Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 26, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-1134:(Sang/Hollywood Shakes Building, 520) Forwarded to City Council Consent LSP 04-1133: (Lot 11 CMN II, PH. I) Approved Consent CCP 04-1132: (Macerich, 135) Approved Consent VAC 04-1136: (U OF A Parking Garage, 483) Forwarded to City Council Page 4 LSD 04-1114: (Hilton Garden Inn, 173) Approved Page 7 PPL 04-1126: (Lot 3 springwoods, 247) Approved Page 10 PPL 04-1125: (Lot 5 springwoods, 247) Approved Page 23 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught (recused from springwoods) James Graves Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 2 VAC 04-1134: Vacation (SANG/HOLLYWOOD SHAKES BUILDING, 520): Submitted by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for property located at 2050 W 6TH STREET. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.04 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the right-of-way on the subject property. LSP 04-1133: Lot Split (LOT 11 CMN II, PH. 1): Submitted by JAMES KOCH for property located at LOT 11 OF CMN BUSINESS PARK II, E SIDE OF STEELE BLVD & N OF JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.53 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 3.75 and 2.78 acres respectively. CCP 04-1132: Concurrent Plat (MACERICH, 135): Submitted by STEVE POWELL for property located at MALL AVENUE AND GEORGETOWN SQUARE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 107.55 acres. The request is to approve the concurrent plat of the subject property with 4 commercial lots proposed. Ostner: Welcome to the July 26, 2004 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven commissioners present with Commissioner Shackelford and Commissioner Myres being absent. Ostner: Do I have a motion for approval of the minutes of the July 12a' meeting? Clark: So moved. Allen: Second. Ostner: Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2004 meeting was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is the consent agenda. There are three items. I will read their titles. The first is VAC 04-1134 for Sang/Hollywood Shake's Building. Second, LSP 04-1133 for Lot 11 of CMN II, Phase I. Third, CCP 04-1132 for Macerich. Is there anyone on the Commission or in the audience who would like to speak to these items and have them removed from the consent agenda? Graves: I am unable to vote on item three on the consent agenda. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 3 Ostner: Ok, so Mr. Graves is recusing from the consent vote. Is there any other discussion? Do I have a motion for approval? Anthes: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Graves recusing. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 4 VAC 04-1136: Vacation (U OF A PARKING GARAGE, 483): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at S OF DICKSON STREET, ON HARMON AVE, BUCHANAN AVENUE AND WILLIAM STREET. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 1.57 acres. The request is to vacate portions of 2 streets, 2 alleys and a utility easement. Ostner: The next item on our agenda under new business is VAC 04-1136 for the U of A Parking Garage. Anthes: As I am involved in planning at the University of Arkansas I will recuse from this item. Ostner: I too am going to recuse from this. I will hand it over to Commissioner Allen. Allen: This is VAC 04-1136 for the University of Arkansas Parking Garage. Jeremy, can we have your report please? Pate: Our first item is a request for vacation of two rights of way and two allies. Buchanan Avenue and Harmon Avenue, as well as the two allies I just mentioned. The University of Arkansas is in the process of constructing a new street, Harmon Avenue, along with the parking garage that is currently under construction to service adjoining streets in the area as well as a multi-level parking facility on the southern portion of the campus. The street will connect California Blvd., which is also Center Street, to Dickson Street and will incorporate the southern portion of the existing Harmon Avenue as well as the northern portion of the existing Buchanan Avenue. The University proposes construction of two or more new buildings over this existing alignment of Buchanan Avenue in the near future. I believe the applicants have brought a proposed site plan for their future development. The request tonight is to vacate approximately 637 linear feet of Williams Street. 823 linear feet of Buchanan Avenue and two 15' wide allies within the old Shreve's Addition. We have received utility responses. There are no objections. There are several conditions of approval. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed right of way and alley vacations with those six conditions of approval. I will read over those for you. Item one, all water and sewer lines must be properly replaced, capped, abandoned, etc. prior to approval of this vacation. This includes a 2" water line running north from Fairview on Buchanan. 2) All sewer mains upstream from the manhole in the Williams/Duncan intersection shall become ownership of the University of Arkansas. 3) All new water and (City owned) sewer lines shall have at least a 20' wide easement centered on the pipe. 4) Retain the existing easement south of lots 1 and 2 for the existing gas line. 5) Dedication of the requested easements for AEP/Swepco and Southwestern Bell Telephone. 6) The Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page S 40 -foot general utility easement as indicated on the enclosed exhibit to be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville shall include rights of ingress/egress for public vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Allen: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have signed conditions of approval? Pate: We do not at this time. Allen: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Please come forward and give us your presentation. Beaumont: Good evening. I'm Kevin Beaumont with McClelland Consulting Engineers. We were hired on behalf of the University to request this issue to you. You have copies of the Vacation Plat and the Utility Easement Plat Exhibit "A". I have large copies if that will help you. Allen: If you have something new for us you can step forward and give your presentation. Beaumont: I don't have any additional information to what you already have but I can outline to you. Allen: No, we have that. Thank you. Beaumont: The question as far as do we have signed documents, as far as utilities are concerned they have signed off on everything approving to vacate subject to some easements being put into place by the University. We have four of those five easements in here today for Fayetteville Water and Sewer and for SBC and we have the general 40' utility easement down Harmon Avenue that has also been signed on behalf of the University. The only one that is missing is the one for SWEPCO. That is in the process of being forwarded here today. Beagle: I'm Bob Beagle from the University, I'm just here in case you have any questions. Allen: Thank you Bob. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Graves: I take it from the response by the petitioner that you have read the conditions of approval and that you don't have any objections or problems or issues with any of them? Beaumont: No, there is no problem at all with satisfying all of those. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 6 MOTION: Graves: I would move to approve VAC 04-1136 for the U of A Parking Garage. Clark: Second. Allen: We have a motion by Commissioner Graves and a second by Commissioner Clark. Would you call the roll please Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 04-1136 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-0-2 with Commissioners Anthes and Ostner recusing. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 7 LSD 04-1114: Large Scale Development (HILTON GARDEN INN, 173): Submitted by THE MEHLBURGER FIRM for property located at LOT 13B OF CMN II BUSINESS PARK. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 7.25 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 74,838 sq.ft. hotel with 172 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSD 04-1114 for the Hilton Garden Inn. We will start with the staff report please. Pate: The applicant for this item is proposing to construct a three story Hilton Garden Inn consisting of 120 guest rooms, two meeting rooms, a board room and a guest restaurant. This property is located at Lot 13B of the CMN II Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.25 acres. The request tonight is to approve the development of this 74,838 sq.ft. hotel with 172 parking spaces proposed. The subject property is located directly west of the approved Fuddruckers restaurant that is currently under construction. It is along Van Asche Drive to the northwest of Van Asche and Mall. The streets are currently improved in this location as well as the typical street improvements including sidewalks and street lights. Therefore, the applicant will be required to construct the sidewalks just for the curb cuts that they propose. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 04-1114 with 12 conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Staff does find that the proposed structure meets those commercial design standards. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Riggins: I'm Frank Riggins with the Mehlberger Firm of Little Rock. We are representing Area Hospitality of Fayetteville, LLC. They are a venture out of central Illinois that will be developing this property. As Mr. Pate mentioned, we are locating out at Van Asche and Mall Drive on 7.25 acres. The property is zoned C-2. The total building size is 74,000 sq.ft. We will have a footprint of a building about 28,850 sq.ft. The building will be three story. There are 120 guest rooms with 172 parking spaces. Eight of which will be handicapped. The height of the building at the roof will be 51'. The soffit elevation is 31'. The restaurant, which is intended to mainly cater to those guests that are staying there, it is not intended to be a destination type restaurant, it is 730 sq.ft. and meeting rooms totaling 3,052 sq.ft. and a small board room area. This particular facility will be sharing an access with the restaurant to the east. You have the elevation boards here. As you can see, the roofing materials will be a composition type shingle, hipped roof. The first floor will have a brick veneer on it with the upper two floors then being of a drivit type stucco material with white trim. We will be doing the appropriate amount of landscaping and irrigation. There is a sizable deed restricted area to the north and the west Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 8 on the property on this site, which we are honoring and recognizing. I will be glad to answer any questions that you all might have. