grant these rezonings you take from the people who have paid the way so these guys can pave the way to their dollars. They know the people who are being abused by neglect and sold out by the administrators. Our sewer isn't even going to be online until 2006. I remember an ad campaign that was put on our voters about improvement tax. Why? Pumping sewer. We have all forgotten, we are still pumping sewer across the mountain. He said it is on schedule but we are behind. This is related Sir. It is draining our resources. Once again, I've asked for my sidewalk to be fixed from one unscrupulous developer. I guess the city's plan is to wait until Greg House tears it all up and then we will put in a new one. That is going on at Spring. I have come in for over three years asking for that developer's destruction of city infrastructure. We couldn't even get that to happen. Annexation may be appropriate but when you annex we are willing to welcome you into our growth area and we trust extending a relationship. It is not unreasonable for us to say if you are wanting to wish, this is rezoning, this is the push, this is the gotta do it all at once, gotta do it now, no you don't. If the wish is to profit financially by development and subdivision, you need to wait your turn. That's all we are asking. Don't continue to overload our system. That's all we're asking. That is not unreasonable. There is strength amongst you to not to have to succumb to the rights of a developer. Topography, things such as these folks come in asking for favors. How much more clear can it get? When they are asking for a rezoning they are asking for a favor. You are going to give the favor at the cost and at the expense of other folks. One last little thing, our own council member is saying that we have problems. Residents who have already invested in city infrastructure aren't given less consideration than many residents as what we should have says Lioneld Jordan. Jordan says as residents move into newly constructed neighborhoods travel throughout the city increasing congestion. As long as the city only has 2.5 million to spend on roads per year the city will stay behind on growth. Where are we going to take that money from? When the hiring freeze stopped who were the first people hired? Six road crew members. Who is paying for that? We pay for it because we can't afford to buy our own library is how we are paying for it. The 2020 Plan does not mean tomorrow for a developer's right to develop. It means 2020. I don't think it is unreasonable to say we will annex this property but until our sewer is online in 2006 and we are not getting sued by Oklahoma and making sure that we can keep pumping it over the mountain I don't think that is Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 35 unreasonable. Here are my two questions that I don't expect to be answered by staff tonight, I have learned that. Why was the very important hillside taskforce delayed, put on a back burner, told that it was not important. I would like to know eventually an answer to that. Safety, I would like it published the rural accident report for the Wedington, Betty Jo area, which is where all of this is. Who is going to build a new exit off of I-540. There will have to be a new exit. There is no way no matter how they can do all of that traffic that 6`" Street will accommodate what is going all the way out to Double Springs. Who is going to pay for the overpass for Persimmon once that goes? Let's not talk about that need. Those people can suffer that drive and worry about getting killed pulling out on Wedington because they've got to take a chance to get out there. That is also where the school district wants to put our kids. It is truly amazing. Attainable housing is not being pursued aggressively by the city. The city should provide some type of system. That's how progressive we are. Everything is not a conspiracy folks. I'm afraid a lot of you may not be near aware as the ones I know as a reality in my life. I'm not saying that's what is going on here. This is another level. TIF, Mountain Inn TIF, what is the whole south side of town TIF. It is a term similar to the military industrial complex in it's power of what is going on in our town right now. All we are asking is please, give us time to take a breath. That's all we are asking. Just give us a breath that are in here and you don't just jump through their hoops to give favors. At our expense to what degree? We are also accommodating other people who are swooping in for the profit and profit and dollars which some folks here seem to think if it is appropriate for one side it was for all. In closing, I do say what's going on here between the city, the school district, the developers, there is a lot going on. Here is the deal for you. Just ask them to slow down. If we at the city are not supporting urban sprawl, you've got to be kidding. Vote to annex if appropriate, vote no on all rezonings until Fall, 2006 when we might have a sewer on line. Thank you all. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Davison. Are there other members of the public who would wish to comment on this item, the annexation for Tipton/Sloan? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. To start off, I believe our constituent did have a couple of direct questions. On the issue of the hillside taskforce, I can answer that. It was delayed because 2/3 of our membership left the Commission. We have not reappointed but we are going to reappoint tonight and get that taskforce started again. There are many things that the City Administration is doing. I'm not sure about the answer of the backburner, I wasn't at that conversation. On the taskforce we are going to carry on and do our due diligence as the Council has instructed us. The accident reports for the Wedington, Betty Jo area I'm also interested in. I was going to bring that up in some of these discussions. I believe the comment of course the Persimmon by duct or crossing I-540 is relevant to Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 36 the discussion of the increased traffic. I believe we will get to that directly. Commissioners? Allen: Since this is the beginning of many annexations that we are getting ready to look at I will just pitch out this comment. Several months ago the Planning Commission and the City Council met jointly to discuss annexations and out of that meeting the Mayor appointed a committee of Planning Commissioners and City Council members to look at infrastructure problems, traffic and so on. I feel uncomfortable about proceeding with some of these annexations without a report from that committee. I know that yesterday when I went out to look at all of these annexations that traffic is certainly a consideration. I'm not saying that we shouldn't annex, I'm just saying that I would feel more comfortable hearing reports from that committee before we make these decisions. Ostner: I would have to agree. I am very interested in what the task force is looking into. I haven't attended their meetings but from what I read in the paper they are gathering great information. Could our two or three members fill us in on what is going on? Myers: We are still in the information gathering phase. We are meeting with representatives from the Police and the Fire and Water and Sewer to find out exactly what annexing means for the city as it is constituted now. I don't think we are very close to making a recommendation to Council. I would guess we would have to meet at least another four to five weeks before we are in a position to make a recommendation. If you feel strongly about not moving on any of these annexations until you have a report from that committee then you are talking August or September. Warrick: With regard to the reason that these are back before you. The City Council has not instituted a moratorium. They were asked. They specifically decided that was not their desire at this point in time. Many of these items were tabled in late April. The applicant requested that they come off the table and be heard. There are some items that are also newer that are on this agenda as well. It is a matter of when people submit to the office, when they get through the county process, which is required if you are annexing into the city or making a request to annex into the city. It wasn't a situation that we even necessarily wanted to see six different annexation and rezoning pairs at the same meeting. It is a situation that the developers were ready to move forward and request that you take action on this. You are making a recommendation to the City Council and they will, of course, be required to confirm any recommendations or make their own decision with regard to final action with regard to annexations and rezonings. That is why these are here. We do not have direction from the City Council to hold up any applications that are coming through the review process. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 37 Graves: I also serve on that taskforce and I agree with what Ms. Myers has said. I don't believe that there is going to be a report forth coming out of that taskforce as quickly as maybe the taskforce was charged with. That is not for lack of diligence on the part of the taskforce. It is just there is a lot of information that has been requested and as that information comes in it leads to requests for other information. That process may take a little longer than everybody would like. In the meantime, I believe I was the one that specifically asked the question at the joint meeting whether there was going to be a moratorium in the meantime. It seemed across the board that there wasn't a sentiment for anything like that including people on both sides of the issue on the City Council. This board, not being charged with policy making as such, it wouldn't be appropriate in my opinion for the Planning Commission to determine that there is some sort of de facto moratorium and that we are going to try to table all of these things. I also think that with respect to infrastructure concerns, although that is something you look at with annexation and all of these are accompanied by rezonings, I do know that with the taskforce one area that seems to be of a high priority with the members of the task force, again, on both sides of the issue, regardless of where they eventually fall with respect to annexing property in different areas around the city. One area that seems to be a priority to everyone is the area that we are looking at tonight around where the new treatment plant is going to be. I will be in favor of annexation of these properties. I know that Persimmon is certainly a high priority road as well and all of these border that particular road. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Graves. Clark: In the 2020 Guidelines it says conduct a fiscal impact assessment on "large annexations". What is the definition of large? Williams: I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. You would think if you put all of the annexations together that are facing you tonight that would certainly be a large annexation. I guess I would leave the interpretation of that to the Planning Department which actually drafted that particular policy. It wasn't part of the original plan that went through all of the hearings and everything else. This was added later by the Planning staff because they wanted to get some sort of annexation policy in effect. I would yield to Dawn Warrick, probably one of the authors of this. Warrick: This is what Planning presented as a policy to the Planning Commission. It was recommended and forwarded to the Council for adoption. Large annexations, in looking back over the historical annexations for the City of Fayetteville, we have seen annexations from less than an acre to more than 1,300 acres. In fact, I believe we had an 11,000 acre annexation in the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 38 1960's so they vary greatly. The annexation that the Council is considering with regard to annexing unincorporated islands that are currently surrounded by city limits is approximately 1,300 acres. I was not one who drafted that particular policy. However, my interpretation of that is that it would probably vary. In this particular case we saw several different applications that happened to come in and through various reasons, ended up on the same agenda. When we started looking at these annexations they were not all on the same agenda. They were in different rounds of review. Through items being tabled and different applications being submitted at different times we ended up with approximately 400 acres on tonight's agenda. When we look at that policy it is obviously subjective and some determinations have to be made as to what is large. We have not, since we adopted that policy back in 2002 seen this number of individual annexations come through at the same general time. We have seen this type of single annexation for properties of similar sizes at various times throughout the past several years. Again, it has just been at the same time. My expectation when we talk about doing a fiscal impact analysis on a large annexation I would expect that if the city were to initiate an annexation of several hundred acres or even thousands of acres of property, that we would need to prepare that for the Council. Clark: Not individual pieces that are smaller? I'm struggling. I don't think it is fair to look at this and necessarily judge it as a whole but gosh it is going to have impact. Where do we draw the line? I just need clarification. Have we ever done a fiscal impact assessment? Warrick: No. Myers: That is one of the issues that the taskforce is struggling with right now. Tr umbo: Staff, if we don't annex this property can they still develop it to our Fayetteville city standards? Warrick: This property is immediately adjoining the Fayetteville city limits and so the street standards would be to the Fayetteville street standards. They would not however, be required to provide detention, tree preservation or parkland. Of course, they would be very likely residential lots developed on septic systems because we do not extend sewer service beyond the city limits. Trumbo: What about taxes? Would the City of Fayetteville receive the property taxes through the schools? Warrick: Not property taxes. Sales taxes. The property tax to the schools is based more on the school district and not municipal boundaries. Any sales tax Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 39 generated would, of course, go to the breakouts for the various communities on sales tax. Trumbo: I'm for annexation. The amounts don't bother me but I deal with lots of acres everyday and I see it happening all over Northwest Arkansas. I'm comfortable with it and I feel that if we don't this property is going to be developed without our input, without our regulations and zoning and we also miss out on tax dollars which pay for things that the city needs. It pays for the infrastructure as well. I'm not for a moratorium or holding off on this. I just want to be clear that not all of us feel that way. Ostner: Thank you for those comments Mr. Trumbo. I would like to respond. I tend to disagree that these will be developed without us. Property in the county is simply not being developed at the rate that the City of Fayetteville is experiencing. Frankly, there is more profit to be made when you develop city lots. There is more incentive from the landowner to get into the city. He can offer more when he sales lots. I am not saying I'm against annexation. I wish in a perfect world, we could annex a lot of land, assuming everyone is happy with it, annex a lot of land and plan where and when, as Ms. Davison referred to, where and when we would like to develop areas. That is probably impossible but I believe it ought to be the goal that annexations and rezonings should be looked at in a completely different light. We are forced by our ordinance to look at them side by side. On every annexation request that we receive we also receive a rezoning request that a developer wants and needs to rezone that property to develop it once it is brought inside the city. It makes it difficult for Planning to go on because we wait until the market or the developer chooses to act on a certain area. I'm understanding Ms. Allen's reluctance to annex in the middle of the current state of things. In the newspaper this weekend there was an article that Northwest Arkansas is annexing at an incredible rate. The master plan was delivered to us tonight on our desk for review. TIFs are a big issue. I believe TIFs are important and there is a possibility of a drain of influence or attention. What are we tending to as a city? Are we tending to the borders, are we tending to our downtown, what are we looking at? I think we have a lot of things on our plate as a city per day. That is really the extent of my comment. Clark: I have struggled with annexation and this one is no exception. However, I have a question for staff. I'm trying to figure out how all of these universes come together to a perfect world. If we annex and it now belongs to the city and then we go about zoning and rezone it as all of these petitioners have requested tonight. When they submit their Large Scale Developments if the sewer treatment plant is not on line, if the infrastructure is not ready to accommodate that growth that is the proper time as I understand it, to say no. Is that correct? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 40 Warrick: You have the ability to say no at several different points. Clark: Those are some key issues though? Warrick: Absolutely. You will be addressing at the time of rezoning consideration the appropriate density. For Planning purposes, what is compatible, what is consistent with the General Plan, what is appropriate with regard to land use and density at that location. At the time of development, in this case we are looking very likely at a single family subdivision that will be submitting a Preliminary Plat if the property is annexed in the city. We will be looking at the infrastructure based on that development and the impacts caused by that development and what needs to be addressed and what is a roughly proportionate condition of approval with regard to impact of that development. Clark: Theoretically speaking, not necessarily about any of these, if the infrastructure was not sufficient, if the waste water treatment plant was not on line, that would be a reason to not approve a proposed development? Warrick: Yes. MOTION: Clark: That is what I thought I understood. For the record, general comments about annexation. Annexation does not scare me. Zoning scares me a lot. Annexation, we have growth boundaries right now that we have said we are going to grow out to. We are land locked. We go to those boundaries, other cities surround us and the county surrounds us. Having that boundary gives us an idea of how far we can grow and probably will grow. What we put on that annexed land however, is totally dependent upon the infrastructure. Zoning is critical. That is where I'm more concerned with the issue. When we have new developments we serve impact fees upon them. Those impact fees then help support the inner city that I do not think needs to be abandoned and must be cultivated and encouraged to re -grow or grow differently. Developers have to put a lot of money into developing infrastructure like streets, etc. in whatever they are proposing so that doesn't come out of tax payers pockets, it comes out of developer's packets. They are paying impact fees that can go and help the rest of the city. To me, annexation, if we don't do it now, we are going to face what could possibly happen if it is developed on it's own with county standards and then if we annex that property we have to pay to redo all of that. Septic tanks scare the heck out of me in terms of environmental impact. If it is annexed we control it. I am going to support ANX 04- 04.00 and move for approval. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 41 Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I understand that we have to look at all of these individually that we are looking at tonight and what we have to work with are our guiding policies that are in the General Plan 2020. I have some questions about some of the items on there with respect to this piece of property. It is the furthest reaching of the ones that we are looking at tonight in terms of distance from our city center. I have a hard time looking at our land use map which doesn't appear to tie directly to the population growth projections that the city will likely double in population within the next 15 years. Nor does it to my satisfaction identify neighborhood commercial centers to serve that increased population. Therefore, I feel like we have a General Plan that is not truly planned in terms of physical infrastructure and therefore, I don't know what is strategic or not in terms of annexations as tied to the long range plan. However, we do have some guiding policies. I have a few questions. On page 5.6 of our report the third finding says Planning staff has asked the Engineering Division, Fire Department and Police Department to study this annexation request to determine if facilities and services are available. One of our things that we should look at is that public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. Has staff received those reports from those divisions and does staff believe that the city can efficiently provide those services in this area? Warrick: Those reports are on page 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 of your packet. All of those divisions questioned did respond affirmatively that services could be provided to this area. Anthes: Those services would be received in the same level of service as areas already within the city limits? Warrick: That is what is indicated in these responses. Anthes: I'm sorry for the redundancy. I just wanted to make sure that we talk through these things for the citizens that are here. We look at this particular piece of property is different from others in that we have a specific finding about annexing environmentally sensitive areas and this particular property found that was not applicable and that there was not an environmentally sensitive area. Warrick: This is basically an old farm field. It is near Owl Creek but not on Owl Creek. We did not find that there were hillsides of any type on this particular property so we found that that finding was not applicable to this site. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 42 Anthes: There is no floodplain or floodway on this site? Warrick: No, not on this site. Anthes: When I look at this and think about large annexations, 30 acres in the scope of what we have been looking at recently is not necessarily one of the largest annexations. However, I would like clarification of that in the future. I would ask the City Council to strongly endorse planning that helps us identify growth neighborhood centers and takes a good look at how our zoning responds to those things in light of the population growth projections that we are seeing in the news. Warrick: Our General Plan is a general plan, it is a guiding policy. We are directed by that plan to update it every five years and we are gearing up for a 2005 update of that plan. I think that a lot of your comments are very pertinent to the type of information that this Planning Commission and the Council as well as staff desire to see as amendments implemented into that plan. I'm interested in pursuing some of that as w move into that update. Ostner: In the General Plan under Plans and Policies, 9.8.i Establish performance zoning design standards to mitigate adverse impacts of contrasting land uses with residential land uses. This has not been adopted as an ordinance as of yet but it is quite a tool that we can really use in the future. Developing and implementing a tree performance type zoning system citywide would require a consultant and extensive additional studies and amendments to the zoning/development code. I'm agreeing with Ms. Anthes and I appreciate Ms. Warrick's comments. Warrick: With regard to the performance zoning one thing that we have done and it is noted in the policy, about the ordinance regarding limited neighborhood commercial uses in a residential district. That ordinance was repealed when the City Council adopted Planned Zoning Districts, which is in part, our response to that policy directive. Planned Zoning Districts are performance zoning. That is a part of what we collectively have done to address that particular directive. Anthes: I cannot find a specific compelling finding of fact on this particular piece of property as I do on some of the others that we might hear later this evening. The urgency for me on this particular parcel is not there. It is not tied into specific developments that we are seeing currently closer to our city center nor is it an environmentally sensitive area. Therefore, I will not support this annexation. Graves: I will support the motion that is on the table. Addressing some of the factors that are present for this particular annexation under our General Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 43 Plan. I would first like to note that they are guiding policies. I'm not certain that with a guiding policy that every element has to be present every time. We would of course like to have a fiscal impact analysis on every one of these but I'm not sure it is economically feasible for the city to do an economic feasibility study on every 30 acre parcel that might come in. I think that the method that is utilized when applying for these is on a per development basis or per tract basis, you are likely not going to see a fiscal impact study regardless of how the plan is amended sometime next year and regardless of what everyone would like to see. That is probably more amenable to a situation where maybe an ordinance is passed and a large contingent of the population is voting on a larger annexation. A number of factors are present here under our guiding policies. Those include the presence of a planned residential use of this property under the General Plan. The fact that there are urbanized zones nearby on Persimmon Street on the northern edge although it is not developed immediately to the north. We did just approve a particular tract on the northern edge at the Genevieve and Tackett area. That area is developing and as you go further east there is a large number of urbanized areas there that are nearby. This is becoming an urbanized area. We also have, although not everyone here is privy to the information, because they haven't been at the task force meetings. This is an area that is already served by water and sewer service very nearby, although it is not extended onto these tracts. It is pretty immediately available without expenditure by the city. These are also areas that our fire and police are already servicing because on the northern edge it is already in the city. They are already having to patrol and serve those particular areas. As far as looking at city services right there without increasing the expenditures that the city would have to make to provide service to those areas. Also, this plan I would note hasn't been amended since the impact fees were implemented. Although, the impact fees do not fully address financial or fiscal impact or we don't know whether they do because we don't have fiscal impact studies. It certainly ameliorates it somewhat. I'm in support of annexing this property. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Graves. Shackelford: One final comment. We have talked about a lot of issues regarding rezoning and annexation tonight. Obviously, there are a lot of different opinions in the general public, on this board and on City Council. I think that is why this annexation subcommittee was formed. I too serve on that subcommittee. I don't think that any of us here are in a position to speak for that committee. It is way too early in the process to go that way. I look at these as just basic annexations. We are challenged and bound and directed by the ordinances as they exist today for reviewing these. We serve at the discretion and at the will for the City Council. The City Council very specifically discussed whether or not they wanted a Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 44 moratorium on these annexations and rezonings. That decision I don't think was supported by either side. I think that their request of us is that they go ahead and view these on a case by case basis. It takes City Council authorization to change those ordinances and until there are changes that come forth from either City Council by recommendation of this subcommittee or otherwise, we have to approach these as we did prior to this. While there is a lot of information that is being gathered, I think we have to operate under the same circumstances that we have in the past, which is on a case by case basis. I think staff has done a good job with their findings of fact on this. I think that this annexation is in line with what was approved in the past and what the City Council has basically, by not directing a moratorium, expressed an interest in going forward. We have to remember that we are the first step in this process. These are recommendations to the City Council and again, they are going to have final say on this. They are the ones that have encouraged us to keep these moving forward. I would encourage on this and other upcoming items tonight that we would consider due process and keep these things moving forward. Ostner: I just have one other comment. We have talked a lot about ideas and philosophical conversations about annexation with our city. The big difference to me is annexations and these rezonings are about how much and when. I think we as a panel would agree that our city is growing. I don't think any of us want to stop it but how much do we grow and when? Do we grow now? Does this property get developed now or should it wait? There is a lot of undeveloped land between this property and our city center. There is a lot of undeveloped land between this property and I-540. For me it is more of a logistical issue of how much and when. It is at the furthest reach of the annexations that we are looking at tonight. There are many other projects with much greater acreage that are a lot closer. In my mind when city services and residents have to drive by vacant areas to get to where they are going, that is sprawl. Sprawl is bad. Sprawl is expensive. It increases drive times, it taxes the city. I'm in favor of annexation and I will probably vote for this tonight. However, on the rezoning and land use I'm not certain I will vote for it. Allen: I wish I had a note from home to not have to vote on any of the annexations because I very much would like to have the report from this committee before we make the vote. However, I agree with Commissioner Clark about it not being the annexation, it is the zoning that is the primary concern. I will vote in favor of this annexation. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Allen. Is there further discussion? Can you call the roll please? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 45 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-04.00 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to one. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-10.00 for Tipton/Sloan. We have heard the staff report. Myers: Since this parcel is actually being developed as an extension of an already existing subdivision or development I don't have trouble at this particular time with this particular parcel in terms of rezoning it to RSF-4. I plan to vote for this rezoning. Ostner: On that same note I appreciate the drawing which is not usually offered at this point. I'm pleased that there are no back fences facing street right of ways. Backs of houses should touch backs of houses. That is important. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this issue? McGuire -Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I'm here tonight because I feel like this whole meeting is historic however it comes out. This whole time period that we are going through and the effort that you are making to struggle with this question of the growth of Fayetteville is really important. If it is true that you are actually considering prying apart the automatic annexation and rezoning that would be very exciting in itself. If that is what is happening I'm excited and encouraged. Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this item? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: To address that comment. I think that we are required by city code to address land use when an annexation comes in. Annexations come in automatically R -A so we typically want to zone to something else because most areas that we annex aren't going to be agricultural. That is why we always look at them at the same time. I think it is important to look at land use when annexations come in but not necessarily accepting what the developers want. I think that is the issue. I am for this. I think the Bill of Assurance stated 2.9 units per acre. That is definitely not the most dense it could be. This area of town is going in that direction. This is an area that is soon going to have more and more development going on with the location of proposals out in this area and also with the Boys and Girls Club. I think it is an important area of Fayetteville. To me it is also important to have these developments in this area that extend these roadways and make improvements to roads. We discussed tonight another one that borders 54`h and that could be very pertinent. It is a tool that we have used to fund our growth in this town. It goes both ways. We are at a Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 46 historic time in Fayetteville where we are growing on our edges and we are growing in the middle. As you read the papers as many of you have, you see the downtown master plan and the development that we already have. It is a challenge and drain on staff. I really appreciate their work in trying to keep up with this. I will be in support of this, especially with the Bill of Assurance limiting it to 2.9 units per acre. MOTION: Shackelford: I concur with what Commissioner Vaught said. I think that this rezoning to RSF-4 is a lot more in line with what is happening out there than the R- A zoning would be. I think that density wise it fits in with the development. Obviously, this is basically an expansion of an existing development in that area. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-10.00 to the City Council. Graves: Second. Anthes: Contrary to what we see, R -A or RSF-4 zoning are not the only two instruments of zoning available to us. I'm having a hard time understanding whether this should be this density, less dense or more dense without knowledge of our long range plans for our commercial centers and time that to population growth and our directives about sprawl or smart growth. Without those policies in place it is very hard to tell whether we are building to the correct density at this distance from our city center or not. I understand that this is an optimal density for developers developing single family residential units. They get a lot width and street frontage that works pretty well and I can appreciate that. I really want to see us look more carefully at specific locations and understand them in terms of bringing services to those areas and not just blanketing the perimeter of our city with a blanket of RSF-4 without mixed use being brought into that equation. Thank you. Clark: I would like to echo Commissioner Anthes' sentiments. I voted for annexation but I am not going to vote for rezoning. You might as well say blanket comments here as well. Until I know some of the answers to the infrastructure questions, to the financial impact questions I don't have enough knowledge to say if RSF-4 is proper density out here. If you follow the reason that it is connecting to another subdivision well then we might as well rezone everything else because it is a chain step right on down to the city. I am not going to do that. I encourage the taskforce and am in support of the taskforce. I know you all are working very hard and you are going to consider a lot of information. When I see some of that information maybe I will feel comfortable making these votes for rezoning. Annex it, great. It belongs to us and then we can zone it. When you zone it you have to answer some very substantive questions and I Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 47 don't have enough information to do that. I will be voting against the rezoning. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-10.00 was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Ostner and Clark voting no. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 48 ANX 04-01.00: Annexation (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-11.00: Rezoning (GREENWOOD/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney on behalf of Jean Greenwood Jowers for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 160.0 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: I believe the next item on our agenda is ANX 04-01.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. Morgan: This subject property contains approximately 160 acres of vacant property located south of Persimmon Street east of the future Broyles Avenue and west of the southern extension of Rupple Road. The approved Preliminary Plats for Persimmon Place and Cross Keys R-PZD are located just north of this subject property. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the north and the west. The applicant proposes the annexation of this property, 160 acres into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation based on findings within the staff report and that the subject property is adjacent to the City of Fayetteville and will create appropriate city boundaries. In conjunction with this annexation request is RZN 04-11.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from R -A to RSF-4 should the preceding annexation request of 160 acres be approved. The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance limiting development to 1.5 units per acre. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could step forward, introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Smith: Good evening, my name is Raymond Smith. I submitted the application on behalf of Greenwood and Mr. Sloan of Sloan Properties. As was explained, this property is located southeast of the intersection of 46`h and Persimmon. It is approximately 160 acres. It is adjacent to 40 acres for the Cross Keys subdivision which this would be part of the Cross Keys subdivision that is already in the city being developed. Mr. Sloan has quite a bit of detail here that he is passing out to you that shows the location of this property and what the plans are. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 49 Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, the owner/developer of the 160 acres. What I have given you tonight is a drawing. This has my property which is the west 160 acres and then the McBryde property which is attached to mine on the east side running parallel. I am working with the McBrydes to help them develop theirs at the same time that I'm doing mine. What we have proposed here is a subdivision, we do have floodplain in this subdivision. We knew that going in. One of the questions that I had was what to do with that floodplain which would be open field for the neighborhood to look at. One day it dawned on me why not putting in a first T golf course for kids. It is across the street from the Boys Club and was it possible. We went and talked with the Boys and Girls Club, visited with them for a little bit and they said yes, that they would be interested in doing something if we could build it and make the revenue neutral for them so it didn't cost them anything to maintain. We sort of put our heads together and talked with a couple of other developers in that area that are already under construction right now and asked them if they would be willing to participate with us and they said yes. We are trying to take the floodplain, we have had a wetland study done and are avoiding all of the wetlands and we decided to see if we could get in a nine hole golf course. We have talked with the First Tee again to see if they would be interested in helping us out with the golf course that teaches kids nine core values. We plan on having lots that will range in different sizes from 145' lots to 95' lots around this golf course and down to the south of it. We do expect to bring this to you in phases. We are probably not going to go out there and do this all at one time. Knowing the city's situation with the sewer plant we do know that we have to do this in phases according to plan. Obviously, we are not going to build streets and get lots ready and find out that we don't have capacity. We understand that but we do already have the property. On the south corner coming up on the McBryde's southeast corner there is about 11 acres in there. Some is in the floodplain, some is not. There are some wetlands around it. Rather than try to work our way into the wetlands we decided just to make that a park for that area. That is what we would like to have. Once again, whoever maintains the golf course and has ownership has to maintain the park. Basically, what we are trying to do is put this in and offer it to the Boys and Girls Club to offer kids golf. It shouldn't cost them anything. There are scholarships to buy clubs for kids who can't afford it. It is a good amenity. There is still a lot of meshing of different people, architects and engineers that it has to go through. A lot of things that we did ask for is that it has to be environmentally friendly because there is a creek around this. We don't need to build pebble beach. We need to build a golf course that has low maintenance, something natural that keeps fertilizers and things like that down to a minimum. There are a lot of issues that we are trying to address. We will maintain a minimum of 20' buffer off of the creek. We have had the Corp. of Engineers out there with us. They have looked at our plans and said that they did not have problems with anything that we Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 50 were trying to do. We will need detention and things like that so there are a lot of issues still to address. What we would come through first would be the portion abutting Persimmon Street. We are building Persimmon Street now in the first phase of Cross Keys. We are building from 46`h Street and over to the Nock property and the McBryde property and then it is going to be taken on over to Rupple Road for the Boys Club. Other than that, with staff's recommendation, we have met with other developers that are coming through tonight to get together so good things could happen that would benefit each one of us. One of the things hat we talked about that is not on my plat and I don't think it is really on his yet because it hasn't been worked out, we talked with the Corp. about maybe not having Rupple go straight south, go to the south of the property that the school would like to purchase and bring it away from the wetland area, south around the valley basically verses putting it on the side of the hill as it does now. Those are some issues that will have to be worked out. Right now it is just a concept plan. We feel comfortable with that 1.5 Bill of Assurance for my property and the McBryde property together. We left a little bit of flexibility. We did look at the RSF-2 zoning and the problem with that is that it requires the 100' lots and some of these lots are 90' or 95'. It is almost like a great thing for a PZD except it has so many people that would have to come together to make this work. We would like to at least go ahead and get started to build the road across there. We would like to get that started and then get some answers basically on what we need to do further to the south. We can do this in phases. This phase is going to be based on what city capacity is. We have been working closely with Greg Boettcher since a year ago on this thing to know what the capacity of the treatment plant was at knowing that if I purchased this property could I have capacity in 2006. We know that there are issues to face on this project. That is sort of where we are at. I bought my property January 9`h. The McBrydes have owned their property for 24 years. We did not go out and make this decision based on the school. We made a decision to do this project. The Jowers asked me if I would be interested if they wanted to sale. Jean and I have been friends for years. They have been gracious to work with me and give me the opportunity on this project. We have already paid for it and purchased it. It is the same price whether it is in the floodplain or not. We did think that maybe bringing an amenity to Fayetteville would be great. I did talk to First Tee and there will be a First Tee golf course in Northwest Arkansas. They are fishing for a home. I would like for it to be in Fayetteville. I would like for it to be on this property. Right now I think that is where they would like to have it at. Ostner: I will open the floor to public comment at this point. Ralston: Good evening. I'm Linda Ralston. I'm fairly new to the Planning process. I just want a clarification. I know it was comment about the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 51 RSF-2. I just wanted that clarified, it sounds like maybe a portion of this is commercial so I wondered if that all ties into the same zoning area. Are there different zonings? That is a comment just from being a little bit green. Also, through this area that is being talked about for Rupple Road and Persimmon and along that. Rupple Road I believe is no longer on the master street plan to go all the way through to Hwy. 62 or 6`h Street. There is a lot coming together right in that area and I'm greatly concerned about a cul-de-sac almost bottlenecking. Ostner: Thank you. Would someone else like to speak? McGuire Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I live at 2742 N. Cheryl Avenue. I'm actually almost reduced to hysterical laughter. I don't even know if I will be able to speak because I believe I have just heard that the disadvantaged children of the Jefferson School neighborhood are going to get to trade their neighborhood school for a golf course! That is just what they need. I would be curious whether this Greenwood/Sloan annexation included a golf course when they brought it before you before but decided to table it. If not, I would say that there has been some influence by those of who has been trying to take a closer look and maybe resisting all of this annexation because these people are now trying to put in amenities to make these things more attractive than what they might have been before. I do appreciate your hard work of sitting up here and doing all of the studying that you have to do. I want to say again almost hysterically, that we just got a notice from the tax assessor for our land. We have some land in Goshen and it's value has gone from $36,000 to $75,000 in one year and we don't even have sewers or a school or anything. Definitely things are going on here. I just want to point out that I imagine that the reason that this Greenwood/Sloan annexation came forward when it did, which was a couple of months ago and right at the same time as the McBryde/Sloan is because of the location of the school on the McBryde/Sloan plat. It was immediately after the McBryde/Sloan property was chosen as the most possible location of Jefferson School that this annexation came out. I just wanted to point out again that there is a tremendous relationship between school placement and development. I do feel in terms of the annexation task force and even getting the right of citizens to speak at the school board that it is really all too late. That the very wise entrepreneurs and business men and investment bankers in town have done wonderful long term planning and are all ready to leap out with everything already all planned, a ten year plan for schools and all of these things and before we barely have time to wake up it is going to be over. It is going to be over tonight a lot of it might be. Anyway, I don't know if we should annex or not. I am more looking at the relationship between school placement and development. With this school placement out here the Westside development is taken care of Next it will be the Cummins Park school on the south side and that will take care of the development Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 52 out there, acres of development added on. Then there is going to be the Hissum School on Hissum Lane going out toward Goshen on Hwy. 45. Ostner: Ms. Bowman, there is no school called for on this project that we are talking about tonight. Bowman: We'll look at McBryde/Sloan to see if there is a school called for there either and we will wonder why not. Anyway, I just want to make a relationship between all of this annexation. It wouldn't be going on right now, they wouldn't have come forward except that the school got placed out there. Ostner: Thank you. Are there other comments from the public? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We have talked about both annexation and rezoning in the same conversations but really we are only looking at the annexation item first. Anthes: In contrast to the last annexation that I voted against I do find that this particular parcel seems to fit more of the criteria for annexation guideline policy. One is that it is a piece of property that is tucked in a pocket that is almost completely wrapped with the City of Fayetteville. It is much closer to density and to a commercial neighborhood node at Wedington and Rupple and the Boys and Girls Club and a R-PZD that we just approved for Rupple Row and the fire station. We have density there that seems to speak to this property having more pressure for development than perhaps some of the more outlying areas. Also, we do have quite a large amount of environmentally sensitive area within this property that I would hope that the city could work with on. I had no idea about this golf course and the annexation, which way we choose to vote one way or the other has nothing to do with whether this amenity is offered. I will say that protecting that water way and making sure that whatever happens there, whether it is a golf course, greenspace, dedication or whatever, is handled in a way that contributes positively to the tributaries and streams in the area. If this is 160 acres, which seems to me is large, and would be something that I would be looking for a fiscal impact assessment on. However, since it seems like we have not ever required those before nor has the annexation task force, from what Commissioner Graves was saying, it doesn't seem like they are going to be requesting those reports. I guess I'm not going to let that hold me back on this site. Graves: I don't necessarily think that the taskforce won't be asking for those kinds of reports. I think that the taskforce is looking at a wide range of things such as recommendations to make amendments to the General Plan when that occurs next year. Recommendations for the ordinances surrounding annexation and some guiding policies for annexation. The chance of getting a fiscal impact study for these particular properties in the time Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 53 frame that the taskforce has been organized could not have occurred. It is information that the taskforce is certainly interested in and has inquired about. I would expect that information much like the sewer impact study tat everyone waited on last year on annexation. I would expect that some of that type of information would be forthcoming as a result of recommendations coming out of the taskforce. It probably isn't something that we are going to see right away on some of the things that are coming before us in the meantime. Shackelford: Staff, part of this request we have been given a Bill of Assurance limiting density to 1.5 units per acre. Just for the record to make sure we are all on the same page, Commissioner Vaught asked earlier what goes into the denominator of that calculation. We have talked about this area being a golf course and possibly greenspace that would be dedicated. You made the comment earlier that if it was a park that it would not go in to the calculation for density. What about if it is as proposed a golf course or if it is required to be set aside as greenspace? Would that go into the calculation for density? Warrick: That is an issue pertinent to the rezoning which will be the next item that we are talking about. Not knowing what is going to happen my understanding is that 1.5 that is being offered with the Bill of Assurance for this project covers the whole 160 acres. We would certainly have to look at all of the variables with regard to whether or not the Parks Department wishes to have that property dedicated to the city so that it would then be under the city's ownership for the golf course. I am not sure that that is necessarily in the plans for this particular site. The golf course is relatively new for all of us I believe. Right now my understanding is that the offer by the developer is a calculation of 1.5 density over the entire 160 acres. Shackelford: Obviously I am jumping the gun and talking about rezoning before we talk about annexation but I've already started so I'm going to finish. What about as the applicant indicated this thing comes in and is phased? Will the Bill of Assurance limiting it to 1.5 per acre, I don't understand how that is going to work because they bring in the first phase that is probably going to be greater than that density thinking that they are looking at the overall piece. How would you approach that as staff? Warrick: Honestly, for this particular site it is a little bit problematic to look at one overall zoning. The speaker who made the first comments with regard to the golf course questioned the zoning and whether that was a different district and how that would be handled. We did some quick checking and golf courses are permitted in certain zoning districts but not in residential zoning districts. My suggestion would be that this area, because of the varying densities that the developer appears to be proposing and because Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 54 of the amenities that they have proposed with the golf course if it does come to fact and also the fact that there is a portion of this property that is covered by floodplain and floodway. This is a site that falls under the criteria that we would encourage a developer to process a Planned Zoning District. At that point they have some latitude with setting out densities and lot sizes and different types of community open space, which is part of the idea with regard to this golf course area if I'm understanding it the way that I believe it has been presented then it really does kind of fall under those types of projects that we would encourage someone to process as a Planned Zoning District. It is not something that really fits into the package of one existing zoning district for every portion of the site. Shackelford: With that I have one more question. Have we seen a situation and is it possible to have a PZD when you have a project that encompasses more than one tract of property which brings in more than one applicant as this proposed development does? Warrick: I think as long as all of the applicants were willing and served collectively as one voice then it is possible to do something like that. In many cases we see groups of individuals come together to make a request for a commercial development or in some cases an annexation. You will see later in the agenda there is an annexation proposal that has several different property owners represented in the petition. That is something where collectively it works better than individually. It is possible. Ostner: My concern is that this is a terrific drawing. I've never even heard of First Tee and I'm blown away. It is an amazing concept but with an annexation and rezoning it is really just a suggestion. The applicant, good intentions aside, is not legally bound to this drawing. This is an idea that he wants to do. Mr. Shackelford raised a great point. If we rezone to single family, Mr. Sloan could run into a problem trying to rezone the golf course, can't get it rezoned and suddenly two years from now the golf course isn't built. I just want to make it clear that if this were a PZD we would have a lot more certainty that this terrific concept could be brought through. We are simply considering the annexation and the land use rezoning at this point. Vaught: I guess my opinion on it is we need to look at whether we think it is appropriate to rezone and then we need to establish an appropriate rezoning, with or without a Bill of Assurance, with or without these concept drawings. Let the developer, if this is what he wants, work with city staff and hopefully he would be amicable to bringing forward a PZD. He understands the complications with breaking up a zone like this in these ways because you would have to break up the lots and then it gets funny with the Bill of Assurance and how do you calculate the 1.5. Those are a lot of my questions, even floodplain and actual creek acreage. I Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 55 don't know if that is included in the calculation. Is it included in the calculation of the 1.5? Warrick: My guess is that it is. This is relatively new information for us. Vaught: In my opinion it is prime to be annexed. It is definitely a residential area of town with it's location and with what is going on around it. With the Boys and Girls Club and with our statements that we would like to see heavier density in some areas like Rupple Road and some of these new areas that have come in. I would almost think that 1.5 units per acre is too low but I think that with the amount of floodplain that's where we are falling into that 1.5 units per acre because we can't build on a lot of this site. I would hope as a PZD we could possibly work with the applicant. If they came to us as one 240 acre site that would be a situation like we had on wilson springs where we had such a large area that the engineering work that had to be done on the site was overwhelming. It could possibly be one of those more confusing PZDs would be correct in this situation. Ostner: Thank you. Matt, on 7.10 and 11 can you explain a little bit how I'm to read this? I'm understanding that there is sewer capacity for these projects but if you could just touch on how to read your charts for me. Casey: The chart hereon 7.10 lists the three major lift stations in the area. Weare looking at Owl Creek lift station for this area but it also pumps directly into Hamestring Creek. Any impact we have on Owl Creek will also impact Hamstring Creek. What we have shown here are the estimated remaining units left that could be added to lift stations. If we add 200 units to the Owl Creek lift station we also need to figure that into the impact of the Hamestring Creek also. On the next page, Dawn may need to help me on this, I have not seen this table before. That was something that our Planning Division put together. Warrick: I will try to help. On page 7.11 what we've tried to do is give the Planning Commission and City Council an understanding of what impact on that determined remaining capacity on those three lift stations on the west side of town that new development would have. This goes back to some degree to Ms. Clark's conversation earlier about having available the ability to serve new developments. We have in the first table included the various projects that have been submitted and processed through the city. The last four are items that we are seeing tonight but those are projects that we have been considering since he study was released. That study gives you the numbers on page 7.10 as available units or remaining capacity on each of those lift stations. Those numbers represent the maximum based on the zoning district that each of these developments have requested. It is not real numbers with regard to approved Preliminary Plats. It is a maximum density if it was fully developed at Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 56 that zoning that is being requested. We have calculated that out and projected remaining capacity, which is the last column in the second table on page 7.11. That indicates that there is remaining capacity in each of those lift stations to accommodate proposed developments at full density build out. Ostner: This is with our current sewer system and is totally independent of our project? Warrick: That is correct. That is without the Bills of Assurance that this developer has proposed. This is at the density that the underlying zoning would allow. Ostner: The Bills of Assurance lower these numbers? Warrick: Yes, they would lower these numbers significantly Vaught: If we approve this with the Bill of Assurance if he comes back through with a PZD it will trump that Bill of Assurance, is that correct? Williams: That is correct because in fact, it would be a rezoning. It is like if he came back with a different kind of zoning that was approved and then the most current rezoning folds. MOTION: Shackelford: In an effort to keep this thing moving forward, I agree with the comments that Commissioner Anthes made earlier. I think that this annexation makes a lot of sense based on where it is in relationship to the other standards that we are charged to look at. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 04-01.00. Clark: Second. Ostner: I have a question. I'm not sure if staff can answer it. On our findings our services, fire police and engineering have given us their report. On page 7.12 the Fayetteville Police Department's approval letter says that this project will not alter the population density or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. Wedington is a problem. It is less of a problem since it was widened. The Wedington/Betty Jo area is very problematic. I'm wondering what the capacity of Wedington might be. How close to capacity Wedington is flowing now. The accidents and the length of wait at that signal. I believe traffic should be right in here as an infrastructure that we have a finding for. I'm not sure the qualifications of the police department to consider the engineering of traffic flow. I would like to believe that they are fully Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 57 capable. I'm not sure they are. That is my question. Can you address any of those issues? Warrick: I can request reports and traffic counts on that area to get an understanding. I can tell you that the Highway Department is working on improvements to Wedington west of Rupple. Rupple Road east all the way into Garland to Gregg Street has been improved and the Highway Department currently has a project that they are working on widening Rupple Road west I believe to Double Springs but I can get you the information on that. That is a project that they are currently under way with. I believe that they are looking at rights of way acquisition and easements and utility relocations at this point in time. That is something that I can tell you. I can also say that when the Police Department is reviewing this they are reviewing this for annexation of vacant land. Annexation of vacant land doesn't necessarily cause any new impact. A development certainly would. Their evaluation of an annexation is to determine whether or not they can reasonably serve it and whether or not they serve that existing development in that area right now. Ostner: It is the same form letter for the rezoning as well. Warrick: It is. I encourage them to evaluate that specifically as well. If they give the same area then I have to take it on faith that they have reviewed it. They go on our Zoning Review Tours with us and they look at these sites. In this particular area yes Wedington does have a tremendous amount of traffic on it. Hwy. 62 does as well. These projects that we are considering, this property specifically is right in between the two. The city is currently building Broyles Road which is the north/south connector street between those, at least to the south end of the city limits of Fayetteville where it will be picked up and exist in the city of Farmington. Then we have Rupple Road which is projected to connect Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 16 but it can't unless development occurs along that corridor or the City Council determines that is the high priority and it becomes a capital improvement project on one of the city's future capital plans. Persimmon is a projected connector street east and west between Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 16 is being pieced together as various properties develop. That street will connect Double Springs Road to Shiloh Drive, the outer road to I-540. Like I said, it is built in pieces and it is getting there but it won't be complete unless property is developed on either side or unless the City Council determines that is one of the highest priorities with regard to capital improvements that needs to be installed by the city. That is what I can tell you about the infrastructure in the area. I can request accident reports and traffic numbers and things like that if you would like. Ostner: I would like to know more about the traffic. The strategic plan that the Council came up with and are very proud of it has a goal of improve Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 58 mobility and street quality. The top action for 2003 was an east/west connectivity plan. We have lots of east/west corridor issues in this town. I believe that Hwy. 62 and Wedington are two great examples. I'm not sue when we are going to solve them if we don't at least examine them now when we are looking at annexing 160 acres. Those are my concerns. I agree with Commissioner Anthes that this project is very different from the last project much further west that we looked at. I would be more inclined to annex this area. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 59 Ostner: The next item is the tandem item on this same piece of property, RZN 04- 11.00 for Greenwood/Sloan. We have already heard the staff report. Are there any members of the public who would like to address this rezoning? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Vaught: I have a question for the developer. I just wanted to make sure you understood a lot of these issues that we have been talking about. Sloan: Yes. The golf course has been involved in this thing since the day that I walked in and told Mrs. Jowers that I would buy it. That was two days before we made the decision and that was almost a year ago that we were going to put the golf course in. I have spoken with a few people in Planning about it. We didn't want it out in public or anything right now because we still have to bring a lot of entities together to see if we could make it work. I don't like the fact that people think that I just brought this up to the table. It has always been on the table and I can bring witness after witness in here. Some of them are city employees. I see the problems with it. It probably should be a PZD. I don't mind pulling the rezoning and coming back with basically the same drawing and having the surveyors break out the boundaries and everything. Would a concept plat fly through verses doing the whole thing? I know that this got to be a question before. I guess in a sense that we can bring a concept plat in and then each phase completely drawn to actual scale and things like that. We can easily get the boundaries because we know that we are going to work within limited boundaries for the golf course. We know that the front lots are all going to be 300' deep. We have already made that determination. We just put the line 300' south of Persimmon and said that's it for those. We know where we are at there. You guys suggest the best way to do this and we are willing to work with it. That's not a problem pulling it back. I didn't realize the golf course needed to be in a separate zoning district. Homes are on the golf course. I have never built one and wouldn't be doing this except for it's a First Tee situation and it is worth the effort that we have to put in for it and we have enough people to support it. Once again, I don't mind bringing it back as a PZD. We would love to do concept rather than doing sewer and trying to work out everything on the last lot and the whole project may be two years away or three years before we can even break ground on it. That is the only question I've got. You guys advise us and we will try to work within that advisory. I see the problems I would have with the zoning. We were hoping that the Bill of Assurance would be the thing. Some of it was because all of the sudden we were asking for the RSF-4 and it looks like many homes could go in there. We are not looking for that. That was the reason for offering the Bill of Assurance that we wouldn't exceed that. I did not realize that the golf course needed to be in another zoning district. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 60 Vaught: I would say that is something that you need to work with staff on. We have one other really large PZD that has come through as something similar. I don't know how it would work with a residential PZD or whatever this winds up being. That was more of a residential section and commercial section with defined lots. I don't know how it works. Warrick: We have within our ordinance the mechanism to look at this the way Mr. Sloan wants to have this. You mentioned the springwoods Planned Zoning District. In that development they had 289 acres and broke it out into nine large lots and identified land use and density for each of those lots with the expectation that we would then follow that up and see development proposals on each of them. One thing that was unique about that project is that much of the infrastructure was already existing at least to provide access to each of the large lots that was being created because it is surrounded by various city streets. We are right now processing through the development review, two subdivisions for two of those lots that were created in the springwoods PZD. We are looking at lot 3 and lot 5 which are both single family subdivisions. I would suggest that we might be able to treat this in a very similar fashion where we look at the whole 240 acres and say that this large tract will be single family residential developed at a density of "X". This large tract would be commercial recreation developed for a First Tee golf course and then take it out in chunks that basically matches an appropriate development pattern. We would be looking initially at just blocks of property, large lots that would have to be followed up by Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Developments, whichever is appropriate, for each of those large lots under the conditions of the zoning that is set for the PZD. Shackelford: Just a follow up question on that for the record. That, as you explained it, wouldn't be that much different from a developer's standpoint than doing it in phases. If you do Phase I of A,B,C subdivision and then you do Phase II you have to come through with a Preliminary Plat and that sort of thing, is that correct? Warrick: It would be very similar to that although we would look at the whole grand scheme of things, the whole master plan up front to understand the relationship between the various uses and densities the major street connections that need to be talked about and identified at that time as well. Vaught: All that said I don't think we should pull the rezoning request. I think that we are bound to assign some zoning to this and if we do nothing it is assigned R -A, which I don't necessarily think it is appropriately zoned. I think that we are bound to set some sort of zoning. Ostner: I believe if we do set some sort of zoning we, in our minds, need to forget about the golf course, which is not compliant with the zoning district we Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 61 are granting. We are granting a zoning district, we are granting a density, we don't know about the golf course. I just wanted to clarify that. Anthes: I'm encouraged to hear the developer discuss the possibility and probability now of a PZD for this property. The reason why is because I look at that R-1.5 and I look at the proximity of this to city services and commercial nodes and I find that density to be alarmingly low in certain parts of this parcel. That doesn't mean that it would be alarmingly low over the entire 260 acres. Some graduated use of possibly mixed density, mixed income and other uses rather than mere single family homes, particularly when we have talked about accessibility to things like golf courses. In fact, in looking at this where you have the lowest density might be something that I would ask you to look at possibly exchanging for the higher density and vice versa. That is to give more people access to the public amenity rather than fewer people access to the public amenity. Give more people public access and a closer walking arrangement to an already more dense zoning, which I think is about 7.9 units per acre just north of here and the commercial zone and the Boys and Girls Club. I'm heartened by that. I would like to see this come through as a PZD and I think one way we could do that if the applicant is willing is that we could table the rezoning request for reconsideration, which I believe we have done before on following an annexation. I will move to table RZN 04-1100. Allen: Second. Sloan: Does that allow us to come back with a PZD? Anthes: Yes. Sloan: I would do that. That keeps you guys thinking. Shackelford: If we make a motion to table do we need to put a date specific on it or what are the repercussions of the motion as it stands? Williams: You have some choices on that. You could have a motion to table to a definite date or you could motion to table indefinitely upon request of the applicant to get back on the agenda. You can do either way. Sometimes in parliamentary procedure a motion to table indefinitely is also a motion to kill because it usually means something doesn't ever come back up and I don't think that is your intent. Shackelford: That was my concern because I don't think that is our intent either. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 62 Anthes: I will restate my motion. I would move to table this rezoning request until time that the applicant requests it comes back before us with a different classification. Allen: I will second. Vaught: By tabling it we are not allowing him to jump right in where he was with a PZD, does he have to start all over with a PZD? Warrick: A PZD is kind of a different ball of wax. It does go through a different review process than a rezoning does. We will have to start at the initial stage in looking at this as far as the development and land use classifications. To some degree he is starting back at the beginning but it is not just a request for rezoning at that point. It is a request for zoning and development combined approval. We are really getting back to the beginning with the development portion of it. Vaught: By tabling this rezoning we are probably never going to vote on it again. Warrick: Not as an independent rezoning without a development. If the developer does what I think he will do, which is process a PZD. The only thing in a PZD you do not hear that zoning independent of the development. Vaught: Because of that I feel it is appropriate for us to go ahead and assign the zoning that we think is appropriate and a PZD will trump that when it comes back through. Shackelford: I concur. I don't want to be problematic, especially with where we are on this agenda and where we have to go. I don't think that if we go ahead and make a recommendation for a rezoning that that has any affect whatsoever in this applicant and following the applicant's ability or desire to bring forth an R-PZD. I think that we need to look at this in tandem as our ordinances are written now and that we request annexation and assign a zoning to it. I think the question before us is RSF-4 appropriate given the surrounding land use of this property. I think that it is. I would like to go ahead and in the nature of what we are supposed to be doing, go ahead and recommend approval of that rezoning. Again, this is a recommendation for approval by the City Council so it will be reviewed there. Any development that came through on this would have to come back before this board as well. I don't think that we are giving up any control. I think we are keeping this thing moving so we are not asking the applicant to start over and we are not in any way inhibiting his ability or desire to bring forth an R-PZD. Anthes: I respectfully disagree and that is because on 160 acre tract in this location I don't feel that there is one consistent zoning that makes sense across the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 63 entire property and therefore, I couldn't find for one. In addition, I feel that there is a motion on the table and that that needs to be heard and I don't intend to withdraw it unless there is a procedural problem. Williams: The motion to table would take precedence. Sloan: What if we just went R -A right now? Let me just do the R -A and then we will come back because we were going to do the golf course and obviously, I need more density on the southern end of it. I don't mind coming back through if that is what we need to do to make this thing official. Anthes: The reason why is if something happens and Mr. Sloan sells the entire piece of property then there would be development by right to a certain level of density that we haven't been able to study yet for it's appropriateness. That is why I would rather leave it either tabled or at a low density in favor of the PZD. Warrick: If this rezoning request were withdrawn the annexation continued on, and if it were approved by Council then the default zoning designation would be applied to this property as R -A. Thereby basically resulting in what you were talking about and the property having to come through some sort of approval process to be developed with any density other than one unit per two acres. I would be willing to bet that the applicant wouldn't mind withdrawing in light of that result. Anthes: Can I ask if the fees that are paid towards this rezoning request would then be able to be transferred to the PZD process? Sloan: I'll answer that for you. No. Warrick: We have spent a lot of staff time and materials on this. I'm pretty hesitant to do that. Ostner: Mr. Sloan, would you like to withdraw this rezoning request? Currently we have a motion to table. Sloan: R -A is fine. We will come back through with a PZD. I just don't know how fast the engineering firm can come back with the information. That's the biggest thing is just trying to coordinate everybody. That is the reason we were trying to stay with sort of a blanket zoning until you get about four different entities together and everybody fights over how many square feet they need for this or for that amenity and then what's left we will develop with residential. I'm not sure how quick we can pull that together but that was the reason for sort of avoiding the PZD. We did the PZD across the street. I liked it. We come to you, we show you exactly Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 64 what we are going to do, we guarantee we are going to do it and it makes the neighbors real happy. It is the same thing here except because of the time constraint, can we get in, do we spend more money knowing whether we are going to get annexed in or not. That was one of the issues and then can we get zoned so that we can do a concept like this. I guess that is where a PZD needs to be looked at as a concept PZD. That would be a strong issue. To me that is a great idea to allow us to run it through here. We don't spend as much money and time and then come back with all of the real drawings and everything else. Ostner: It would seem to me procedurally that it would be more helpful for the Council to see this thing tabled than as an annexation with a withdrawn rezoning request. I would suggest that we go ahead and vote on the tabling on your behalf. Warrick: I thought the annexation was already approved. Ostner: By us. Warrick: Now the request is... Ostner: I'm just thinking in these chambers on a Tuesday night they have to look at an annexation with no rezoning request. Warrick: They will have your minutes and they will have your recommendations and I think that there is a clear understanding of the expectations that we look at this as a comprehensive development plan and determine appropriate zoning based on the development plan for a PZD. I don't think that is too far of a reach from the policy that they have set out. Again, it is a policy that they look at those items together. It is really your determination. If it is tabled it is expected to come back as some type of zoning request. That is a little bit problematic because it wouldn't really be the same type of request. Very likely there would be additional land included in the PZD than just this 160 acres. Vaught: I have a question. By not voting on annexation we are recommending R- A as an appropriate use of this thing. I don't think it is an appropriate use for this land. I think that we should put something on there because a PZD may never come before us. We don't know. He is intending to but something could happen tomorrow and it doesn't happen so we have to look at what is appropriate for this area. R -A is not and by right they could develop that to R -A. That is an area that we have talked about wanting something more than R-1.5 per acre. By R -A you are saying one per two acres. Anthes: I'm saying to table it which is not R -A. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 65 Vaught: It is R -A right now. If we don't send something forward it is R -A. I think that we should send something forward with it. I think that we need to consider the zoning and if R -A is not appropriate we should make a recommendation when we vote on annexations. Ostner: I understand your concerns. I would tend to disagree. Land inside the city limits that is zoned R -A is not cost effective. When you are a land owner and you are sitting on R -A you are passing up a lot of opportunities. I believe the market speaks when R -A is zoned into the city it is going to be rezoned. R -A is not that bad. We have a motion to table unless he would like to withdraw. Clark: Mr. Sloan, do you agree with tabling this so you can come back with a PZD? Sloan: If I am tabling it and we go through and are annexed in we are automatically R -A anyway. If that is the consensus then we are fine with it. Ostner: We have a motion and a second to table. Sloan: We are tabling but technically if it gets annexed in we are going to be R -A anyway. Ostner: That is how it will go. Is there further discussion to vote on the issue of tabling? Renee, could you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table was approved by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Shackelford, Vaught and Graves voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to three. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 66 ANX 04-02.00: Annexation (McBRYDE/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of C. Bryan McBryde for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 80.0 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-09.00: Rezoning (MCBRYDE/SLOAN, pp 477) was submitted by Raymond Smith, Attorney, on behalf of C. Bryan McBryde for property located SE of the intersection of 46th and Persimmon. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 80.0 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 04-02.00 for McBryde/Sloan. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: This subject property contains approximately 80 acres of vacant property located south of Persimmon Street. It is located just east of the 160 acres we just discussed. The approved Preliminary Plats for Persimmon Place and Cross Keys R-PZD as well as Rupple Row are located to the northwest of the subject property. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the north and west should the City Council approve the preceding annexation. The applicant proposes annexation of this property into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation. Again, as with the previous item, the applicant is requesting RSF-4 zoning and again, a Bill of Assurance did mention this property limiting the density to 1.5 units per acre. The General Plan 2020 identifies this area as residential and staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan representing the McBrydes. This is Ray Smith. Smith: This is a request to annex approximately 80 acres there that is located at the intersection of 40h Street and Persimmon. I believe it is shown on the drawing that Mr. Sloan provided to you in our discussion of the Greenwood property. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I am going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this issue? McGuire -Bowman: I'm back, I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman. I don't mean to be hostile to Mr. Sloan but I like to have things out on the table and know what is going on. I think that we make the best decisions if we know what is going on. I am confused. I think that the 20 acre plot or the relocated Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 67 Jefferson School is in this 80 acres but I don't know because it is not being talked about. I don't think we can make a decision without knowing that if in the future that's coming up. I think you should know that as you are making your consideration. Maybe it's important in terms of the rezoning than the annexation but you would certainly want to know if there is going to be a large scale development with a 1,100 student school. If this is going to get passed as RSF-4 and then in two weeks they are going to come back and say what we really needed was a Large Scale Development here. I am just confused and I would like to ask the developer does this 80 acre plot contain the 20 acres that Mr. Sloan has actively negotiated with Bobby New of the school district to purchase the Jefferson relocated 1,100 student school? If so, why isn't he including that in the request with the zoning this Large Scale Development request? Maybe this will come up maybe more at rezoning. Of the commission I would wonder can you deny this request for annexation and rezoning, especially the rezoning if you and I know that this Large Scale Development is included in it and it has not been brought up. It is not like it is going to be a new idea. It seems to be happening. I guess that is my concern that it is a totally different thing to be dealing with a Large Scale Development that is a school with the traffic congestion and density impact that that is going to have. If that is what is happening that is what we as planners all of us together, need to know is happening. I have a question for the developer. Is the Jefferson School 20 acres in this plot of 80 acres? Ostner: We will get to that answer momentarily. Let's go ahead and hear from the public. Ralston: I'm Linda Ralston. I will be very brief. I would concur with what Dr. Bowman just mentioned. I have been to a lot of meetings of the school district and we have been made aware of the 20 acres in the northeast corner of this property is what is being proposed. We know that the school district is awaiting annexation and rezoning on this particular plat. Thank you. Ostner: Is there any further comment on this annexation proposal? Gray: My name is Michael Gray. I'm the associate superintendent for Fayetteville schools. Dr. Bobby New sends his apologies that he cannot be here. He is out of state at an educational training conference. He sent me instead. We wanted to talk just a little bit because we have been in discussions with the owner and developer of this property for a site for the new school. We get from the Planning Department each time a development comes to you in every stage there is also a plat made with my name on it and it comes to the school. We have been getting that almost two years. It has been a very valuable tool. We do have a person on our staff that primary job is growth projections and trying to guide us into Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 68 knowing when we need schools and where. We have to try to determine where those populations are and where they are coming for selection of the school site or school additions. We feel even with this area, if this area were not zoned for Residential and the growth, the growth that is on the north side of Persimmon that is clearly in Fayetteville city limits all the way north of Holcomb Elementary School there are over 2,500 rooftops in plat right now in the existing Holcomb Elementary zone. We are scrambling to try to keep up with the growth that is already there. I need to explain to you that our school district boundaries are larger than the city's. We go from the east all the way to the Madison County line. That is 10 or 11 miles on the other side of Goshen and then into Farmington city limits. As a matter of fact, where the old Farmers & Merchant's bank there on Hwy. 62, right now it is a realty company, that is the boundary. We have to by our law serve those students. For the most part we are talking about serving students that are in the city limits of Fayetteville. Of course we can't build a school without sewer and we can't get sewer without being in the city. We are a little bit bound. We would encourage you to consider annexation for this property so that we can take advantage of Rupple Road extended south from Wedington. There is a new light there and it has got good access. There is a state of the art Boys and Girls Club that is second to none in the nation. For us to be able to partner with the city and the Boys and Girls Club and to give the parents of those students that benefit that is really what we need. We would encourage you to support this and lend us support that way. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Gray. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I believe our largest question by the public has been answered. Yes this is the parcel that the school district is looking for. Vaught: I would just like to say that the annexation and rezoning are something separate from giving the school district to build on this land. That will have to come as a separate proposal. I'm assuming they are bound like the city that have to bring Large Scale Developments for this type of project? Warrick: If the property is in the city it must comply with zoning and development regulations. Vaught: We will see this again if that is what happens. That is part of our consideration. I think we are looking at should this be part of the city and what should it be zoned. That is the simple question before us right now. Ostner: That is a good point. I believe if memory serves me well that schools are not allowed by right in an RSF-4 but they are a Conditional Use. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 69 Warrick: Schools are a Conditional Use in most zoning districts and all residential zoning districts because of the impacts that were mentioned by one of the speakers earlier. You are talking about a traffic generator. You are talking about safety and traffic issues and just whether or not it is compatible in that particular location. Under an R -A district or under an RSF-4 district a school would be required to have a Conditional Use approval. If it was part of a PZD it would be looked at at that time when land use was determined for the tract. Ostner: I just wanted to make it clear that that is another layer of scrutiny that rezoning this parcel tonight does not allow a school. I want to make that clear. It simply annexes and rezones to a single family residential. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on all of the comments that have been made here tonight and in an effort to move this on to the rezoning request I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 04-02.00 based on staff findings. Vaught: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I just want to state for the record that this piece of property has a tremendous amount of floodplain and floodway on it. I would consider this a highly environmentally sensitive area and I want the city engineers and staff to be able to look at grading and drainage in a very serious way on this piece of property. Therefore, I am going to support annexation. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-02.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 70 Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 04-09.00 for McBryde/Sloan. Our staff report has already been given. Smith: On behalf of the owner and developer we would request that this be tabled, similar to what we did on the Greenwood/Jowers property. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners? MOTION: Anthes: Because of the degree of water running through this property, because of it's proximity to other services and again, a belief that a blanket zoning on this 80 acres is probably inappropriate, at the request of the applicant I move to table RZN 04-09.00. Clark: Second. Vaught: Once again I would like to point out by tabling you are giving it a blanket zone. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-09.00 was approved by a vote of 6-3-0 with Commissioners Graves, Vaught and Shackelford voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to three. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 71 ANX 04-1083: Annexation (MARINONI, 478): Submitted by BOB ESTES for property located at THE SE END OF RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 78.84 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1084: Rezoning (MARINONI, 478): Submitted by BOB ESTES for property located at THE SE END OF RUPPLE ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 78.84 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: Our next item is ANX 04-1083 for Marinoni. If we could have a staff report please. Pate: The next two items before us tonight on the new business agenda are the items for Annexation and Rezoning for Marinoni. This property is located at the southeast end of Rupple Road, south of where Persimmon Street is on the Master Street Plan to be extended to the east. It contains approximately 78.84 acres. The request from the applicant tonight is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville and subsequently rezone that property to RSF-4. The property is directly south of the Boys and Girls Club which is on Rupple Road. The property does have access to water lines, sewer lines, fire and police services are also in this area and provided to this area. The city limits are directly to the north. Staff does find that this request is an acceptable size and does create a reasonable boundary along with those parcels that have been recommended for annexation to the City Council to the west. It is bordered by the city limits to the north and east as well. Staff is recommending for approval of the requested annexation. The associated rezoning request staff is also recommending approval of this requested rezoning. There are several developments that have been approved directly to the north, the Rupple Row PZD, the Cross Keys PZD and of course Persimmon Place, which is to the west. With regard to traffic, I would mention that a newly installed traffic signal is in place at the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington. Additionally, a new fire station to serve this particular part of town is under construction currently. As you know, when property is annexed into the city it is zoned R -A. This applicant is requesting RSF-4. Staff is in favor of this request. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Estes: Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Estes and I have the privilege of standing here before you and representing your applicants, Mr. Paul Marinoni and Mrs. Sue Ellen Marinoni here seated in the third row to my right and to your left. Presented for you consideration this evening are three boards. In your packets you have 8 '/z x 11 retentions of Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 72 these boards which you may desire to refer to from time to time. As we begin, let me direct your attention first to the materials that are in your packet. The face page for this annexation contains an error. It reads that the property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 78.84 acres. That is not true. The property is not zoned RSF-4. It is not permissible to have property zoned that is not annexed into the city. That is the first order of business that we have before us this evening is your consideration of the annexation. The boards and the renderings that have been prepared for your packet are there for your edification, for your study and for your review. So often we hear tell me the whole plan, tell me what you have in mind, tell me what you are going to do. This is the reason that I present to you this evening the concept plan. This is not a development plan. This is not a construction plan. This is a concept plan only. If you will please direct your attention to the board to my immediate left the proposed annexation, the 80 acre parcel is shaded out in orange. This is the 80 acre parcel that is before you this evening for annexation consideration and rezoning consideration. This concept plan was prepared by Cole and Associates in St. Louis. The Senior Land Planner, Mr. Jeremy Roach is here this evening should you have any questions regarding the concept plan. As we move through your consideration of the rezoning the request of course is to first annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Staff recommends approval of this annexation request. The reason staff recommends approval is that the requested annexation number one, will not create an island of unincorporated property. Number two, the proposed annexation is of course, adjacent to the city limits along it's east boundary and along the northern property line. The area does not consist of any defined subdivisions or neighborhoods. The proposed boundaries of the annexation follow existing property lines. The infrastructure requirements are met in their entirety. Currently the site has access to Rupple Road at the northwest corner of the property. At the time of development Rupple Road and Persimmon will be improved. The property currently has access to a 12" water main along Rupple Road north of the site. At the time of development an extension of this water main will be provided. The subject property is located approximately '/z mile from the new fire station #7 on Rupple Road and response time is estimated to be one minute. It is the opinion of your Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation and the accompanying rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load of services required. The floodplain from Owl Creek is considered an environmentally sensitive area. It is regulated within the city limits and it has been identified on this property which is an additional reason to grant annexation so that there may be proper regulation and control. The proposed annexation is not now a part of any phased annexation initiated by the city and last, but not least, staff finds that this request is of an acceptable and suitable size so no fiscal impact assessment has been requested and none has been conducted. I will yield the floor at Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 73 this time to public comment and then be back to answer any questions that you may have. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Marinoni are here, and Mr. Roach from St. Louis is here and is available to answer any of your questions regarding the concept plan. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Estes. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this annexation request? INSERT HERE McGuire -Bowman: I am Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman again. Again, the Marinonis are good business people. I am not hostile toward them at all. I just want to point out that most likely the bringing forth of this annexation and rezoning at this specific moment is because of the Jefferson School relocation in this area has been decided. I am just pointing out, once again, that when a school lands somewhere suddenly development prices go way up. It is much more worthwhile to develop your property and that plans are in the works for similar school located development pushes in the southeast and the north. Everybody be ready because it is all already being planned. We have spent quite a bit of time out here because of the Jefferson School relocation. Rupple Road ends at the beginning of this Marinoni property at the present time. Rupple Road runs from Wedington to the new Boys and Girls Club, the new fire station and what will probably be the new school and all of this is down a dead end street. I guess it is going to be extended through this property so that there is some other way to get out. We cannot pour in 1,100 children's parents trying to pick them up from school, the Boys and Girls Club and 3,000 new homes into this block long dead end street. Just be aware that there is going to be a big plan there. There are also water problems. We have seen a lot of standing water in that whole area when we were looking at the Jefferson School floodplain. I'm sure you are going to take that into account. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Bowman. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak to this annexation request? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. The first issue I wanted to go ahead and make clear is that Rupple is on the Master Street Plan to be extended to 6th Street. However, we do not have a pot of money to do that. We need development to drive that road, to build that road between this area. That is in the works. From two years ago, even one year ago, there was no Rupple Road. We are starting the process. I just wanted to touch on that item. Vaught: As well as Persimmon to Shiloh Drive. Which, if all of these developments come through as proposed that will be another outlet, once again, funded by the development. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 74 MOTION: Clark: I move for approval of ANX 04-1083. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? I would like to reiterate my concerns about traffic on Wedington and even the concerns about 6`h Street if Rupple connects. Those are two big problems and we are compounding them. We are adding to them. I don't believe it is a reason to stop this project, especially the annexation part. I made my comments at length on the last item. Allen: I would like to echo my same concerns. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1083 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 75 Ostner: The tandem request is RZN 04-1084 for Marinoni. We have heard the staff report already. Mr. Estes, do you have any further presentation? Estes: Mr. Chairman, the reason that you are seeing this rezoning request in tandem with the annexation request is that your 2002 annexation policy guide requires that when you consider an annexation you also consider density and land use. Density and land use is rezoning. It is for that reason that your applicants would request that you assign a zoning designation to this property. This property, unlike and different from the previous matters that you have heard on your agenda, has no non -conforming use and the request is to rezone to RSF-4. It is more probable than not that you will see a PZD for the property that you have just recommended to the City Council be annexed and the accompanying property owned by the applicants which is now in front of you. When you see that PZD it is more likely than not that your density will be less than the requested RSF- 4. The reason for that is that if you will look at the material that is provided in your packet on 8 %2 x I I's you will see that there is greenspace and there is parkland. There will also be infrastructure, streets and curbs. With those additions you are going to see something of a mix closer to RSF-3. You are going to see an alternative to your standard RSF-4. It is more likely than not that what you are actually going to see in this mix in this particular area and perhaps the area to the immediate east, to your immediate right, is going to be something more kin to an RSF-3. The request for a rezoning comes to you with staff recommendation. The proposed zoning for a single family residential subdivision is compatible with adjacent and nearby single family residential land use. Your General Plan 2020 designates this for residential use, which is certainly compatible with RSF-4. The Fayetteville Police Department finds that rezoning this property will not result in an appreciable increase in the level of traffic danger and congestion in the area. The increase in population density will not undesirably increase the load on public services is the finding of your staff. As we have discussed, the property has access to a 12" water main and 8" sewer line and is within what is estimated to be a one minute drive time to the new Fire Station #7. Your applicants would request that you assign a zoning designation and that zoning designation be the requested RSF-4. I am going to yield the floor to public comment and be available to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Estes. Would anyone like to comment about this issue? Ralston: Linda Ralston. I just have a quick question. If Rupple Road ultimately is not developed all the way through, which would be certainly I feel key to what we have already discussed here tonight, I don't know if eminent domain comes in if someone doesn't want to sale their property or develop it if that is a possibility that Rupple doesn't go through because it is not Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 76 driven all the way through by development. I would be very concerned. That is just a thought. Goodnight. McGuire Bowman: Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman again. Hopefully this will be the end of all of this Westside stuff for a little while and we can all take a break. In terms of Mr. Ostner's comment about the city not being able to afford to put in Rupple Road and so we are depending on developers to help us. I know you also expressed your concerns about that. I do want to speak up on behalf of the citizens who are dreading the extension of Rupple Road through their forest preserved land which they have made into conservation easements and other things. Everybody is not waiting for developers to come and develop everything so we can get Rupple Road to go through. I know Mr. Ostner understands that as well but I felt someone should speak to that issue. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further public comment? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Estes: On behalf of the applicant, if I may comment on the Rupple Road issue. As you look at the Master Street Plan today Rupple Road was shown as a dashed mark. It is not shown in its entirety on the Master Street Plan. What you have before you on these boards and the material in your packet shows a concept plan of connecting Rupple through 6`h Street. The reason for that is that one thing that is of concern to us are our east/west corridors. We have two primary east/west corridors. We have Wedington and we have 6`h Street. For those to be effective there needs to be some connectivity. The construction of Rupple Road through to 6th Street is not on the CIP listing and there is no indication that we are going to see it on the CIP at anytime in the near future. There are two ways that it is going to get done. One is private developers and the second is a private, sometimes called improvement district. Either way, it is not feasible nor pragmatic nor practical to ask that the city at anytime in the near future provide connectivity from Wedington to 6th Street. Yet on the other hand we have to look toward the traffic that we are going to deal with and we need connectivity. The only way that we are going to get that Rupple Road built with private funds is with private developers. The only way that private developers are going to build that road is if they have their project in place. Let me speak specifically to the request that is before you this evening. That is that it is more probable than not that when you see this again you are going to see a proposal to build Rupple Road at least half way through the 80 acre tract and perhaps extending south to the southwest boundary. The applicants that I represent before you this evening do not own the property to extend Rupple Road down to 6th Street and do not have the capacity to do that. What they would have the capacity to do is to complete Rupple Road and Persimmon through the first 40 acres. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 77 Ostner: Commissioners? Anthes: This piece of property and the concept plan and where it is located to me speak to something that I can be more ready to look at and find a zoning for. It is a beautiful piece of property. I'm glad to see that it looks like there will be some conservation easements or parkland dedication through it. It is in an area that is close to commercial, service and civic use node with the Boys and Girls Club, with the C-1 zoning with the fire station and with the commercial activity that is on Wedington. I'm looking at the development proposal and in our staff report it talks about the proposal coming through with single family use with a mixture of density. What I would hate to see is this be all single family with that proximity to those uses and would like to see a mixture of uses and mixture of housing types in addition to the standard stand alone single family home. The amount of development that you can put on this property can stand a very wide range of uses and if indeed, a school does happen that nearby I would like to be able to have that school and those other uses be accessible to a greater number of people at a greater number of income levels. Therefore, when I'm looking for appropriate zoning for this property I'm looking for a mixed use zoning. We don't happen to have one in this city unless it is a PZD. The closest thing to that is probably an R -O. We are looking at Nock's property across the street which I believe is 6.7 units per acre. I see that an RSF-7 density makes some sense but again, the biggest mix of housing we would get in there would be a single family dwelling by right and a two family dwelling by conditional use. We are still not getting that kind of attached housing and mixed housing types. We have other residential zonings that encourage a greater variety of housing values but again, I think that to blanket this with an RT -12 doesn't necessarily send the right signal either. I would encourage you to come back with a PZD and I would welcome any other Commissioner's thoughts on the zoning. Ostner: I would like to completely agree that the Boys and Girls Club is a terrific opportunity to offer alternatives to the standard market price home in Fayetteville. That concerns me. I'm not sure how to get there. Not to overstate the obvious, but these drawings are suggestions again, like the golf course and if everything went down the tubes we have rezoned to RSF-4. That's what counts tonight. MOTION: Shackelford: Back on some points that I made earlier. I understand your comments and I understand Commissioner Anthes' comments. We are challenged to look at a rezoning and annexation recommendation to City Council. I think that the RSF-4 is as compatible as our options are at this point. I am Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 78 going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend RZN 04-1084 subject to all staff's findings. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: Is there further comment? Anthes: For the record, the reason that I am going to vote against this is not because I feel like this is not sufficiently dense. It is because I feel like that we really need to look at something more comprehensively and I just want that to be on the record. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further comment? Could you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1084 was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Ostner, Anthes, Allen and Clark voting no. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 79 CUP 04-1095: Conditional Use (SUNBRIDGE LEARNING CENTER, 289): Submitted by DIXIE DEVELOPMENT for property located at 127 SUNBRIDGE DRIVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.06 acres. The request is to allow a 1,500 s.f. childcare facility within a Pediatric Center. Shackelford: The next item before us this evening is CUP 04-1095 Sunbridge Learning Center. Can we have staff s comments on this item? Pate: This property is located at 127 Sunbridge Drive. The property is currently zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.32 acres as opposed to 1.06 listed in your staff report. The applicant tonight is requesting a Conditional Use request for part of the existing Sunbridge South Large Scale Development which was approved in 1998 at the southwest corner of Sunbridge Drive and Hiram Davis Place. The property is fully developed at this time with parking, landscaping, sidewalks and all of the typical improvements in place. The existing building is approximately 6,100 sq.ft. in total. 1,500 sq.ft. of which the applicant is proposing for a childcare center, which is required to be a Conditional Use in the R -O zoning district. The anticipated maximum number of children in this facility which is to operate in conjunction with a future pediatric center with occupational, speech and child therapy is 35 children. The applicant will run the daycare with the assistance of seven employees from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. There is ample parking and drop-off, pick up space available in this already developed area. With regard to findings, staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use with four conditions. The subject property meets the requirements for the childcare facility with a maximum of 35 children. Our ordinances to require a minimum lot area and minimum outdoor play area space which are met by this request. There is a number there on page 13.5 showing a minimum outdoor play area of 80 sq.ft. per child. Assuming all 35 children were out at one time, which would probably be a mad house, there would be 2,800 sq.ft. required. However, this number is based on all 35 being out at the same time. The Department of Human Services requires that children of different ages have different play time therefore, we expect this number to be minimized. Staff finds there is space adequate for this and is recommending approval with four conditions of approval. Shackelford: Great. Thank you Jeremy. I appreciate that. Is the applicant here this evening? If you would come up to the podium. Bock: Hello, my name is Mickey Bock and I am going to be the Executive Director of this center. As you know with the growth of Northwest Arkansas one of the hardest things for working mothers to do is to find adequate childcare for infants. You can find it for preschoolers but for Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 80 infants it is rather hard. It is quite difficult and if they wait until the birth of their child they are pretty much out of luck. Our facility will have a pediatrician on staff. We will have a physician's assistant, a nurse practitioner, an RN and LPN, which has not been done in this area yet. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this Conditional Use request? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: Based on staff report and our review, I would move for approval of CUP 04-1095. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Clark: Did the petitioner agree to all of the conditions of approval? Pate: We do have signed conditions. Ostner: Renee, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1095 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0 with Commissioner Allen not being present at the time of roll call. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 81 CUP 04-1097: Conditional Use (CRUMBY CHILDCARE, 408): Submitted by LENORA CRUMBY for property located at 1599 RAMSEY AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.229 acres. The request is to approve a childcare facility at the subject property. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 04-1097 for Crumby Childcare. Morgan: The subject property is located north of Mission Blvd. on Ramsey Avenue. This is a cul-de-sac street within the Ramsey addition. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains .23 acres. It also contains one single family dwelling. The applicant requests a Conditional Use to operate a childcare facility for a maximum of ten children within this home. The applicant has operated this business at this location for approximately 16 years and has just recently learned that this Conditional Use was required. The Department of Human Services has licensed this owner for ten children and ten children is the maximum allowable within an RSF-4 zoning. Four children currently attend this daycare. Hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Crumby has no employees assisting in this occupation. The applicant requests a Conditional Use to operate a childcare facility in the RSF-4 zoning with a maximum of ten children and no employees. In regards to findings, staff finds that granting the requested Conditional Use is in the best interest of the public. The service being provided has been provided for the past 16 years and provides a resource to satisfy childcare needs in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Ingress and egress to the property are adequate, as well as parking requirements. The applicant has requested and passed a city building and fire inspection for the continuance of this childcare facility at this residential dwelling unit. In addition, the minimum lot area and outdoor play area as required by ordinance, are being met and fulfilled by the application in this residence. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the Conditional Use with four conditions. Payment of $630 in lieu of sidewalk construction is recommended by the Sidewalk Administrator prior to issuance of Certificate of Zoning. The applicant has expressed concern with the time in which she will have to pay this fee. With previous Conditional Use requests for this type of application we have allowed a six month time frame for that. Also, condition of approval number three states that prior to Certificate of Zoning the applicant shall coordinate with the Solid Waste Division for appropriate solid waste disposal. They have been contacted and have stated that they do not have any additional requirements for trash service at this location. Ostner: Thank you. Can the applicant come forward, introduce yourself and tell us about your request? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 82 Crumby: I'm Lenora Crumby. I've been taking care of children in my home for the last 16 years. I just found out that I'm supposed to have a city license so that is why I'm here. Ostner: Thank you. I'm going to open it up to the public and if we want to ask you any questions we will get right back to you. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this issue, CUP 04-1097? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: Morgan: Anthes: Morgan: MOTION: Staff, have we notified neighbors and have there been any comments from those neighbors? Neighbors were notified. The applicant did notify neighbors as well and we have not received any comments. Do we have signed conditions of approval? We do not have signed conditions of approval. Anthes: The sidewalk in lieu fee seems consistent with other Conditional Uses of this kind that we have required before. I would be perfectly happy to allow the six months to pay that out as we have with other applicants. I will move for approval of CUP 04-1097 with a six month allowance on item two and the other items per conditions as written. Myers: I will second. Shackelford: I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to speak in regard to condition number two and the fact that we are allowing a six month period for that $630 to be paid. Just make sure you understand what we are doing and if you have any concerns beyond that. Crumby: I understand. Shackelford: Thank you. I appreciate it. Ostner: I would like to thank the applicant for wading through a lot of red tape. This is significant. Is there any further comment? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1097 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 83 RZN 04-1111: Rezoning (THE MILL DISTRICT, 523): Submitted by ROBERT SHARP for property located at THE NW CORNER OF S SCHOOL AVENUE AND 6th STREET. The property is currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 04-1111. Pate: This property is located at the northwest corner of S. School Avenue and 6 t Street. It is currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The Mill District is a large scale, multi -use infill development project which was approved in the year 2000. Surrounding properties are zoned C-2, C-1 and I-1 and are developed primarily with commercial uses. The second half of the property is actually adjacent to 6th Street and S. School is already zoned C- 2 which was processed as a Large Scale Development as an I-1 and C-2 zoning district. The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate development on the site in a manner which is more appropriate with the Future Land Use Plan designation from mixed use for this particular property. The I-1 zoning district does not allow many of the use units allowed within a commercial zoning district. The easternmost portion of the Mill District tract, which is currently greenspace, is zoned C-2. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with land use plan objectives, principles and policies, as well as the future land use plan designation for mixed use in this area. Staff is recommending approval of the request by the applicant to rezone the property to C-2. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation please. Sharp: My name is Robert Sharp. I represent the Mill District LLC. We concur with the staff report for the recommended rezoning. I feel it is a more appropriate land use for that part of town and I would be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this issue, rezoning of the Mill District? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. There are still some areas surrounding this that are zoned Industrial, how does this rezoning affect their zones? Warrick: It doesn't affect their zones. Ostner: Don't they get different setbacks and different rules when they abut a commercial zone? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 84 Warrick: Usually the distances are based on commercial or industrial. There may be some slight setback changes but primarily when you have a difference between the setback from the boundary of an industrial property it would be a setback difference at a greater distance if the property adjacent were residential or agricultural and a lesser setback if the property was commercial or industrial. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: I love this project. I wondered if you would be willing to omit Use Unit 18 from the rezoning request? Use Unit 18 is Gasoline Service Stations and Drive In Restaurants. I believe that this project and this piece of property and the way it is developed is walkable. The farmers market there on Thursday is great and I would hate to see drive through lanes and moving traffic through this site. Not that you would ever propose that but another owner in the future might. I would like for you to consider that and I wondered if you had comments. Williams: Before you answer that I need to make a comment. That is in the nature of a Bill of Assurance that cannot be requested by the Planning Commission. You don't need to respond to that and probably should not and we should not make requests like that to applicants for rezonings. Anthes: We know we have seen those things on other rezonings before and if the applicant likes to bring something like that forward they may. Is that the way those have happened in prior rezoning requests? Williams: Yes. The applicant is the one who voluntarily offers such Bill of Assurance rather than being requested by either the City Council or the Planning Commission to in fact, bring forth a Bill of Assurance. Anthes: I had seen those before and I stand corrected, thank you. Ostner: If I could comment to that item. I believe Dover, Kohl drew a gas station that none of us had ever thought of It didn't look like a gas station. It was sort of an alleyway. I think it was the corner of Maple and College. I live near this area. If someone could tuck a gas station like that I would be thrilled to not have to drive to Razorback to get gas. This is the proposed downtown master plan but the zone they are calling for I believe they are calling it neighborhood edge, are you familiar with that? Sharp: I believe it is neighborhood center. It would allow the kind of use that we are talking about for this property, which is a hair salon and a dress shop. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 85 Ostner: That was my next set of questions is if the master plan were approved in it's current form how would that affect this rezoning request? Warrick: It wouldn't unless an ordinance were then approved to support the zoning designations that are suggested within that plan. That is what is moving forward through the review process. It is an informational item being presented to the City Council next week and staff is pleased that we are finally able to get the plan out for review. It is still going to take some time. Once the study has been adopted if the Council so chooses, then we will be directed to follow that up with ordinances to implement the plan. Ostner: I guess what I'm shooting at is does this rezoning request fall in line with the goals and strategies of the downtown master plan? Warrick: We believe it does within the parameters of our current zoning designation. Ostner: Thank you. MOTION: Anthes: I move for approval of RZN 04-1111 with a positive recommendation to City Council. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1111 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 86 RZN 04-1104: Rezoning (GOFF, 607): Submitted by TOM HENNELLY for property located at GOFF FARM ROAD, ACROSS FROM STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS GOLF COURSE CLUB HOUSE. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 17.