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Riggins. At this point we will open it up to the public. Is here anyone here who would like to speak about this issue? Seeing no public comment, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: At Subdivision I was concerned about a condition with a retaining wall height, were we able to get that resolved? We had a retaining wall within a utility easement that there was a question about and there was also a retaining that was more like 12' in height. Casey: They have removed that portion of retaining wall from the easement. As far as the height issue, has that been addressed? Riggins: It has been addressed in our latest plans submitted to staff. We did some regrading in the parking lot which reduced the retaining wall height down to the required 10'. Anthes: Thank you. Ostner: You mentioned about a limited food and bar service for guests only and associated parking. Can you talk about that? Riggins: I will talk about it as much as I know about it. We also are working on a facility like this one in Little Rock and our knowledge of those services is somewhat limited in that we are the engineer on the project. It is my understanding that the lounge area, the restaurant area is designed for the intent of catering only to those guests that are staying there. There may be some that will come there as guests possibly but I know that their intent is that those facilities cater only to the guests that are staying at the hotel. Ostner: Thank you MOTION: Allen: I think this is an attractive building in a needed location so I will move for approval of LSD 04-1114. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: The other question I did have for staff is on page 5.2 we talk about a tree. It says that the developer is preserving a 16" multi trunk sycamore tree. These retaining walls that Commissioner Anthes was talking about are Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 9 really, really close to that tree. "Should said tree not survive the construction process for any reason it shall be replaced with an accepted large canopy landscape tree." How does the work with the tree preservation canopy requirements? Is that replacement tree going to meet the canopy requirements of the current tree? Pate: The replacement tree will be essentially a landscape tree as required by our landscape ordinance, as opposed to the tree preservation ordinance. The tree preservation requirements for this particular site have already been met with the deed restricted area for the overall CMN Business Park Phase II development. It is not included as part of that requirement. This is an additional tree on the site that they are attempting to save. Ostner: Ok, so it is like a bonus. That was my only comment. Is there further comment before we vote? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1114 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 10 PPL 04-1126: Preliminary Plat (LOT 3 SPRINGWOODS, 247): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS for property located at LOT 3 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMM. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 25.033 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for Lot 3 of the springwoods PZD with 36 single family dwellings proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1126 for Lot 3 of springwoods. Vaught: I will be recusing from this item. Ostner: Thank you. If we could start out with the staff report. Pate: The item before us currently is a Preliminary Plat request for Lot 3 of springwoods, the first of the springwoods overall C-PZD. This property was formally zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial before being rezoned and designated for specific uses under the C-PZD in October, 2003. Lot 3, the subject property, was designated in the rezoning process for Use Unit 8, which is single family residential use. This lot is subject to the covenants that have been filed with the C-PZD for springwoods as well as additional covenants that are filed with the Final Plat for this particular development. The property is surrounded on the north, south and east by Lot 8 which is a permanent greenspace lot. As you know and was included in your packets, a 404 permit has recently been issued from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers identifying the mitigation criteria for impact to regulated areas by preserving, creating and enhancing sensitive land within Lot 8. A vegetative transition zone as part of this 404 Permit surround that development and are issued for development of this particular lot. These transition zones are to be planted in trees and herbaceous plants as a first flush filter for storm water discharge from the developed site prior to entry to the designated wetlands and Clabber Creek. This evening the applicant requests a Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision with 36 single family lots. The proposed density is approximately 1.4 dwelling units per acre. As you can note on the conceptual site plan as submitted, 31 of the lots will be accessed from a single entry point onto Deane Solomon. The remaining five lots will be accessed from another point. The intervening property is over a wetland. Staff recommended against vehicular connectivity in this location instead opting to recommend a pedestrian connection with a footbridge for pedestrian connectivity. A couple of the issues that came out of Subdivision Committee forwarding this project I have included in your staff reports. A zoning and development comparison chart, this is most like the RSF-2 zoning district that we have currently in place as far as density and lot size and type. Additionally, the developer is conducting a study to prove that detrimental impact will not occur with the lack of detention for this particular lot. Should the study prove otherwise and detention be required for the development the subdivision will be required Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page I1 to return for development review. Per the Subdivision Committee's request the applicant is also proposing a 5' tall steele iron ornamental fence along the buffer area limiting physical access while achieving visual access into the area of Lot 8 in response to requests made by the Subdivision Committee. Park land dedication money in lieu is recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board for $19,980 for these 36 single family units. As I mentioned, the property is surrounded by existing wetlands limiting the capability of connectivity surrounding this development. The Subdivision Committee did vote to forward this item onto the full Planning Commission on July 16`h. Staff is recommending approval of PPL 04-1126 with 16 conditions of approval. I will go over a couple of those for you. Item number four, any fencing constructed within or adjacent to Lot 3 by the developer or subsequent owners shall be semi permeable allowing for visual connection into Lot 8 from adjacent property. No privacy fence shall obstruct said view into the conservation area determined to be a scenic view and subject to the restrictions set forth in §166.06 as part of our PZD ordinance. A street tree planting plan conforming to those specifications set out on the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code and Landscape Manual shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final Plat as a method to meet both mitigation and landscaping goals. Item number nine also is in response to the Subdivision Committee's concern about streetlights. Streetlights shall be installed at the maximum of separation of 300' along all streets prior to Final Plat. Installation of said lights shall be sensitive to the nature of Lot 8, a conservation area and utilize appropriate fixtures to limit light spillage onto Lot 8. I'm available for any questions that you may have. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Hargus: I'm Patrick Hargus with EGIS Engineering representing Collins Haynes, the owner of the property. Mr. Pate has summed it up very well. I have nothing to add to that. I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this issue, PPL 04-1126 for springwoods Lot 3? Coody: As a member of the public I would like to say this is the first time that I can recall that there has been such a partnership between Audubon, or any other environmental group, and a new commercial development and especially residential development. So I just wanted to say thank you to both parties here for working together to make this a model for development, not only for Fayetteville but for the rest of the state of Arkansas as well. I just wanted to say thanks to the gentlemen involved in this bringing such an interesting project forward. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 12 Ostner: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Would anyone else like to speak about this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Graves: Would some of the folks on the Subdivision Committee maybe give us an update on what happened at Subdivision with this particular item? Anthes: We, of course, saw both this item and the following item at Subdivision Committee. We actually saw PPL 04-1125 first and a lot of the discussion concerning this lot was undertaken and duplicated in that discussion. However, this specific lot, if you will notice the majority of the lots are internal to the site with a green buffer completely surrounding this island. One of the major things we were concerned about as a committee was that this maintains some permeability views outward towards the Audubon area of Lot 8. We also had asked that they bring a concept map to us because we weren't able to see it in full context which they have done. I believe that their response was that they have proposed this 5' iron fence that will limit the accessibility but allow the visual connection, which was in direct response to that. What we have not been able to understand very well on both of these Preliminary Plats coming forward is the attitude that Audubon has taken with regard to the access to the area. We were confused about that in that we saw this big green area and figured that there would be physical access for the general public to those properties. I believe that they have a representative here tonight that could better clarify that than I could. Ostner: If we could just finish with the bullet items from Subdivision and then maybe try to start addressing them. Anthes: I think that those were the main things. There was also we asked them to consider, as Mayor Coody stated tonight, this property is considered a model for development in Fayetteville and we do have a PZD in the works here. We asked them to consider an alternative configuration to the bulb cul-de-sac that might be something that was a little more forward thinking like a rectangular plaza or something like that that could be a shared amenity for the development. They have chosen not to bring that back to us. View protection, the attitude toward the greenspace and whether or not you could gain access to it. The lighting, which they have addressed and the view protection were the main items on this. Ostner: There were only two of us at this meeting. The other item was the entrance island off Deane Solomon, which they have removed at our request since it is such a low number of units inside this development. It Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 13 didn't bring it up to I suppose a warrant or a requirement to have a dedicated left turn lane. Anthes: That was the portion of the site that had five lots. We felt that having essentially three lanes coming out of a five lot subdivision was more than needed. Clark: Which lot was the concrete ditch issue raised? Ostner: That is lot five. Clark: Ok. Ostner: If we could, could we have a reprehensive from Audubon sort of start the discussion talking about this Lot 8 and how it is supposed to work? Smith: My name is Ken Smith. I'm the state director for Audubon. The issue of access and use, there is not a question in our mind as far as use and access. Three will be full use and access to the so called Lot 8 for the duration of this property and the duration of time that Audubon will be involved with this. We anticipate access starting at a nature center building that will be built at some point in the future going into the middle of Lot 8. We anticipate access coming from the east and west along Clabber Creek as well, with a trail through that area along Clabber Creek. We also anticipate some type of access from the north along one of the tributaries to Clabber Creek as well. When I discuss access though, I'm discussing walking access. That is the type of access and the use that is compatible with nature and watching and viewing wildlife. We will not, I do not anticipate these trails being open for bicycles or skateboards or that sort of thing. That would be in contrast and in conflict with nature observation by people walking out there looking at wildflowers or using binoculars watching birds and other wildlife. It would be more of a benign form of use radiating from the proposed nature center site as well as along the trails that will be through that area. Ostner: Thank you. I have a question. Staff, isn't this multi use trail along Clabber Creek part of our city wide system of trails? Warrick: I don't know that that has been fully determined at this point in time. We do have a master trail plan and there is a master trail connection through this area. Most of the trails that we are looking at for connections within the city do run along stream corridors. Those are generally very appropriate areas for trail installations and I know that the developers and Mr. Smith have been in communication with our Parks Department on several different meetings with regard to trail connections and what they think will be appropriate and what things can be done to accommodate the Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 14 interests of the city's Parks Division as well as the interests of the developer and Audubon on this particular site. We are not right now talking about the development of Lot 8. What we are doing is trying to ensure that the subdivisions and the other developments surrounding are addressed and if there are possible pedestrian connections that we look at those at this time. This project did go through the city's in house review and Technical Plat Review at which time comments were taken from the Parks Department. Those comments were made and then applied to the plat that you see. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Warrick. I understand that we are not really proposing development on Lot 8. It is part of the overall development and it was brought through as a single PZD. For me, the tenure and the functionality of Lot 8 has a lot to do with the other approvals. Anthes: I would concur with your assessment of that. We looked at this as a PZD with all these lots together. During that process, if you check the meeting minutes for that, this Commission had a very length discussion about three hours long because we were concerned about an incremental approval process. We were very interested in seeing these lots together and how this was going to develop as a whole. We also were very concerned about the public interest in Lot 8 and I believe that going into the next item that is even going to play more into the questions we have about the project and the drainage and the riparian zone there. I feel like we have every right to talk about Lot 8 and I intend to do so. Ostner: Thank you. Clark: I'm confused. The concept of a PZD I think is an extremely forward thinking one. I like the concept. I don't like the incremental approval process that this PZD seems to represent. I would like for somebody to show me what the whole picture is going to be. I like to see the big picture. I don't like to put it together piece by piece. I guess if this is a short in our ordinance maybe that is something that the Council needs to look at in terms of making sure we don't do an incremental process. I remember the meeting that we had with the Council not too many weeks ago where there was a lot of talk about this Commission approving the conceptual development and the Council seemed very opposed to that. I feel like we might be walking on dangerous ground here. I agree with Jill in terms of I need to know what is going to happen with Lot 8 before I know what to do with Lots 3 and 5. I don't know what that will do to our progress but I am confused. I would like to know where the Audubon Center is going to be placed, where the entrance and access to that is going to go, how that is going to impact the wetlands. I have a multitude of questions and they are all big picture questions. I don't know if that is out of balance or out of limit or just out. Give me guidance. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 15 Ostner: This is a C-PZD and it was approved as a single development with different lots in that subdivision. I know you weren't here when we approved that. Lots were each carved out, given a set of criteria basically and we were given a sketch of this plot which wasn't legally binding. It was a sketch of ideas which we understood. We did talk about an incremental approval because up to that point we had seen construction drawings accompanying a PZD. We did not for this one because it was so large. It was unfair to ask a developer to do eight projects at once simply to get a PZD land use approval. I understand that part of it. That is a little bit of explanation as to how we got to this point. Clark: I understand part of that explanation. Maybe I'm asking the developer. Surely somebody has a clue as to what the big picture, without getting into grading and engineering and elevations and all of that stuff, surely somebody has the big picture of what all of this is going to look like when it is finished even if it is not exact. Does that not exist? Haynes: My name is Collins Haynes. I am the architect and developer of this project. Lot 8 is an area that will be gifted back to Audubon. We are not designing anything with that at this moment in time. To be very blunt about it, what we are trying to do is basically address all of the perimeter areas so we know what Lot 8 is if there are any issues that are caused by our development these other parcels that relate specifically to Lot 8 we will address that at that time. Our premise with Lot 8 is to gift that to the Audubon Society. I think that the Audubon Society at this juncture in time, is just waiting for this approval process. I don't want to speak for them. Once this land is gifted to them they have to come up with their own designs for the site. In my estimation the site will probably be left in situ until they decide what they are going to do with it. Where they are going to realize the funds and so forth. We have no intentions or any designs on Lot 8 whatsoever. The plan that you see here in the descriptive boundary of Lot 8 was determined through our work with EGIS and the Audubon Society. They determine what land should be donated back to Audubon that encompass the wetland area of the site and the land that could be best utilized by the Audubon Society for a nature center. That is the illustrative description you have on that board right now. As far as improvements and for instance, where the Audubon Center may go, none of that has been discussed at this point. What we are trying to do is come to some finality about what we can do with the lots that we described that are adjacent and contiguous to this Audubon site. We really do not have any plan, nor will it be our role to design what happens on Lot 8. Clark: Aside from Lot 8, when all of the rest of this is done what is it going to look like? Conceptually what is it going to look like? Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 16 Haynes: You mean architecturally? Clark: Sure. Haynes: I really don't know how to answer that. For the residential I know that it is going to be an upper end residential for the shear fact that there is basis on the land that would dictate that that would be higher end. The commercial we are serving as the Architectural Control Committee so I would assume, that being said, we will have some fairly contemporary structures go on the site, more corporate than anything else. Along there we have an individual Large Scale Development plan for each one of those sites. As far as the overall aesthetic of the site, we are bound by the covenants that Audubon helped us write as to what we can actually build on that site as far as how tall, what the lighting is, what we do with hardscape materials on site and that type of thing. As far as the actual architecture of the facilities on site I have no idea of how that is going to be at this point. It looks like right now that the commercial area will happen fairly rapidly. We have had a tremendous amount of interest from existing corporations in the Washington County area to relocate to this site based on what we are proposing as a joint venture between Audubon and us and a model program here. They are quite interested in that. As far as the overall look, I don't know anything to tell you that it is just going to look a heck of a lot better once the tractor place is gone. That becomes more of a gateway to the site for lack of a better word. Williams: If I could follow up on your comments to Commissioner Clark on what you should be considering. It is just like the one you considered right before this. That was an individual lot within a large Preliminary Plat for the whole 200 acres of the commercial area south of the mall. That was originally approved as a large Preliminary Plat, that whole area below the mall and then divided into individual lots and then those lots were brought forward. Here this was brought forward as a PZD but it was brought forward fairly generally where they identified where these particular lots were going to be basically and now, as these lots are being brought forward, you should really consider these lots themselves rather than trying to go back and look at the whole plan again, which has already been approved by the City Council as well as this Planning Commission when the PZD was approved several months ago. I will ask Dawn as our Head of Planning if that is not correct if these lots actually should be considered for themselves at this point in time. Of course, any possible impact they might have on the wetlands. I think that is where our grading and drainage ordinances come into affect. That should certainly be considered but not how these other ones will develop or even the commercial ones and how they will develop. Instead, we should be just looking at these individual lots and see whether they meet our development ordinances. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 17 Warrick: I agree with your assessment. The one thing that I would add because this was a PZD and because this was an overall project that we looked at, there were overarching covenants that this Planning Commission approved with the Final Plat for these nine lots very recently. Those covenants covered all of the development within this project. Those covenants, as Mr. Haynes mentioned, reflect back to agreements that the developer has made with Audubon and items such as the treatment of runoff into the wetland area and it also talks about site amenities, even things such as street lighting and any overflow of those lights into this preservation area whether the lights would bleed out and the types of lighting that would be appropriate. Those types of things will be uniform throughout this site because they are governed by the covenants for springwoods. This is a lot within that development and what was done when this PZD was approved it created nine lots. It designated appropriate land use for those nine lots. Tonight we are dealing with two of those nine lots. Both of which were designated for single family residential land use. In order for them to develop those properties as single family subdivisions we are looking at each lot individually as a Preliminary Plat just as we would with the example that Mr. Williams stated, a single lot within a large subdivision or a development in a district where zoning is appropriate for the land use being proposed. Ostner: Thank you. I'm wondering where those covenants are. Do we have a copy of them in the packet? Warrick: I don't think that we have them in your packet. They were approved with the Final Plat that you approved very recently. Ostner: I understand that we have approved them, I just wanted to reference them. Clark: I didn't approve them. Ostner: The Planning Commission approved them. Clark: I've never laid eyes on them and maybe that's part of the problem. Ostner: Well, we are all here now. That is something that I can use. Warrick: I'm sure if you have questions the developer can speak to those. Ostner: Without knowing what the covenants are I don't have any questions about them. Just to on this issue of what are we really looking at tonight, I understand we are only looking at one lot but this was approved different from anything that we have ever done. The nature of this wetland not only talks about water leading to the wetland but with the Audubon partner being the owner or developer if you would, of Lot 8 other things dialogue Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 18 with Lot 8. People, views, animal and wildlife. I think we handled it pretty good talking about the fencing. At Subdivision someone said what kind of fencing can people put behind their yards. We hadn't really thought about it. Are we just going to put up board fences? We worked it out and the developer was very helpful. We are not going to put up board fences. We are going to put up something that lets the habitat and the views and lots of other things coexist with this wetland. It is different. I cannot look at this like a lot in a small situation. It does not sit there independent of itself. It has a lot of issues dealing with Lot 8. I do want to keep the discussion focused on how this lot, Lot 3 has to do with Lot 8 surrounding it. We are not here to reexamine the entire PZD. Anthes: I have a follow up question for the City Attorney. Mr. Williams, could you clarify for us, I understand what you are saying about the single lots but because this is a C-PZD and it is a Preliminary Plat within a C-PZD what we look at is different for our criteria for measuring compliance was different than it would be for a stand alone residential subdivision that is RSF-4 out in the country. Right? Williams: I think it was when it first came to you to be approved as a Planned Zoning District as opposed to just a Preliminary Plat or something like that. However, once it won that approval then the developer is entitled to use the approval that was gained by the Planning Commission and the City Council and go back and then develop the lots not as PZD lots necessarily. They are part of a PZD but then they have been approved for various uses, residential uses here, commercial uses here and preservation uses in a large area within it. Therefore, it is not like he is not going through the PZD process all over again with each lot. He is now kind of advanced and has to follow the covenants as the Planning staff has stated and I'm sure the Planning staff has ensured that they have complied with all of the covenants. Beyond that, if they are having single family development they have to follow the covenants that were within that main PZD. Any conditions that we have placed upon them in the PZD but then beyond that they are just following our standard development ordinances for a residential subdivision that any other subdivision would have except for whatever additional things were placed upon them either through the covenants or through conditions that were placed on them when the PZD process was accomplished. Anthes: To follow that up. I guess I'm still having the same questions that I had that night forever ago. I was happy to see this developer come forward with a plan. I think that this particular group of people is especially capable of interesting and innovative development within our city worthy of being a model that the Mayor spoke of. What I'm concerned about is as I was that night, what protection as a commission that we have about what we can look at. We were assured that evening that we "weren't giving Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 19 away" any of the review and approval process that normally goes with a PZD by incrementally approving just land use, only land use at that meeting. From what I understood we were still being able to go back and look at each lot individually but with the sort of more stringent restriction, with the more latitude that is given to this Commission of a PZD, verses a stand alone Preliminary Plat in a field somewhere. From what I'm hearing from you, we actually gave that right away. That is not how it was described to us that evening and I beg your indulgence that we get this kind of straightened out here. I know you have been the first on a lot of questions that we have had in this process. I am plumised. Williams: I don't have any further answer. I believe when this was approved as a PZD then the developer can go forward at that point in time and develop it in conformance with the PZD that was approved and with all the covenants they had. If that is wrong, I don't make that decision. I don't interpret the Unified Development Code, that is the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator and so I should ask her what the official interpretation is. Anthes: My question is there is a checklist of things that we can look at with different types of things. If it is an RSF-4 development we have a checklist of things that we can look at and say we can evaluate this development for conformity along this checklist. That checklist is different for a C-PZD than it is for a standard residential subdivision. I didn't understand the night that we voted for the PZD that we were giving away the ability to look at both of those lists and evaluate these projects individually against both of those lists rather than just the straight residential list. Warrick: The PZD process is a flexible design tool for developers. It allows them to propose innovative and alternative types of development design for review by the Planning Commission. It combines land use and development proposal. With the springwoods PZD when it was filed there were statements, notes on that Final Plat that were placed there at the time of Preliminary Plat and PZD approval, which is a combined process. They include "setbacks, height and building area shall be determined and approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission at the time of Large Scale Development and/or subdivision approval." They also include the statement "Flexibility provided within the PZD guidelines shall be applied to each development tract, Large Scale and/or Subdivision as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission to allow alternative methods of design where it is consistent with the objectives of the springwoods C- PZD zoning district." C-PZD in this instance is a zoning district that has been applied. The land uses have broadly been applied to the nine lots that were created within that zoning district. These notes allow the developer to propose flexible or alternative design schemes on these lots Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 20 to be consistent with the project theme and design that they were looking for on this entire tract of land. I don't believe that it was taken out of your hands with regard to the ability to review an alternative design. The developer has presented the design that they propose for these two individual lots of residential development and the Planning Commission has the ability to review that as they would any other residential subdivision. Anthes: Would you read that first part again where it talked about heights? Warrick: "Setbacks, height and building area shall be determined and approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission at the time of Large Scale Development and/or subdivision approval." We will not see these individual lots that are being created as Large Scales. They are single family residential lots. Anthes: Are we supposed to see building footprints and heights and review those at this point? Warrick: That is not something that we typically look at even in a R-PZD if it is a subdivision. The applicant most typically presents to the Planning Commission a proposal for desired setbacks. We have approved PZDs recently where those setbacks are proposed to be very narrow, very close to the street. We have looked at PZDs that proposed zero side setbacks. Neither of those proposals are being implemented by this developer at this time. Those were options that they had the flexibility to provide an alternative type design scheme should they wish to do that. We have also seen PZDs where they were single family residential subdivisions which have talked about the height of structures or the specific materials that will be utilized. Those are things that in a PZD the Planning Commissoin