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1104 for property located at Goff Farm Road. Morgan: The subject property is located north of Goff Farm Road. The property is currently vacant with one single family home and surrounded to the south and west by Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course, zoned R -A and a creek to the east. The property immediately to the east is a large field with two single family dwellings. Further to the east is property developed as Stonebridge Meadows Phase L Stonebridge Meadows Phase II is under construction just to the south of Phase I and was rezoned to RSF-4 in May, 2003. The applicant requests that the subject property be rezoned from R- A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4 to develop a 48 lot residential subdivision as an extension of the approved surrounding subdivisions. Again, property to the north, south, east and west is R -A with two residential subdivisions to the east. The future land use plan designates this site for private open space. Staff finds that rezoning the property to RSF-4 is consistent with the land use plan in such that it will allow residential uses to be located in close proximity to the open space, the golf course, and is compatible with surrounding properties. Rezoning the subject property will be consistent with the previous rezoning actions in the surrounding area and it will promote orderly and consistent development patterns making use of existing infrastructure. Police have found that rezoning this property will not substantially alter the population density, thereby undesirably increasing the load on police services. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request based on these findings. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with Tomlinson Asphalt Company. I'm the project engineer representing Mike Lambert and Clay Carlton. This rezoning that we are requesting, like Suzanne said is Dash Goff s parent's place. It is 17 acres. The property is 17.5 acres total but about 2 of those acres is the lake that is on the east side of it so you are really only looking at about 15 acres available for development. Ostner: Thank you. At this time I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 87 MOTION: Shackelford: Based on the lengthy conversation that we have had regarding rezoning tonight I think this falls in line with a lot of those same comments. This rezoning request is in line with development that has occurred in this area and I think it is compatible with what we want to see in this area. I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-1104 to City Council. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: I would like to talk about traffic again. We probably don't have any more answers now than we did on the last issue. Hwy. 16 is terrible. It is backed up for miles. Do you know any information when the state might be widening? Warrick: Other than that is a state highway and I don't know of any projects that are slated at this point in time on the highway capital lists for Hwy. 16. Ostner: My second question was on the fire report. They gave a response time of 8 to 9 '/z minutes. That concerns me. The Fire Department has stated that their goal is for 90% of their calls to be 7 minutes or under. The reason that is their goal is our rating as a city falls when more than 90% of the calls take longer than 7 minutes. On page 17.4 the finding under fire does say that the proposed fire station #3 will be located 2.3 miles from the property having a projected response time of 5 to 6 '/2 minutes at maximum build out. I don't believe that's really relevant. We have tried for years and we are finally breaking ground on fire station #7. I'm concerned that this is too far out to be developed. Allen: I have the same concerns. Graves: This is certainly an area if you look at the one mile view on page 17.12 of our packet that the fire department is already servicing and will have to service both on the northern edge of Hwy. 16 and on the southern edge of Hwy. 16. This is not going to appreciably increase the response times that the fire department is already facing in areas that have already been annexed in and developed. There are also on the northern side two islands that are currently under consideration by ordinance for annexation in by the City Council. You are going to continue to see the fire department have to go this distance to service this area and they already traverse Hwy. 16 as it is because if you look at our city map we go all the way out that far as it is along Hwy. 16 and they are going to continue to have to service this area. The fire department certainly has a lot of plans on the board for trying to be proactive rather than reactive as they have had to be in the past. As you well know, without development out there, without the need Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 88 to go out there and service those areas the chances of getting the fire department constructed in those areas aren't going to occur to service one or two developments. They are going out that far already and their response times aren't going to be different for this one parcel than they are for areas that have already been developed. Ostner: I appreciate that. The counter point is two wrongs don't make a right. Poor service to an extreme edge of our town does not mean to increase poor service. Yes, the fire department needs more stations. However, once again this is an issue of not if to rezone but how much, where and when. There is a great deal of vacant property that they drive by on their way to getting to service calls. If a more orderly development pattern were adhered to filling in those areas another fire station would come on line with less of a stretch. I just felt like I needed to respond to that. Vaught: In my opinion in a way this is filling in because it is not annexed. It is a little bit closer to town. It has better access. I know there are roads on the Master Street Plan. There is one on here for Starr Drive but once again, when are we going to see that built. I don't see this as increasing the area just because it is already in the city limits and they are going to build a minimal number of houses on it. It would be great to see this stuff further west with development west of Dead Horse Mountain Road. To me this is more of a filling in. I learned at the one annexation meeting I attended was the fire department's meeting and they already service a good deal of even the planning area through mutual aid agreements. That was one of their points that they made as we were looking at annexations and rezonings saying we are already servicing those areas. They were very proactive in that meeting and spoke about the new fire stations they were wanting to get and changing their philosophy in the future. For that reason, I will be voting for this. Hennelly: If I could also make a point. It was less than a year ago that Stonebridge Phase II was approved, 153 residential lots which are further away from the fire station than this parcel is and this being a maximum of I don't believe we would be able to get anymore than 48 lots on it. We will actually have a quicker response time than it will for the David Lyle subdivision or the 153 lots which the city approved less than a year ago. Shackelford: I concur with what Commissioner Vaught and what Commissioner Graves said. I totally agree with that. As has been mentioned, we did take a look at the fire stations and the fire coverage as far as our annexation subcommittee. One of the interesting comments that I took out of that was that these proposed developments and increase in density and increase in development a lot of times that brings about improved infrastructure and they actually anticipate response times could decline as infrastructure is improved in some of these outlying areas. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 89 Ostner: I understand that but when? It could be ten years of excessive response times, which is not good for anyone. I understand that the fire department does a great job. Clark: I think this is a classic example of where I'm going to trust all of the city services who are repeatedly asked can you handle this? Can you handle this? Can you handle this? Without a doubt and without exception since I've been on this Commission a short amount of time they have said sure, we can do it. I would just encourage the City Council members when they hear budget this year and everybody starts asking for more personnel because they are understaffed because of all of this growth to kind of make some people accountable. I am going to vote for this just because I think Christian may have a point that this is some degree of infill. It is not an annexed area, it is already part of the city. We've got departments like fire and police saying we can handle it. If our ratings go down because they don't have fire stations online, they said they could do it. Graves: I was maybe not as clear as I would've like to have been. This particular parcel is in the city. It is already being served by our fire department. Unless all of the houses that are going to be developed on that property all went up at the same time I would expect the response time for the parcel as developed is not going to be any different than the parcel not developed. Allen: When we get these reports about response times I guess I hadn't really thought about, until tonight, that they are talking about what is existing and not what is to be built. That troubles me to know when it becomes significant. That seems quite a long time in terms of safety for someone who has called the fire department. Warrick: Our fire department just recently updated the way that they do their reports. This is one of their new ones. You can see on page 17.7 that for a variety of projects that you are hearing tonight they are looking at various parameters as opposed to just a drive time, which is what we had been getting. They are looking at projected calls within time frames. For this project they are stating that the closest fire station is #5, the distance is 3.11 miles and a response time to the proposed area, that would be today, between 8 and 9 minutes. They also are looking at projected calls to that area. They've got software that works on these projections that they plug the numbers into. They are stating at maximum build out they would be looking at approximately 16 calls for service per year. Projected fire or other calls at maximum build out would be six per year. EMS calls at 10. Those two numbers combined equals their estimated 16 calls per year. It does reduce the response time by a few minutes if the future fire station #3 proposed would be installed in the area that they have targeted. They are Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 90 talking about build out and projections as opposed to our previous reporting which was just it takes this long for us to get there. Allen: That is much more understandable, thank you. I guess sometimes I have concerns about how much we stretch one way and how much we stretch the other way and when we are going to pop. Ostner: We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1104 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to one. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 91 RZN 04-1099: Rezoning (BRISIEL, 363): Submitted by TIM R. BRISIEL for property located at THE S SIDE OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF ALPINE AVENUE. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 2.19 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from P-1, Institutional, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre Ostner: The next item on our agenda is another Rezoning. It is RZN 04-1099 for Brisiel. Pate: This property is located on the south side of Mt. Comfort Road west of Alpine Avenue. The property that is directly south of the Fayetteville Baptist Church. It contains approximately 2.19 acres and is currently zoned P-1, Institutional. The future land use plan designates this particular piece of property for residential use. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and either developed as single family residential homes or agricultural land currently. The 2.19 acre tract is currently vacant and is part of an overall 8.22 acre church owned tract immediately south of that church building, house and parking lot. Access to the site, there is currently not access from this particular legal description to Mt. Comfort. Although, the overall tract does have access to Mt. Comfort. Street improvements likely will be evaluated and will occur at time of development. The developer is likely to process a Preliminary Plat for a subdivision in the future for a residential subdivision not to exceed four units per acre. The proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, policies and principles. Surrounding properties are residential in nature and are currently zoned for residential development and use. Response time to the subject property from the fire department is approximately five to six minutes. It is approximately 2.13 miles. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request based on the findings in your report. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Could you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Brisiel: Good evening, my name is Tim Brisiel. I am the applicant and developer of the property in question. I am also joined by Dave Jorgensen, the engineer working on this project. We are requesting a rezoning of approximately 2.19 acres from P-1 to RSF-4. As Mr. Pate mentioned, this property is located about Yz mile west of the intersection of Mt. Comfort Road and I-540. It is part of a larger tract of land that the church currently owns, 8.22 acres It is Fayetteville Baptist Church. We have been working closely over the past couple of months and have reached an agreement for me to purchase about 5.5 acres for a small, single family subdivision. Of that 5.5 acres, 2.19 acres is still P-1 from the original tract the church owns. We are requesting a rezoning of the 2.19 acres from P-1 to RSF-4. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 92 As the staff report indicated, the impact to all of the municipalities will be minimal based on just the size of this development. It is a rather small development on 5.5 acres. We respectfully request the approval of this rezoning request from P-1 to RSF-4. Ostner: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: My only concern is with access. I assume there is some kind of access, I don't see an access easement or anything like that with this legal description but I assume one would have to be conveyed with the property. It is kind of a weird layout. Warrick: At this point in time the tract that the church is located on, which is part of the property that you are considering to rezone, would have a split zoning designation. That is not necessarily uncommon. It doesn't happen a whole lot but we do have tracts in the city that have two different zoning districts applied to them. Upon any request for development we would have to address access and look at that either at the time of lot split or Preliminary Plat, whichever is requested in order to develop the single family subdivision that has been mentioned, there would have to be a public street developed to provide appropriate access. MOTION: Vaught: With that said, I will make a motion to approve RZN 04-1099. Myers: Second. Ostner: My comment or question was is that, and it is too soon because we are just looking at land use, but that access easement, I would hate to be a single use street. They build a street to access this development and all of the other open land around it doesn't get to use it. Warrick: The city does have a policy for connectivity and we will look at that with any development proposal that we might be reviewing. Ostner: Great. My next question, is Mt. Comfort a state highway? Warrick: Our engineer says no. Ostner: Traffic is bad on Mt. Comfort. We have been incrementally increasing traffic by tiny amounts for years. At what point do we request a developer to deal with Mt. Comfort? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 93 Warrick: It is going to depend on the impact of the development, the number of units that are being proposed and the access that can be provided. We will certainly have to look at that and offsite improvements. On Mt. Comfort the last project that I can recall that we have specifically addressed for offsite improvements would be a subdivision further out west north of Bridgeport. A condition of the development was that Mt. Comfort between that project and Rupple Road be ensured to have a width no less than 24' and that the Y intersection of Rupple and Mt. Comfort be improved to provide 22' drive lanes in each of the two branches of that Y. That is an example of offsite improvements similar to what we were talking about on 54`" Street earlier today where that was a development at the far reaches of the city limits that caused a need for greater offsite improvements because of the unavailability. It didn't really have good available adequate infrastructure and we wanted to ensure that there was improvement to hopefully reach that. Ostner: Just to state it bluntly. What if everybody comes forward with two acre developments? Warrick: We are going to review what we get. I don't know how to evaluate that without some sort of project. Ostner: I understand. I'm just frustrated at things like this. This is a two acre development. I am in favor of it. I'm frustrated about Mt. Comfort. We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1099 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 94 RZN 04-1102: Rezoning (BRADBERRYIWOOLVERTON, 523): Submitted by JAMES FOSTER for property located at SW CORNER OF ROCK STREET AND S. EAST AVENUE. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.39 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from C-3, Central Commercial, to R -O, Residential Office. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1102 for Bradberry and Woolverton. Morgan: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Rock Street and East Avenue. This is one block south of the square. The property is currently vacant and is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. Surrounding properties are zoned C-3, C-4 and R -O and are developed as a variety of residential, commercial and governmental uses. The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached apartment and a small office on this property in conjunction with the lot to the south, which is zoned R -O. C-3 zoning will not permit the development of this proposed use. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a rezoning of this subject property from C-3 to R -O to allow the development as stated. Surrounding zonings are as follows: North is C-4, South and East is zoned R -O, and to the West is C-3. The future land use plan designates this site for mixed use. Rezoning this property R -O is consistent with the land use plan for a residential use and is compatible with the surrounding zonings. It will also allow the property to develop and permit a variety of uses compatible with the functions of Fayetteville's downtown and the surrounding properties. Police have stated that the rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase load on public services. It is also located approximately one minute from fire station #1 and of a distance of .337 miles. Staff is therefore, recommending approval of this rezoning request. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Would you introduce yourself and tell us about your request? Foster: My name is Jim Foster. I appreciate your dedicated public service on this long evening. At least I'm paid for my time to be here. Fred and Caroline Woolverton and their daughter Kate have a dream of moving from an apartment in Manhattan to live in downtown Fayetteville. Your recommendation for rezoning tonight making it the same as the other lot to the south that they are going to be working with will make that possible. They intend to close, providing this is approved, Wednesday. Their proposed home and apartment for the guest would infill vacant lots and bring residents into our downtown. The density, if you consider the total parcels in the two dwellings is 7.45 dwelling units per acre. Although the R -O would permit this they don't have in mind a suburban type design. To the extent the city allows their contemporary two story project would define the street edge with a combination of a principal fagade, garden Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 95 wall and also offering passers by a glimpse into the private domain behind the wall at the address of 11 W. Rock. If approved I think we will be meeting very soon with city staff to see how we can make this design even more consistent with the downtown master plan than the R -O zone typically implies it might be. We really want to be consistent with the intent of the future downtown master plan as we proceed with design. I will yield to comments from the public. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Foster. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this rezoning issue? Henry: I'm Ann Henry and we own the 40' strip that is zoned R -O immediately to the south of it and we think it is obviously a better use of the whole thing to create a nice residential area than leaving it for something that in C-3 allows a recycling center, a filling station, etc. I think given everything else that is going on in that area that it would be a proper use to create that. Thank you. Ostner: Is there any other comment from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Allen: I see this as a positive request and I move for RZN 04-1102. Myers: I will second. Ostner: Do we have further comment? Anthes: This particular parcel of land is one block from the Fayetteville downtown square. Two blocks from the Mountain Inn redevelopment area. Directly across the street from our second municipal parking deck, and the one that is underused at this point. When I read the downtown master plan I believe that it talks about residential infill in a way that is more dense than Residential Office zoning would allow. I'm also looking at the setbacks in R -O which are 30'. 1 think that a building on this site ought to sit on the corner. I know that might be available with some negotiation but the zoning implies a 30' setback. In C-3 it is a 5' setback, which I think is much more compatible in this area. In absence of a development plan in front of us I find it contrary to the directives of the master plan to infill with a single family residence in an area one block from the downtown square next to the parking deck. Therefore, I can't support the rezoning request. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 96 Clark: Based on Jill's comments, what was the rational for city staff's recommendation of approval? How did you balance it? Warrick: City Council has not adopted the downtown master plan and while we do look to that and realize that that reflects the desires for the downtown area we don't have that in place. What we do have is the General Plan 2020 which designates this area as mixed use. We have spoken with the applicant and will continue to work with the applicant. We believe that this site is an area for redevelopment. It is obviously a vacant tract of land right now. People park on it quite frequently during the day. It is staff's belief that some development on this property which could then further be more intensely developed, if that is the decision later on, is more appropriate than leaving it as a vacant corner with nothing. Anthes: We already have a C-3 zoning on this property which not only already exists, but also seems to support the ideas of that master plan whether or not it has been ratified. The other thing is that the Woolvertons certainly could live downtown if they in filled more densely, even on this site, and I don't believe that a down zoning is going to inhibit redevelopment but could maximize their profit on the property. Ostner: I would have to respectfully disagree. I don't believe density means losing community character. I live downtown. Developments, houses and structures that offer families a place to live is in short supply, especially families who want to own. There are a lot of opportunities for apartments that you can't own and there are a lot of opportunities for tiny little homes that you can't really raise a family in. We are missing families downtown. This is a project that could offer a family a place to interact with downtown after 5:00. When the 5:00 whistle blows it gets real quiet and that is I believe, one of the goals of the master plan is to alleviate that. I will be voting for this rezoning. Is there further discussion? Renee, could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 04-1102 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of eight to one. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 97 ANX 04-1090: Annexation (HAYS FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, LLLP, 475): Submitted by JAMES MCCORD for property located at WEST OF 54th AVE ADJOINING EXTENSION OF W. PERSIMMON ST (AS REFLECTED ON M.S.P.). The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 37.30 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1091: Rezoning (HAYS FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, LLLP, 475): Submitted by JAMES MCCORD for property located at WEST OF 54th AVE ADJOINING EXTENSION OF W. PERSIMMON ST. (AS REFLECTED ON M.S.P.) The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 49.40 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 04-1090 for Hays. Pate: This item and the following accompanying item for RZN 04-1091 for Hays are associated items. This property is located west of 54`h Avenue adjoining the extension of West Persimmon Street as reflected on the Master Street Plan. The property is currently, of course, in the planning area and contains approximately 37.30 acres for annexation request. The applicant is requesting to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. The property is adjacent to city limits to the east and the north. This configuration, as requested, does not create an island of unincorporated properties into the city limits. Currently the site has access to Persimmon Street and 541h Avenue at the northeast corner of the property, County Road 649 along the east property line. At the time of development Persimmon Street will need to be constructed through the development and additionally, staff will be evaluating offsite improvements to 54`h Avenue at the time of development. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation request. The accompanying item, which is a rezoning request, if you would please refer to your revised staff report that was passed out this evening. Unfortunately, an erroneous staff report was passed out with your original packets with some different numbers on there. Hopefully the new packet has revised all of that. This request is to rezone the approximately 37.30 acres along with other property that this property owner, the Hays owner, along with other property owners are requesting to annex into the City of Fayetteville for a total of 49.40 acres. The additional 12.10 acres is directly to the north of this property. When property is annexed into the city it is zoned as R -A, Residential Agricultural. The applicant is requesting that the entire 49.40 acres be rezoned to RSF-4. The proposed rezoning to RSF-4 would allow for a maximum dwelling unit number of 197 dwelling units in this area. That is an increase in population density from what is allowed currently. However, the public service providers do state in the attached staff report that this will not increase appreciably an increased traffic danger in this area with proposed improvements with the development proposal in the Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 98 future. Staff is also recommending approval of the association RZN 04- 1091. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your request. McCord: My name is Jim McCord, I'm representing J.B. Hays who is present tonight. The annexation is for a property that is adjacent to the property approved earlier, the Sloan property approved for annexation and rezoning, it is immediately to the west of the Tipton/Sloan property. The annexation conforms with all of your annexation guideline policies with the City of Fayetteville, which Planning staff found to be the case and therefore, recommended approval. For those reasons the applicant requests approval of the annexation. I will address the rezoning when it is considered. At this time we respectfully request approval of the annexation. Ostner: Thank you Mr. McCord. At this time I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this annexation issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I just want to reference comments I made five hours ago for the Tipton/Sloan property. I don't find for environmentally sensitive areas, nor do I find that development pressure is great in this area and those other comments that I said earlier. Graves: I would do the same. There were a number of comments that I made numerating the reasons that I believed this fit the guiding policies under the city's annexation policy with regard to the Tipton/Sloan property. Those would be equally applicable as far as I'm concerned with this particular parcel. MOTION: Shackelford: I concur and will not repeat all of my conversation either that we have had on several of these but I think the points and conversation that we had on the Tipton/Sloan property applies to this property as well. Based on that, I am going to make a motion that we recommend for approval ANX 04- 1090 to City Council. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion on the annexation proposal? Renee? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 99 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1090 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Anthes and Ostner voting no. Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 04-1091 for Hays. McCord: Regarding the rezoning, Jeremy referred to some errors in the number of acres that I understand have been corrected. Just for the sake of clarity, the total acreage being requested with this rezoning is 49.40 acres. That includes 12.10 acres on the north side of Persimmon which is already in the City of Fayetteville. Regarding the density, RSF-4 is requested. From a practical standpoint by the time that the streets are put in and the utility setbacks only about three or slightly under three units per acre can be constructed. Also, there are two houses currently on the site and there are 3.47 acres that are the other four applicant's. There will be a little over 40 acres that can be developed and so the actual number of units that could be built with the RSF-4 density is a little over 120. That would be the true density. Again, city staff found that the requested rezoning is consistent with the General Plan 2020 and it conforms to the growth in the area. For those reasons, the applicant would respectfully request RSF zoning be recommended at this time. Ostner: Thank you Mr. McCord. I will open it up to the public again for RZN 04- 1091. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Vaught: I would say in general I agree with this. One thing I will say is that at the time of development this is a larger project to impact 54`, as well as the possibility of Tipton/Sloan and there are going to be some offsite improvements that are definitely warranted, or will be provided by this project and the density I think will help support those. It is in line with the areas around it. I will make a motion to approve RZN 04-1091 and recommend approval by the City Council. Tr umbo: Second. Ostner: I am going to vote against this because I believe it is too far out and I believe zoning is an issue of how much and when. I believe that there is a lot of land closer to town that we've recently annexed tonight that satisfies our demand. Vaught: I do have one question for staff. I guess this is at the time of development but we just required some improvements to 54`h. What I'm going to hate to see is improvements made and then ripped up and new improvements Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 100 made. Do we have some kind of coordination? If these developments come through in time before those improvements are made do we have some coordination process for the two developers? On 54`h we approved some offsite improvements, how does that work, just for my knowledge? Warrick: If the timing could be coordinated it would require that a Preliminary Plat, which you approved earlier tonight be amended. It could happen if we were able to determine that the timing was appropriate and that in fact, the improvements would be duplicated or one would have to be destroyed to install the other improvements. We certainly wouldn't want to see that happen. We don't want to see developers throw money away. When we are looking for infrastructure improvements we need to see those improvements on the ground so that they are there to provide benefit to the public. That is something that we certainly would look at. It really depends on timing as to how we are able to coordinate the two projects. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Allen: I just want to ask Mr. McCord why if you are anticipating that you will not be needing the RSF-4 and are going to be using RSF-3 then why would you request that? McCord: RSF-4 is needed to permit the density we expect. RSF-2 would limit you to 2 and there is not an RSF-3. We have not seen the final figures from the engineer on what the actual density will turn out being. We think it is going to be around three units per acre. RSF-4 is where we need to be, knowing full well it is probably going to wind up about three units per acre because of the streets and all of that. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Clark: Just cross apply everything that I said about zoning earlier. I am not going to support this until I have more information. Allen: I have the same concern. Ostner: Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1091 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Clark, Allen and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to four. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 101 RZN 04-1103: Rezoning (COLLINS, 404): Submitted by JEFFERY T. COLLINS for property located at 1280 HENDRIX STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, to RT -12, Residential Two and Three-family. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1103 for Collins. Pate: Thank you Mr. Chair. This property is located at 1280 Hendrix Street, which is west of Garland Avenue. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately .051 acres. Currently there is a six unit multi- family development consisting of two triplexes which exist on the site constructed in 2001. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and are developed as single family residential homes along Addington Avenue to the west is Hendrix Street and Maxwell Drive to the north. The existing use of the property for a three family dwelling is not a use that is allowed by right, nor by Conditional Use in the RSF-4 zoning district. Therefore, it is considered a non -conforming use on this property. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from the RSF-4 zoning district to RT -12, Residential Two and Three family. Staff has received numerous comments, most of which are included in your staff report as emails or letters to the Planning Division. Additionally, there have been several phone messages taken. All of those comments have been in opposition to this rezoning request. To the findings of staff, the future land use plan designates this site for residential use. The proposed rezoning staff finds is not consistent with land use plan objectives and policies to a degree that provides compatibility with adjacent properties in the same district. These are findings of fact that staff is required to make, as is the Planning Commission in it's recommendation to the City Council. Surrounding properties are residential in nature not unlike the existing land use on the subject site. However, the surrounding properties do represent a cohesive single family land use as opposed to the multi -family land use currently on the property. A rezoning to RT -12 would constitute a spot zone creating a separate and distinct zoning district island amidst the surrounding RSF-4 zoning district, a condition against which the City of Fayetteville's policies advise. An additional finding of fact, the proposed zoning is not justified nor needed in order to retain the use of the property as it was permitted in 2001. The existing use is considered non -conforming so that it may not be reconstructed or enlarged, however, it may remain as a non- conforming use until such time as the units are destroyed or removed. With these findings staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to RT -12. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Could you introduce yourself and tell us about your request? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 102 Collins: My name is Jeff Collins. I'm here representing both myself and my partners who are owners of the property in question. The story behind this property is a relatively interesting one. When it was constructed the city maps were erroneously drawn such that the zoning was shown to be R-1.5 at the time, which allowed for the development of this particular configuration. It was constructed and purchased in December, 2001 by myself and it was subsequently made part of a limited partnership with several other properties. It has been operated since December, 2001 as a set of townhouse style multi -family units. At some point unbeknownst to either myself or the other owners of the property the underlying zoning was changed by the city. Apparently, the maps were found to be in error and they were not showing that the zoning shouldn't have been R-1.5 but rather R-1, which has subsequently become the RSF-4. The city, after finding the error, did not notify either myself or any of the property owners to the best of my knowledge. Certainly I was never notified as the managing member of the partnership. It wasn't until we attempted to sale all of the buildings that were within the partnership that we were notified by the appraiser for the buyers that the underlying zoning was not compatible with the existing use. Interestingly, the appraiser for this particular property is the exact same appraiser that I used and therefore, constitutes the extent of our due diligence on the property when we first purchased it. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out which I find relatively interesting. That is to the question a determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time that the rezoning is proposed. Staff says it is not justified in order to retain use. From my perspective, a fundamental right of a property owner is the right of resale. The underlying zoning is an impairment to the sale of the property. In fact, we have closed on two of the three buildings within this sale but we are unable to close on this particular building because of the underlying zoning issue, which of course, is why I'm here today. In addition, under five, if there are reasons why the proposed zoning could not be approved, are there any extenuating circumstances that justify the zoning. I think that while this situation is particularly unfortunate and certainly as I drive the neighborhood and as I revisit the discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the corner on Hendrix and Garland, which many of you probably recall, where a gentleman had purchased the property expressly because he understood the property to be zoned R-1.5 with the intention of building multi -family on that corner and then found out after the fact but before starting construction that the zoning was not appropriate for that use. I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that this is perhaps a difficult situation. Whether or not it is a request for a spot zoning I think is for you all to decide. I would point out that three parcels away is the property on the corner of Hendrix and Garland which is multi- family and within a stone's throw of this particular property there is a very large multi -family development on Mt. Comfort Road which is literally a block to a block and a half from this particular property. In addition, as I Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 103 go back through and read the testimony from the request for rezoning for that corner lot one of the things that strikes me is the discussion of transitional properties. This isn't to say that somehow our property is perhaps a buffer between a commercial zone and a residential zone but that in the course of that conversation Tim Conklin discusses particularly that the least divergent use would be townhouse style multi -family. That is exactly what has been developed on this particular property. Due to an unfortunate set of circumstances to which I have very little control I'm here in front of you asking for a rezoning of this particular property so that we can consummate the sale of the units that are there now to potential buyers. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Collins. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? Broom: My name is Mildred Broom. I have lived on Hendrix Street for 50 plus years. It has been single family all that time. I would really like to keep it single family. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Richards: I'm Joyce Richards. We own property to the north of the triplexes. At the time that they were built we received a letter saying they were going to be built. I called the planning office and they said yes, this is how it is zoned. I said to myself but Hendrix is a street of houses. They said no, triplexes can go up. Then, about two years ago the corner property on Garland and Hendrix came up. I and other people in the neighborhood said the same thing again. This is not a street of triplexes. This is a street of houses. The city said there has been a mistake in the zoning map and so the triplexes were built. At that time the city told us we are sorry, no more triplexes and in good faith we believed them. Now here we are again. During the last two years the city took that map and went over it, probably as a result of these two mistakes, corrected the mistakes. They spent much time, many hours, probably lots of taxpayer dollars correcting all of those mistakes. Now we have the new corrected zoning map. Now you are being asked to revert to the mistake that was there to begin with. I say no, don't do that please. Hendrix is zoned for houses. We would like to keep it that way. We've already got two mistakes on it. Don't go back. We in the neighborhood who drive down that street everyday lots of times, more than once a day, see those mistakes every time we go down there. I say let's not change the map again. Leave it like it is. It is correct now. Gray: Hi, I'm Carla Gray. My property does share a border with Mr. Collins' property. Like he said, the property does have an interesting story. I don't have answers but I do have some questions. There was a progress. His property was built and then the triplexes on the corner came up and they Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 104 were separate issues. Marc Crandall was the developer and in January, 2002 when the conversations began on the property on Hendrix and Garland the corner triplex is Brock Thompson. It was a long, sad story and it was a mistake. During that time I did talk to Dan Coody about what was going on. As kind of an olive branch, because it was a mistake and these things happen, he did say that he had contacted Marc Crandall and asked for a privacy fence around the triplexes on Hendrix. It was a mistake. It was a good will gesture for the developer to do. That was 2002 so I guess I'm a little confused as to why the Mayor would call Marc Crandall if this gentleman owned the property at that time. That confuses me. The other thing that confuses me is that Marc Crandall has Campus Properties.com and in April and May, 2002 it was listed as one of Campus Properties.com's offerings. I feel like maybe there are more questions that need to be asked. It appears that Marc Crandall, who was aware of this at the time when Dan Coody called him and said we've got a problem, that maybe there were more business dealings. Maybe there are some partnerships here that we are not aware of. The dates don't add up. Does that make sense? The property in the statement I read, if it was sold in December, 2001 what was Marc Crandall, the original developer, who was according to a conversation the Mayor said he had with him, why was he still involved if he no longer owned it? I am against rezoning. It was a mistake. Conditional Use works for me but I'm not for a spot rezoning of this neighborhood. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further public comment? Ball: I'm Ramsey Ball. I represent Cheesehead in this transaction. I wanted to go through a couple of things. Ostner: I'm sorry Sir, are you part of the application or are you a resident? Ball: I'm a resident and part of the application. Ball: I wanted to address a couple of issues. When you make a map change on a rezoning, that is a de facto rezoning, I think in this city. If you are doing due diligence on a property and you want to find out what the zoning of the property is you go to the city and you look at the map. If the map shows the property is zoned for multi -family then the assumption that it is zoned for multi -family. It is not an issue that comes up in title work. You don't go to a title company to try to find out if a property is zoned multi- family or single-family. You go to the city. If the city changes the map then they have affectively rezoned the property. An issue of fairness would be whether the property owner is notified. If a property owner wants to go rezone their own property the city requires them to post a notice, to contact the neighbors, to do legal notices. In this case this property was rezoned but the property owner was not notified. There was Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 105 no notice posted on the property. It would appear to be a process that would be unfair going back the other way. There appears to be an issue about whether to continue the use of the property. If it is grandfathered in why do we need to have it rezoned. If the property is damaged to a certain degree then the owner can be required to not use the property the way it is now. If the property was damaged and you have six town homes on a property the city could require him to come in and remove those damaged six town homes and replace them with a single house. I think anyone here would realize that that would be a loss in value on the property. Another issue is land use. Jeff spoke briefly to this but the land use for this area is residential. It shows on the land use plan as residential. Are town homes appropriate for residential land use? The answer of course, is yes. Town homes are a part of residential land use. Are town homes a good transition from multi -family to single family and the answer, I think, is yes. These town homes provide a good transition from a higher use to single family. Fayetteville is a city with a mix of multi -family and single family. I think everyone here realizes that Fayetteville is full of single family dwellings that are next to multi -family dwellings. It is what makes Fayetteville grow. I live on a street that is a complete mix of multi -family and single family dwellings. That is why I love being in Fayetteville. It boils down to are these town homes an acceptable use for this property. I think the answer for that is yes. They are very acceptable. They are there right now. Are they an acceptable use to continue? Is it a fair resolution of this situation to rezone this property to allow their continued use? I think it is the only resolution. Thank you for your time. Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this issue? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Graves: I have a question for the City Attorney as to what he believes might be the legal affect of reliance upon a map that was in error and what kind of problems it may cause to not rezone it as requested. Williams: As you are aware, we have faced this issue already a couple of different times on a couple of mistakes that were made very similar to this and not discovered until later. Even if the city was negligent in mislabeling the map originally the city is protected by sovereign immunity for mistakes like that. It is very unlikely that the city would be liable itself for the mistake that was obviously made. The city did not rezone this property. It was not zoned by the mistake on the map. That was just an error. As you are probably aware, zoning decisions are made by the City Council passing an ordinance. There was no ordinance that said that this property was R-1.5. It was never zoned R-1.5. There was a mistake when an employee for some reason misread the old map when he was transferring it to the new map and put the wrong color in or put the wrong notation in and it was not caught for a long time. The city obviously made a mistake Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 106 here like it did in the other case. From just the purely legal point of view and not saying whether or not there is justification like the City Council found in one particular case and didn't in another. From a purely legal point of view I don't think the city is liable in this particular case because of our sovereign immunity even though we did make a mistake. Shackelford: Kit, this cannot exist under a Conditional Use so this may not even play into it but what about undue hardship? Would that come into play at all in this case? The inability to sale the property? Williams: Certainly that kind of concept can be apparent when you consider this rezoning request. That is one of the many factors that you can consider is the hardship on the applicant. I think that probably was considered in both of the other cases that came before. The one that was turned down was vacant land with no definite plans prepared by the applicant. In fact, several members of the Planning Commission said if you came through with a Planned Zoning District or with a Bill of Assurance that said this is what will be on there then we would look at it much more carefully. Since he just wanted it rezoned to R-1.5 at that point the Planning Commission wasn't willing to rezone it to that. This is a slightly different situation since there are already houses there. There are insurance problems I understand as well as sale problems so this is a little bit different situation than if it is just vacant land. Shackelford: I would agree with that. I think this is a very unique situation. I don't think that there are very many people who would support this rezoning request if there weren't already existing structures on it. Unfortunately, this is one of the more intriguing things we have to talk about tonight and it is late in the night. I think that we have to give this some consideration. I understand that the city is protected by sovereign immunity and I understand that this is not a good situation regardless of the direction we go because if we turn this down guess what, tomorrow those triplexes are still in the middle of the neighborhood and we haven't changed a thing. I would ask that we give this the consideration that it is due. Sovereign immunity obviously, is a point that keeps us out of legal trouble but it doesn't really keep us from doing the right thing. In the business world when you have an employee that makes a mistake sometimes you have to step up and help that person and help that entity take responsibility for that mistake and try to do the right thing by the customer. I think that we at least owe this an opportunity with that same context and that same conversation in this situation. Thanks. Graves: Is there, other than just going to the map, is there another place? If I'm going to just look at the deed or the land records for that property that I would be able to in some way reasonably easily be able to determine what the actual zoning is for that property? Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 107 Williams: When you say reasonably easily I would probably say no at the time that this was done. What happened and the way that it was finally resolved is Tim Conklin spent many, many hours going through all of the old zoning ordinances to ensure that there were no other mistakes other than the one that first appeared. That is when he found the couple of other mistakes by going back through the ordinances, which is feasible but is certainly not easily done. Most persons surely would not want to go through that. Now it would not have to be done. The City Council has adopted the zoning map officially and now when changes are made we can change it all digitally so the map now is correct. It took a lot of work by the Planning staff and it is now correct. We apologize for the fact that sometime in the late 90's or maybe 2000 or so, that there was a mistake that was made. Now it is your burden and City Council's burden to decide what you are going to do because this mistake was made and some triplexes were built where triplexes should not have been allowed to be built and so the neighbors are concerned and yet you have an owner who says I can't get insurance, I can't sale. You really have two rights out there. There are no wrongs and it is your duty to balance them and decide where you want to go. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Williams. There is a similar situation on my street. There is a multi -family apartment building in an R -O zone which does not allow this density yet time marches on. He has filed for small insurance claims, made repairs and he is allowed to fix his property. I'm sure if it burned to the ground there would be a big problem on how to replace it and what to do. His rights are upheld. It is a non -conforming use that doesn't conform to the zone. That's my problem. I'm trying to separate the history from what I see is the salient issue. They have a non -conforming use. I think they want to further a non -conforming use. It is inappropriate for the neighborhood. They've got their project. It is up and running and they would like to sale it. I believe they want to sale it with a bonus. The bonus being hey, now we've got the zone. Right now there is no bonus. They have to sale it without the guarantee in hand that if it burns to the ground they could rebuild the triplexes. I am not in favor of this because I believe it is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Time can march on with this non -conforming use as they do all over town. Collins: The idea that we can just sort of move forward and sell it and somewhere we are getting a bonus out of the rezoning, in fact, we will not be able to sale the property without the rezoning. The sale is contingent on being able to rezone the property. If you don't rezone the property you cannot sale the property. The reason is that the value of the property is in it's use. If it is not allowed to be used as it is currently being used the value is not there. If you have been to that neighborhood, I know I have spoken with several of you who have driven that neighborhood. You know what is Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 108 there. If it burns to the ground what we are capable of rebuilding in no way, in no way, compensates us for the net present value of all of the rents that we intend to accumulate over the lifetime of those units. Single family houses will not compensate for the current value which is contingent upon it being able to be used as it has been used. The idea of somehow without the rezoning we just march on into time and the whole world is groovy is not accurate. If you don't rezone it you take away one of my fundamental property rights, the right to sale the property. I cannot sale it without the rezoning. Ostner: I guess I'm not understanding how things can't be sold without the rezoning. They are sold everyday with non -conforming uses. Collins: You are right. We can resale the property. The difference is the value from resale will not be the same as the value with the rezoning. The current situation, the current transaction is dependent upon the rezoning. If it doesn't go through then what you've basically done, when I purchased the property, part of the value, part of the reason I paid X dollars for that property was because my understanding was the zoning was R-1.5. I would not have paid what I paid had the zoning been different. I had my people, my representatives, my agents go to the city, the only place where you can find out what anything is zoned and said what is it zoned? R-1.5. Are you sure? Yeah I'm sure, look at the big map with the colors, it is R-1.5. We said thank you very much, we turned around, walked out and I handed over a check. At some point, unbeknownst to me, no one calls, no letters, no nothing, the underlying zoning has changed. The value, my dollars went out of my pocket to someone else. No one calls, no one writes. No one tells me that this is an issue until I go to sale the property. Now you are telling me that we took money from you. I'm sorry, because some clerk in some point in the 1980's used the wrong color pen. We appreciate where you are at but you should bare the price of this, this is your responsibility. I'm not exactly sure how I follow that logic. The city can say this is a non -conforming use, it doesn't fit with our master plan and it is too dense. You know what it is too dense by? We have '/2 acre, we have six units right now. If we tore those six units down how many units can we build? Two. You are talking about four additional units. When you ask the fire department and the police department if this is a burden, traffic, water, is this a burden? No, no, it's been operating. You permitted the darn thing. It has been operating. The burden is psychological. If you choose to rezone the burden is psychological on my fellow neighbors. If you don't rezone it the burden is financial and it is on me. I respectfully disagree with what you just said. In the end you are asking to take money from me and I didn't participate in the mistake. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 109 Vaught: I can definitely understand the applicant's frustration. Where I have a hard time is the fact that we permitted these facilities to be built, the city did. In a way that is us saying hey, this is what it is. I know in the other case it did come up at the time of construction and it really should've here. I will take a different approach at it. I don't know if RT -12 is too dense for this area. When I step back and look at the overall picture of this neighborhood, the one mile view, within V2 mile you've got RMF -24. You've got all over the place, even abutting Hendrix and Mt. Comfort. You've got heavy C-1 and C-2, your close proximity to the University which is surrounded by RMF -40. You've got RMF -40 on the other side of Garland as well as RMF -24 and RT -12 close to this property. It is close to a school, it is close to shopping, it is close to the University. It seems like if we were looking at a map now like we were on the west side and said what should this be it might be a little more dense than what it is now. On that side, I don't know if I have a problem with RT -12 and the fact that it is surrounded by RSF-4 is a little problematic. As it reads on all of this I'm not sure that a heavier zone would be non -conforming. I would be inclined to vote for this request. Graves: I would concur with what Commissioner Shackelford and Commissioner Vaught have said, particularly in light of what our City Attorney has also said. While I have sympathy for the concerns of the surrounding residents of the area this certainly isn't out of line with what is already there. However it got there, it is that way now. The RT -12 on Garland and the RMF -24, which is about 1/10 a mile away on Hendrix. Maybe I'm wrong but I would presume that no one on this commission went and thumbed through all of the ordinances of the city before they bought their current residence. That seems to me not to be a reasonable expectation. It wouldn't be a reasonable presumption to assume whatever was told to Mr. Collins' seller was passed along to him in some fashion. This seems to be a situation where there is a hardship and it would be appropriate to rezone as requested. Shackelford: I will try to be brief but in my opinion there is a hardship. With my current position being involved in financing commercial properties on a daily basis, I would like to clarify a little bit what the problem is. Without the proper zoning you have two major issues. First of all, if somebody came to me wanting to use this property as collateral for a loan, if they don't have the proper zoning there is no way I can guarantee that the value of that property will convey over time. What it might appraise for now would have to be discounted back to what is available in that area which might mean a 75% or greater discount in appraised value so as a collateral value I'm going to have to back that out, which obviously, is a very significant impact to the land owner. The second problem is, our City Attorney touched on it briefly, would be insurance purposes. There is no way that an insurance company is going to underwrite this to the value Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 110 that is currently on this location because if it burned down quite simply they couldn't rebuild it. There is no way that a bank is going to loan money on a piece of property that could depreciate up to 75% in value and could not have hazard insurance coverage equal to or equivalent to the current value. That is the uniqueness that the applicant is eluding to as far as the sale is dependent upon the rezoning. There are some very valid points to that being on the other side of that table there is no way that I am going to loan current market value on this property without that rezoning because there is no guarantee that that value is going to convey over time. Without the rezoning I understand this applicant's comments about the inability to sale the property based on my daily experience in this market. Myers: I live two blocks away from this property and have struggled with this issue since it was presented to us last week. It is an inappropriate use for the neighborhood. However, I think it would be punitive of us to penalize the current owner for a mistake that really no one can take responsibility for. It is a mistake that happened. The property is there. I think he bought it in good faith. I think the concern of myself and my fellow neighbors is to in the future that our nice little single family neighborhood stays that way. Again, the reality is that building is there already and us refusing to change the zoning is not going to remove the building. Let's assume that we have one of our 25 year tornadoes and it takes the entire neighborhood out, that's an extreme possibility I think. Since he bought the property in good faith putting him in a position where if the property were destroyed that he could not rebuild to it's current standard I think is punitive and I think we really ought to grant his request. Clark: Since we are talking about punitive and promises and faults, I'm looking through the requests that came before with the corner on Hendrix and Garland. How many times did that come through? Warrick: This particular site has not. There are two other sites within this general area that were both subject to the same mistake on the zoning map that have both come to the Planning Commission and Council requesting rezonings. One of them at the corner of Hendrix and Garland was rezoned. The other request on Deane Street was not rezoned. Clark: It seems like some promises were made to neighbors at that point that this would stay single family and this wouldn't happen again. I'm concerned about that. Yet at the same time I'm trying to balance the punitive nature to the current property owner. Myers: What it comes right down to is the building is there. Clark: Absolutely. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 111 Vaught: On Deane Street there was no building. MOTION: Trumbo: To me it is this, the city made a mistake. I believe regardless, the gentleman bought the property understanding that it was zoned this way. He invested his hard earned money into this. To not change the zoning to me would create undue hardship and for those reasons, and for those reasons only, I am going to go ahead and make a motion to approve RZN 04-1103. Shackelford: I will second and would like to add that this obviously, again, is a recommendation to City Council. It is their call on final zoning issues. I wish them luck as they weigh through this as we have. Ostner: The comment I would like to make is I was given a land use executive summary by our City Attorney. Under rezoning the substantial discretion is afforded by the City Council. I'm assuming by Planning Commission also when we make decisions on rezonings. There are eleven items there. Many of which I believe this project touches on. The 2020 Plan objectives clearly demonstrate the importance of neighborhoods and the legitimacy of neighborhoods and how they should be protected. Even Ms. Myers agrees that this is not a good part of this neighborhood. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable. We have a strong neighborhood who has voiced it's opposition which I agree with. Decrease in value of adjoining land. A single family home next to this has been decreased in value easily. Not by the zoning but by it being built in my mind. Myers: We can't do anything about that. Ostner: We can't do anything about a lot of things tonight. I'm talking about the decisions we are able to make. The compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning) and I believe this is a clear example of spot zoning. I'm empathetic that you've been dealt a sour hand but you do have your project built that could be sold in a non -conforming way. I will be voting against the rezoning for those reasons. Anthes: I think we can all agree that this is a difficult situation in a slew of difficult situations this evening and it is late. I do want to make some comments. I used to own and live in a home down the street from where Commissioner Myers lives now. I'm very sympathetic to in tact neighborhoods in general around the University and in other places. However, I've probably flip flopped my feeling on this one every hour since agenda on Thursday and thought about it really hard. What I've come up with is that I can't look at this in terms of value or loss of value, I have to look at it in terms of land use. I stand on this property and I know that three houses Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 112 down there is a multi -family RT -12 development. I know that Garland Avenue is slated by the Highway Department to be four lanes. I've seen the drawings and that is pretty soon. I know that there is a Harps and other shopping and restaurants within two blocks of this property. I can stand on the corner of Hendrix and look over and see College Park and see new construction going up over there. When I think about the car trips and people and the ability to walk to commercial services and what is already happening in this kind of fringe area I think that these couple of streets between Mt. Comfort and Hendrix are a medley. They are one of those medolies that is unique and not really part of the in tact sub neighborhood that is back behind on Maxwell Drive. For that reason and because of a lot of discussion this evening, I believe I will vote to support this rezoning. Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1103 was approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Allen and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 113 ANX 04-1100: Annexation (HARPER/BRANDON, 61): Submitted by MICHELE A HARRINGTON for property located at THE S SIDE OF ALBRIGHT RD, W OF GEORGE ANDERSON ROAD. The property is in the City of Springdale and contains approximately 9.99 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1101: Rezoning (HARPERIBRANDON, 61): Submitted by MICHELE A HARRINGTON for property located at THE S SIDE OF ALBRIGHT ROAD, W OF GEORGE ANDERSON ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 9.99 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The last two items are ANX 04-1100 and RZN 04-1101 for Harper/Brandon. Morgan: The subject property contains two tracts equaling 9.99 acres. This property is currently vacant with one single family home located on the northeast corner of the property. It is located south of Albright Road and west of George Anderson Road and it is located within the City of Springdale. This property adjoins a 10 acre tract to the north that was recently annexed and rezoned to RSF-4 by the City Council on May 4, 2004. The requested annexation will extend a subdivision that is located to the south. This area does not currently exist of a defined subdivision or neighborhoods. However, it will anticipate the extension of that subdivision. The Police Department reports that current levels of service will not be compromised and that coverage in this area can be provided. Staff is recommending approval for the annexation of this 9.99 acre property into the City of Fayetteville. Accompanying this request is RZN 04-1101 for a rezoning of the property from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4 should the preceding annexation be approved. The developer's intent is to develop a single family residential subdivision on this property. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning based on findings located within the staff report. Harrington: Good evening. My name is Micki Harrington. I represent the Brandons and the Harpers. Mr. Brandon is here. His engineer Brian Moore is here and they are available to answer any questions. This is, as she mentioned, sort of the second part of the annexation that was approved on May 4`h We had to bring them in separately because this one is, as you have noted, in the City of Springdale. We are seeking this annexation under a relatively new statute that I believe may be the first time the City of Fayetteville has seen. It is a fairly smooth procedure. I know that Mr. Williams has looked at this and we don't think there is any problem. I did go to the City of Springdale before I ever came here, though it was not required, just to make sure how they felt about letting go of 9.99 acres. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 114 They were happy to do so because they feel they cannot serve it with sewer. They did pass a resolution last November, which is part of your packet. This was filed a long time ago and we finally got here because it was a little bit complicated given the procedure. We wanted to make sure that the other parcel was accepted before we came along with this one. This will be part of the same development. It will look exactly like the development to the south on the ten acres that you already approved. If there are any questions we are happy to address them. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Harrington. I am going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this annexation and rezoning issue? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. How is it that Springdale can't or doesn't want to service this area for sewer? Casey: I'm not familiar with the City of Springdale's sewer system. However, there is a creek between this property and the Springdale area that is currently being served by sewer. I know the property along Clear Creek Road are on septic. I don't know how far south their system actually extends but I know it is not to this property, not even to the creek in this area. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services. Matt is right. There is a subdivision off of Ivy Lane which is north of the Clear Creek subdivision. Clear Creek is on septic systems. Ivy Lane was complete six months ago or so and it does have sewer into Springdale but we are well over a mile away I would say from sewer in Springdale. They don't have any use for that area. I think it was five to ten years ago that they tried to put a lift station in the Clear Creek area and the residents all signed a petition saying they did not want sewer in that area. At this time there is no way that there is going to be sewer out there. If I can answer anything else just let me know. Clark: Due to the uniqueness of the situation, I will move for approval of ANX 04-1100. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I may have not quite understood the discussion about how the fire response times are calculated now. I'm seeing 13 to 14 minutes. Warrick: The times are still calculated based on an actual drive time. It is not a drive time with sirens on but we have seen for the various subdivisions in this area, Copper Creek Phases I and II and the most recent annexation Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 115 that was processed earlier this year, there are longer drive times, longer response times in this area than the average. Anthes: I just wanted to be sure we were all paying attention to that. It is also extending a peninsula but I also do understand about this impracticality. I just wanted to clarify that. Shackelford: I personally appreciate you pointing out those fire response times considering I live in the adjoining neighborhood. Clark: Aren't these drive times assuming speed limit? It is not assuming emergency response? Warrick: They do drive the speed limit. I understand that if they are stopped at an intersection for an extended period of time they may stop the clock but they don't drive with sirens on and lights. They drive the speed limit with traffic. Shackelford: The only negative to this area is it is kind of a no man's land. I have a Springdale address, a Springdale phone number, Springdale school district and Fayetteville city limits. I know I have had this conversation with Tim in the past, there are opportunities in the future whenever there is enough density population out here to request changes in those alignments. I would like to see that happen sometime. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. Allen: Do we need to talk more about the fire response times? Ostner: I was going to. That concerns me greatly. It is a long stretch. Graves: I would note that the property to the south has already been annexed in. The property to the southwest has been approved for annexation by the Planning Commission and is before the City Council. Those are areas that the Fire Department is already going to have to respond to as is. As Ms. Myers said, they will most likely serve those areas anyway under mutual aid agreements and the fact that Springdale has expressed no interest in servicing this area. I doubt that the response times will be much different for this particular small tract immediately of an area that we already annexed in and that the Fire Department will already have to serve this and police and water and sewer. Ostner: Thank you. I suppose my follow up to my initial comment is that even though this is a long response time there is a lot of development between this area and the fire station. There is not near the expanses of Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 116 undeveloped area as with the Goff development which I voted against. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1100 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 117 Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 04-1101 for Harper/Brandon. We have already heard the staff report. Would the applicant like to share some more words? Harrington: I have nothing further other than this will be compatible, RSF-4 with the immediately south development and with the entire area up in there. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this rezoning request? Seeing no one left, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Shackelford: I concur that this rezoning request is in my opinion, in line with the existing development in this area. I concur with staff findings and make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-1101 and forward it to the City Council as RSF-4. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1101 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero Hillside Taskforce Appointment: Commissioner Trumbo Commissioner Ostner Commissioner Myers Announcements Meeting adjourned: 12:03 a.m.