has considered Haynes: I wanted to address one thing in the covenants. The covenants that have been filed for this project basically are essentially recitals of what would be normally applicable under the Fayetteville statute. There is a section in here called Article VI. I will just read the preface. "Covenants for the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands." These are restrictions for lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. It says "pertaining to residential and commercial areas adjacent to Lot 8 the following restrictions apply." Ten pages later we are done. It lists for instance, four pages of plants that youcan't plant. They talk about fertilizers. They talk about surfaces. They talk about structures, buildings, energy efficiency, outdoor lighting, fencing, transitional areas, Audubon land specifically, features and permitted uses. What we tried to do here is protect what we perceived were the anticipated activities on that site for economic viability yet enhance that viability by filing these covenants that would make those Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 21 intended uses comply with what we intend to have happen on Lot 8. What we intend to have happen will happen with Lot 8 through our transfer of ownership of this land back to the Audubon Society. The idea of calling this lot 1 through 9 is very confusing to me too. These lots are big. This is 300 acres of land we are talking about here. When we talk a lot you are essentially talking about a subdivision. The way we have tackled the design is each subdivision is site specific. We have tried to design the infrastructure, the ingress, egress specific of that site and to allocate setbacks and utility designs, stormwater designs and so forth, as they relate specifically to those lots, i.e. those individual subdivisions. Thank you. Anthes: I guess following up on what Mr. Haynes said, I guess that's what I'm a little disappointed about about this is that the subdivision is very site specific and I was hoping that we were looking at something where we were going to see a lot more integration and mixed use kind of activity. I understand that that's not what is happening. My next question is we had asked you guys to review and alternative design to the cul-de-sac and I know that you guys looked at it and chose not to do it. Can you just tell me what thought process you went through so I understand? Haynes: The suggestions were reviewed in great detail that were offered here. One of the suggestions as it relates to an alternative to a cul-de-sac introduced a lot more hard scape into our plan than what we had anticipated. I will let Patrick speak to that. Hargus: By doing a different configuration with the cul-de-sac as opposed to round you do get into square corners which it would make the expanse of pavement larger. It would also, in our opinion, encourage on street parking because now there are nitches where people can park that would actually be out of the circulation of the vehicle. Anthes: Fantastic! Great! On street parking! Hargus: It's a problem because you don't want people in the cul-de-sacs parked for safety reasons, like emergency vehicles. Also, a lot of people do not want cars parked in cul-de-sacs along streets for safety reasons when they have children. Haynes: One of the things that you need to be aware of is that this is a huge project. To get a 404 this quick a lot of hoops had to be jumped. What you are looking at is individual areas of this site that are totally connected back to that 404, whether they are visible or not there is a lot of design work that has gone on in the individual components that relate specifically to that 404. If we were to change things like that that affects stormwater runoff Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 22 for us, that affects the 404. That affects a lot of things that are inheritently part of a design to facilitate the Corp. of Engineers. Anthes: I can appreciate that but we have to look at this in terms of the physical development. Like I said, I guess I was looking for a lot of innovation on this project. Haynes: We are not done yet. You have to understand too that I've been here a long time trying to get this project through here and it's been wonderful. I'm not trying to say anything that is not positive about the experience. I have a lot of people pulling at me from all sides. From the federal government to the city to the county to you as a Planning Commission to the bankers to user groups and so forth. The key to this whole thing really if you boil it out, it's the 404 permit. Without a 404 we are nowhere. The 404 dictated a lot of the interior design and aesthetic of these individual "lots" subdivisions that exist on the plan. Clark: In my very simplistic outlook on life it seems that a lot of the stuff that I would like to talk about was trumped when we made this a PZD. Not wanting to go back and revise history, as Mr. Williams was quick to tell me I shouldn't do, I will move for approval of PPL 04-1126. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: I understand that our body approved these covenants and I understand that there are lots of agreements that were made when we approved that C- PZD. I have not reviewed those. I do not feel capable of approving this tonight. I want to approve this overall. This is a very exciting project. I just have toomany questions about the development. I will be voting against this for lack of specifically the covenants that were agreed to that evening at the C-PZD approval and the information about the theme that was thoroughly talked about about the Lot 8 being an Audubon lot and how this was going to be different and unique. I have a motion and a second. Do I have further discussion? Could you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1126 was approved by a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of six to one. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 23 PPL 04-1125: Preliminary Plat (LOT 5 SPRINGWOODS, 247): Submitted by Patrick Hargus for property located at Deane Solomon Road, Lot 5 springwoods PZD. The property is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lot 5 of the springwoods PZD with 47 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Our next item is PPL 04-1125 for Lot 5 springwoods. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: Thank you Mr. Chair. The subject tract is Lot 5 in the same Planned Zoning District located just to the north of this property across a portion of Lot 8, which we discussed tonight. I won't go through all of the information. We have done that once already. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat for a subdivision on this 30.77 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat for 47 single family lots with lot 48 to be retained as a first flush filter to the south of the property. The Subdivision Committee voted to table this item in order for the applicant to assess and submit potential revisions to the site plan. Substantial revisions were not brought forward, therefore, we brought this item to you so we could discuss this in tandem with the Lot 3 proposal just before this. Some of those issues that are enumerated here in the staff report, some of them are the exact same issues that we discussed tonight. The colored graphic synopsis of the issued 404 Permit by the Corp. Of Engineers shielded street lighting of a low wattage. Water quality point issues. An alternative design for the round cul-de-sac as Ms. Anthes mentioned. Semi -permeable fencing and assessment for alternative method for drainage to the proposed concrete drainage swale. Staff is recommending approval of this PPL 04-1125 with 18 conditions. A number of which are the same conditions of approval, some of which are site specific to this particular development. Item number six dictates the fencing as shown on Lot 3 as well. Item number seven, parks fees for this particular development for 47 single family lots, recommended $26,085. A street tree planting plan will also be required for this development conforming to the City of Fayetteville standards and specifications. Items nine and ten deal with floodplain. There is some floodplain on this site as opposed to the previous site. The development within the floodplain does require a formal floodplain development permit issued by the City of Fayetteville. A LOMR-F shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits for any of those lots affected by the 100 -year floodplain and planned for fill in accordance with city ordinances and FEMA regulations. I believe that the rest of the covenants are standard conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 24 Hargus: My name is Patrick Hargus. This is EGIS Engineering Manual Barnes and this is the Civil Engineer, Joe Tarvin. We will answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public 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 discussion. Trumbo: Reading the minutes of Subdivision I saw that there was a question about a concrete ditch cul-de-sac. Would you like to tell me a little more about that and what the concerns were? Ostner: I can review what happened at Subdivision and then I would like to hear more from the developers. This is a very flat area and to ensure drainage they have designed an 8' wide trickle channel. It has a slight V and it goes through the center of the development to drain it. It is so flat that if they did not put the concrete in it would pool and puddle and sit. It wouldn't run downhill fast enough. We talked about that at Subdivision wishing there were a better way. Can we talk about that? Gilbert: I'm David Gilbert, an engineer with EGIS. Ladies and gentlemen, when we looked at this subdivision in the course of the discussions that have taken place and the context of the site we did look at several different types of alternatives to try to bring something more along the lines of what it sounds like you are looking for in here. We are bound by regulations that are imposed upon us by the City of Fayetteville and in the course of discussions in the Preliminary Plat process with the City Engineer's office, we were instructed to install a concrete bottom ditch. That is what we have shown you. We don't intend to question the wisdom of that one way or the other but it is a matter simply for which we were given instructions for what to present by the city and we have presented you with that. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Gilbert. Barnes: I might just mention from an environmental standpoint there is consideration of something right at the end of that concrete drainage way just as it comes interfacing with the wetland. We want the water in the wetlands similar to the design of what took place at the CMN development that was discussed earlier, the area south of the mall. The water that runs off of that site coming into the adjacent lands to in that instance, Mudd Creek. Similarly, at this site we want the majority of the water to come into the adjacent wetlands, albeit a large preservation area. We refer to the 404 Permit. The 404 Corp. of Engineers permit has within it a large preservation of wetlands as well as the creation of wetlands adjacent to this particular lot. We are wanting to receive development waters coming Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 25 down into the wetlands. If it is possible to have some kind of grass consideration at the very apex of that drain and maybe some energy disipators. That will be something that the engineers will try to incorporate. Based on your comment, that has been something that has been discussed internally. It is not finally designed but I think that that is something that they are trying to get incorporated. Ostner: Part of my concern over this is that I understand it is required of our engineering but we were hoping for better for this. I was hoping for better, I was hoping for something different, something not quite down straight by the book. I was hoping with the C-PZD trying to work around the rigid perameters and do something different that would still get the job done and to be safe and to be within the rules of engineering. One caveat to this concrete channel is that probably people won't want it looked at and if they build a fence they will build a fence right up to it and it will be invisible, noone will see it and it will be ignored. I think it will just be basically an abandond waterway and get filled with debris and not be a good part of the community I suppose. Gilbert: I understand your concern Mr. Ostner. There are some benefits and draw backs I'll touch on in a second. To my knowledge the PZD process does not relieve us from the requirements of the grading ordinance that the City of Fayetteville has passed. We are still bound by that. That is not something that to my knowledge we can override with a PZD. As far as the benefits and the drawbacks to the concrete channel, the concrete channel will be easier to maintain. It certainly would not be as aesthetically appealing as some other options. As far as from a maintenance standpoint, it certainly, by far, is the superior way to go providing adequate drainage through there and minimizing the risk of flooding to the properties surrounding the stream and upstream of it. Your point about the fencing is actually one of the benefits. What we have seen through the years, even up here in Northwest Arkansas is that when the drainage way is not clearly defined by a concrete structure people tend to encroach upon that drainage way with fences and in some cases, I've even seen them come in and fill the lot to the point that the drainage way, the ditch, disappeared then you have water flooding people's homes because there is no way for it to get out because the guy three lots down filled up the drainage way. That concrete sends a very, clear visible message to homeowners and they tend to put their fence, as you suggested, on the edge of it and leave it alone so it actually can function better in some cases than in others. It doesn't look pretty but it doesn't hold water so you don't attract mosquitos or anything like that. It is a tradeoff and here again, we certainly would not try to instruct anyone in the City of Fayetteville as to which way is the best way to go. We are just presenting what we blieeved needed to be presented in order to obtain approval for construction of the project. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 26 Ostner: I understand that. Surely, the idea can't go unnoticed that there is a huge 20 acre lot that is supposed to hold water right there at the end of it. Clark: Mr. Smith with Audubon, we are going to have a concrete channel emptying into wetlands. In times of the year when there is no rain, things back up. You can get bacterial infection in concrete. What is the affect that that is going to have with the wetlands? Are we jeopardizing the wetlands by having runoff from a concrete channel? Smith: I don't think so. I think the key thing that I worry most about is a lot of water coming down all at once. What Mr. Barnes was discussing a while ago was some kind of a grassy slip or grassy strip possibly serving as a filter as the water comes into Lot 8 that we would have something like that would disburse the water instead of just a straight shoot coming down. I don't see it as being an environmental problem for Lot 8 in my perspective. I have met with the engineers and with Mr. Barnes on this very point. We went over this at length and I was satisfied after listening to them that this could be engineered in a way that this could be, with a grassy slip and maybe some kind of disbursing mechanism at the end of the discharge as it comes into the wetland area that it would not pose a threat to Lot 8. Of course that is what Mr. Haynes said earlier. We had sat down with him through the PZD and looked at every factor we could on all of these adjacent lots trying to minimize the impact of Lot 8. I think this measure that we are proposing here is a step in that direction whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not. I think we know the answer there. As far as what it is supposed to do and as far as it's impact on Lot 8 I don't see it as being a problem. Clark: Ok. That was my question. I'm also hearing that it is the city's fault that we have to put concrete in. Is that true Matt? Casey: Not exactly. There were never any specific instructions to install a concrete channel along this portion. It has been there every since the very first time I saw this layout. They are responsible for getting the water from point A to point B and if the concrete channel is the only way to do that that is what would be required. This area is so flat that I don't believe that a grass lined Swale would actually get it there. Clark: You are the engineer so what are the other alternatives? Casey: They could possibly pipe it but I don't think that there would be adequate cover to cover up the piping. They would have a mound over a pipe, which could cause problems in itself. It is essentially the same thing as a channel. It would be a concrete or a plastic, metal pipe, something of that sort that would serve the same purposes as the concrete lined ditch. As far Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 27 as a grass option there is just not enough fall from one end of the site to the other to provide the necessary drainage. Clark: What I'm seeing now is all concrete. You haven't done any mitigation with the grass or any suggestions for that to get into the wetlands. We have talked about it but is it going to make its way onto a plat anytime soon? Gilbert: In order to convey the runoff through the subdivision, forgive me if I've misunderstood Mr. Casey's directions. I thought I understood clearly as possible I did not understand entirely clearly. To be fair and honest, what I understood Mr. Casey to say has been a long standing policy in traditional developments in Fayetteville. This is not something where we just picked this project to do this with. There again, if I misunderstood then I apologize. The idea is to convey the water under low flow conditions through the entire site which means until it comes out from that second box culvert on the south end it will need to be conveyed by whatever means we can do it. In this case it has been a concrete channel. The mitigation aspects don't really come into play because this area is not a wetland. It is basically a Swale draw that runs through it. At the end where we have proposed to come out of that structure it will not be very deep even in high flow conditions when it comes out and allow water to slump down. Basically, just kind of drop. As it is confined it maintains a height. When you take the confinement off the site it does what water does, it seeks it's own level and goes out. There is some area there where we are intending to let that do it's thing, spread out and run through the grass and then into actual wetlands. The wetlands are not immediately adjacent to the property tine. There is some distance that is grassland between the property line and the wetlands that we would allow that to do some cleaning there. If the city's engineering staff is agreeable to looking at some other alternatives we will certainly be happy to do that. We would prefer not to go with a straight concrete channel. We have looked at this in terms of piping, we don't believe that it is viable to do that in piping because of the size of piping that would be required, the amount of fill that would have to be placed and we are trying to leave some things more or less as they are. This is fairly close to the path that the water takes now. It is not exact but it is as close as we can do it and get lots and streets and things in. We would certainly like to convey this in some sort of open channel. We are not married, by any means, to the concrete bottom. We would be happy to meet Mr. Casey again and sometimes between us we can come up with good ideas. We can come up with something that will hopefully be agreeable to everyone and we would like to do that. Barnes: In regards to the water coming off this site it has been discovered that the unnamed tributary cool water spring fed, the unnamed trib that flows Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 28 down into the main creek that we would like to keep those waters cool. That is a habitat that special fish species, the Arkansas Darter, has been found there, has been discovered in that area. A unique consideration in environmental sensitivity on this site. There are many, many environmental sensitivities that are incorporated that is to describe it generally, it is to keep the warm water warm and the cool water cool. This is one provision that does that. We take the stormwater runoff from the development and bring it down into existing, and also we are going to expand some of the wetlands in this area. Where there are no wetlands now there will be some created. We will be careful to keep the stormwater out of the cool, unnamed tributary where the Arkansas Darter has been found. That is something else that is environmentally important at the site. Ostner: Obviously, this water coming down this culvert that we are hopefully going to redesign, it is ok if that can get hot. Barnes: The nature of storms, we have conducted long term water quality studies at Beaver Reservoirs and other projects, the nature of storms and creeks in the Ozarks are very spadey. They are very flashy. The waters will not reside very long. As has been described by the engineers, this is very flat land. When you have a storm within a very short period of time, hours to a day or so, that water is going to runoff into the receiving wetlands so it is not going to have a tremendous thermal effect but my point is that the little unnamed tributary is spring fed water coming out of the earth is in the 50's. Whereas, in the summer we have a storm like we have been having recently that is much warmer and yes, there is some flow that comes over the grassland and that comes into that little unnamed trib. For the period of time that we can separate those waters out under normal storm conditions. That is what we are trying to do. I don't think that there is going to be an appreciable thermal increase on the concrete swale as compared to what naturally runs off of the ground right now coming into and feeding the wetland. Ostner: Commissioners, if this gets approved there has been talk of our engineer and applicant redoing this, they would need direction as to what we would wish for. Poor Matt is going to be left holding the bag. Here is another set of questions about this same issue. Is the grade of Clabber Creek much steeper than the grade of this little drainage area we are talking about? Are they about the same? Gilbert: Clabber Creek was modified a few years ago in this area through the property and we do not have a real good topographical survey of the bottom of Clabber Creek because basically, Clabber holds water from Deane Solomon Road almost through the full length of the property. It has been widened. It has the appearance of having been worked on to Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 29 improve it's hydraulic characteristics to pass more water more quickly, which is not an uncommon thing. It is kind of interesting as we look back on this with all the discussion of the environmental sensitivity that that was done but sometimes things happen and you just do the best you can with them when you get what's been left to you. This whole area topographically is really pretty flat. This is really probably one of the flattest places in and around Fayetteville. If you exclude maybe where Drake Field sets. That is pretty flat too. This is on par with that. Is there a significant difference in the original slope of Clabber Creek and what we are comparing now? No, not really. As far as what the conditions are on the ground. Effectively, this thing is a big pool and it's slope is zero. Once it gets into that water everything is flat and hydraulicly it is a little more complicated than that but that gives you the basic idea. Clabber through the property has practically no slope from a physical standpoint. As far as in terms of what we can work with Mr. Casey on we can look at reducing concrete, going completely to grass, some combination of that. There are really not a lot of options with that as far as that is conveyed. It is either hard or it is soft. We can surely come up with something that would be much more pleasing than what we have shown you today. Allen: I guess in terms of direction I've always understood that a wetland area, that just the tiniest change can be an enormous impact and I guess that I would want to have the feeling that this project isn't going to impact the balance of nature and the preservation area and I don't feel like I have a full understanding of that right now. Barnes: Sum total on this site as far as wetlands and preservation area on this site there will be a mix of quite a diversity of wetlands. There is a large preservation area. There are new wetlands to be created. There is enhancement of areas that as has been mentioned, this site has a history of some disturbance that has taken place. The sum total big picture will be once this land is handed over to Audubon it will be enhanced. Audubon will receive it and they will enhance it further and they will use it for a tremendous prototype education that is going to be a national model. The sum total of the effects of the environment, the horse fire, if you will, of what comes from education and getting this notion across to other developers is going to be tremendous. Directly there will be an enhancement on the plus ledger of environmental features from the very onset. Then through time that process with the efforts of Audubon is just going to go up, up, up. That is the way that we see it. Gilbert: One thing that we have tried to do with this configuration is to take the stormwater from the streets, which typically is where you have the highest level of pollutants because you have cars, you have rocks and the asphalt and the pavement and those sorts of things. We have taken that and are not conveying it to this channel. We are conveying it into the stormwater Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 30 system to be discharged to a different point on the site. This channel that we are discussing now that runs through the middle of Lot 5, what it will carry is basically the yard areas on that infield inside of the streets. Those lots will drain back toward that from the back of the sidewalk to the backs of the lots. In addition to that, there is a pretty good size drainage area to the north of this piece of property, which is pasture land now. That's what will be conveyed primarily. The high impact materials are going to be taken to a different place. They are not going through this channel. Again, what we are talking about releasing at this point from a site standpoint is pretty clean stuff. I wouldn't say it's presteen because you never know what happens in people's yards or things. It is really pretty clean. It is not going to bear the street grime. Ostner: I appreciate that Mr. Gilbert. I did not understand that the street runoff was separate. Where is that going? How is that being treated differently? Gilbert: Everything ultimately is going to wind up in Clabber Creek because that is where everything drains to in this area. The preliminary design at this point is to convey all of that street runoff to a storm sewer which will be built along with the widening of Deane Solomon Road and convey that into Clabber Creek where Deane Solomon Road crosses the creek. Ostner: It is basically putting it downstream from Lot 8? Gilbert: Yes. It is putting it at the very downstream end of Lot 8. It is right there and then you go through the culvert under Deane Solomon and you are off the property. There again, the contaminates that are in storm water runoff, there is a debate to how much that is. I don't want to convey to anybody that this is large roads of grease and gasoline. It is not that. It is what you see running down the gutter of your street when it rains. The first flush has got some sand in it and some materials or whatever gets dropped on the pavement. After the first couple of minutes it is pretty clean stuff as well. Ostner: One of the issues I had at Subdivision was wishing that this western boundary didn't put back fences along Deane Solomon. I understand thatit is really not within our ordinances to force you to change that. I just wanted to bring that up. Normally during a PZD if I were at Subdivision I would really push for that. The street experience and the drivers as they drive down Deane Solomon, no one in our town should be stuck on concrete canyons. If you could speak to that. Hargus: We saw your point and we tried to address that. There won't be privacy fences along Deane Solomon, which to me and others is pretty obnoxious. There will be a 5' high wrought iron fence which will give you that penetration. You will have that feeling that you can look out instead of just having a wall as you are driving down that collector street. We feel Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 31 that is a suitable alternative. We do not plan on fronting those lots onto Deane Solomon Street. Again, that was a direct recommendation of the Planning staff to keep controlled access along Deane Solomon Road. Anthes: I also on this project and on many others prior to it have many questions about how developments contribute to our city streets and our urban experience and how they positively affect the travel of all the residence to the City of Fayetteville and visitors to the City of Fayetteville. I have measured and see that you have about 2,000 linear feet of frontage along Deane Solomon Road and you own property on both sides of that 2,000 linear feet that may or may not be developed except for maybe that far southwestern edge which is a considerable amount of roadway and a project to contribute or not contribute to that roadway. I see here staff that you have included a definition of collector streets from our General Plan 2020 where it talks about in residential neighborhoods frontage along collectors is discouraged. I respectfully have to disagree with the General Plan 2020 on this point whole heartedly. I think it is in direct conflict with everything we are talking about in the City of Fayetteville about building community, building interconnectivity and building streetscapes. Luckily that is not an ordinance but a guideline and I don't feel compelled to vote for projects explicitly because it is something that is in the General Plan 2020. If you look at the way that collectors function in our city if we did not have buildings that fronted on collectors we wouldn't have Lafayette Street, we wouldn't have Old Wire, we wouldn't have all sorts of other streets in our city that are numerable important streets. Again, because this development is supposed to be modeled, that we were ensured over and over again during the PZD process that this was going to be innovative, the model, the place where everybody is going to come and everything else. This is a big sticking point for me on this project. I think it has more to do with than controlling access because you can control access by using alley systems, shared driveways, all sorts of other ways to control access that do not make a collector street dangerous and yet still a project can contribute strongly to that street and to the community. For that particular reason I am unable to support this project. Hargus: We understand your position. We feel that we are building a streetscape and that Deane Solomon will be lined by street trees as part of our mitigation plan and it will have a 6' sidewalk, have a green strip between the 6' sidewalk along with those street trees and behind that will be a 5' wrought iron fence and we think that is very attractive and we think it also creates a streetscape that to many is very nice. People will be able to drive Deane Solomon Road and be able to see through the fence and through the trees and across the sidewalk into people's yards. Our covenants will enforce that all yards are mowed and kept up and we think a street scene is created. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 32 Haynes: I want to just address something that I think is pretty primary here. What we are really asking for here, the request is to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lot 5. We have had a lot of discussion about issues that relate to the site in general which I am sure are prudent and well chosen discussion items. My point is that what we have drawn and what we have presented for this lot meet all city regulations as they apply to this particular zoning inside this PZD. We have dealt with regulatory agencies from the federal government to the state to trying to accommodate Audubon, trying to come up with a project that is a model. I respect the comments that it is lacking in certain areas. You have to understand that there are a hundred different things pulling at this project simultaneously and trying to make it something that it doesn't want to be. That is anything that is adverse to the protection of Lot 8 and the existing wetlands. What we have tried to do on this project is to realize a project that will serve as a model for Fayetteville and a model for me as a design professional and hopefully for the Audubon Society that incorporates an economic viability inside of the preserved landscaped area. In order to do that there are certain things that have to give and certain things that have to take. When we design subdivisions within these lots we have to work at what the most minimal impact that we can incur on Lot 8, still get enough economic return off of those individual areas to make this project economically feasible. We chose to buy the project from the City of Fayetteville based on us being able to realize enough return to at least retire a debt. All that being said, let's take the debt out of the issue, let's take the model project out of the issue. I've tried, I really have tried to make this project do everything it could be for every single zoning and for every single lot that is inheritent within it. That being said, again, the issue tonight is the approval of the lots within these subdivisions that we are calling lots, Lot 5. I understand your point. It is well taken. If I could do things differently I would. Deane Solomon in that area is almost a drag strip. It is a high speed thoroughfare right now. For people to back in and out of home sites there I think would be tragic. I think that would be a real safety issue. I can't do anything about the way people drive there. Again, what we were trying to do is trying to make this site internalized where that the people inside felt like they were in another experience, whether that be the springwoods or whether that be the Audubon or whether that be a sense of neighborhood in these individual subdivisions within this large 300 acre lot. That being said, I would like to summarize by just saying that I think we have done a pretty good job of trying to realize the hopes and dreams of the citizens of Fayetteville when they agreed to sale me this piece of property. I may not have done everything right but I think I've achieved what's necessary to get Audubon to make a commitment to be here and get us enough developable land where we realize an economic return. If I haven't pleased everyone I am sorry but I believe the project as presented on the plan here works and it meets all the requirements. This is a starting point for us to get back into these areas and to get back with Audubon. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 33 Once we know what we can do and can't do on these individual lots we will be able to present you with something much more precise as it relates to commercial areas of this site and to the Audubon site. Thank you. Ostner: Just as a follow up, I don't think any of us can control traffic but it is well documented that streets that are abandoned, that don't have eyes on the street, we all misbehave. We all drive faster. We are all more careless. Streets that have eyes on the street, homes, people, people slow down. In a way we are contributing to poor driver behavior when we promote no one facing the street. Frontages are a traffic calming tool. The §166.06(d) which we have been referring to all night, I'm going to refer to Section (d)(2). "As part of the development plan a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. Landscape plan shall show the general location, type and quality of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical detail of fences, berms and plant material to be used." That is what I would like to see. That is my reason for not voting for this tonight. I would like to approve this. Yes, this is a good project overall it fits well with the PZD theme. I don't think it is ready. There are details that are yet to be addressed. Haynes: Is it a requirement of the Preliminary Plat or the Final Plat? Ostner: This is under § 166.06 under PZDs, we have been referring to it all night. Staff has referred to it in their reports. Haynes: These are Preliminary Plats not Final Plats. Ostner: I understand that. That's the difficulty. Half of the staff report refers to this same section. Haynes: What I don't understand is how can I design anything further when I don't even know what the preliminary design is. I can't comply with the landscape plan unless I have a preliminary design to work off of. Ostner: We all know that the zoning is C-PZD. It is not a hidden element. Haynes: I'm just asking what I consider to be a rather simplistic question. How can I design anything without knowing what I'm designing for? What we have asked for tonight is Preliminary Plat. Ostner: If these drawings that you gave us had a landscape screening plan on Deane Solomon I would feel able to vote. I'm not saying one has to come before the other. Haynes: Before you were asking me to access Deane Solomon. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 34 Ostner: No I'm not. Haynes: She is. Ostner: That is my rathers is a landscaping screening plan along Deane Solomon. That sounds like a requirement for PZDs. Haynes: Normally, and again, normally may not apply to this job. What I would like to do is make that a condition of approval that prior to submission of the Final Plat that we address issues of cross access to Deane Solomon and address issues of a landscaping plan. I'm not going to be able to sale these lots until I get final approval anyway from a Final Plat. I understand your point. Your point is extremely well taken. My point is that it is tough to design inside of a closed box. I have to have some room to get out there and make this design happen. Ostner: I'm not asking for the process to stop. Haynes: It will without approval. I can't do what I need to do without Preliminary Plat. Warrick: The PZD process is applicable for two different types of projects, a Large Scale Development or a Preliminary Plat. For Preliminary Plats such as this one we make a standard recommendation which is condition number eight in your staff report in staff recommendations for a street tree planting plan to be submitted prior to approval of the Final Plat. This is a residential project that is surrounded by residential properties or preserved properties. There is no screening requirement according to ordinance that they would need to provide any additional landscape plan to accommodate. The verbiage in that subsection number two is all encompassing. It addresses both plats as well as Large Scale Development. Large Scale Developments typically have additional buffering or screening requirements. In that situation we would need to see additional plan information with regard to proposed landscaping. We felt that this condition of approval number eight adequately addressed that requirement for additional landscape plan approval. Ostner: I suppose my question would be that this is a commercially zoned area. Part of our PZD requirements for commercial seem applicable. Warrick: This 300 acres is zoned C-PZD. It is a mixed use zoned area with these two lots being designated for one sole land use, and that is single family residential. Ostner: I understand it is a residential project. Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 35 Trumbo: From what I understand, we are looking at just this one lot which is residential and is not commercial. If I heard staff right, you are saying that we will see landscaping at Final Plat, which would be with any normal residential development, does that sum up what you were saying? Warrick: Condition number eight is an identical condition that staff has recommended and that the Planning Commission has approved for all of the residential Planned Zoning Districts for projects that have been approved as residential since we started the process of the PZD. Yes, this is designated as C-PZD. That is because approximately 51 % of the land area in this property was designated for commercial purposes. These two lots however, were not. Ostner: This is confusing. If we were at Subdivision right now and we were looking at Lot 5 pure and simple. There was no Lot 8 and there was no springwoods development and that springwoods Lot 5 wanted to do a R- PZD I would be looking at it completely differently. They were granted that land use of C-PZD with all of their covenants and basically agreements. The PZD process has a lot to do with basically, to me, drawings. Looking at pictures. We saw very few pictures when we approved this development and we were ensured it was an incremental approval. We are going to finish up the approval when it comes time for Preliminary Plat. Now it is not that way is the way it's being explained. It is straight down the line. It is our code book of ordinances. It is only being looked at as a Preliminary Plat and I just don't understand that. It is still a C-PZD. I am not trying to stop this project. I understand I have a lot of problems and issues with it. I think they are resolvable. I don't feel like I have enough information tonight to vote for it. Tarvin: What additional information do you need Sir? Ostner: I respectfully disagree with staff that for me a screening and landscaping plan along Deane Solomon would help me to approve this project. As Ms. Anthes stated, it is not addressing the street and I don't feel able to agree to that talking wise rather than seeing it. Tarvin: I think I heard her say that all the other residential subdivisions and PZDs to this point have had that same statement attached to it. Did you vote for those? Ostner: I don't think we have ever had a residential subdivision under a commercial zoning that I recall. This is completely unique and I don't think I'm setting a bomb off here. I'm just asking for one more drawing. Tarvin: I understand Ms. Anthes to say that she is against it because the lots don't front on Deane Solomon, is that right? Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 36 Haynes: Do we even know what's happening with Deane Solomon yet? Tarvin: No. Haynes: We can't draw anything. The city is telling us they are going to widen it but if they widen it on our side all the big trees come down. If they move it to the upside we save all the trees. We don't know where it is going yet so I can't again, without some sort of a starting point with Preliminary approval I can't make that thing happen. Ostner: We coordinate things like this all the time. Haynes: We don't get the information about where it's going. Deane Solomon could go this way or that way. Ostner: The right of way is set. I don't think the city is going to declare eminent domain and take extra right of way. Haynes: What I have understood is that if we put it on our side it will take down a lot of mature trees. The possibility is that it may meander back and forth within that right of way. That being said, there is further design work to go. Again, I hear what you are saying that you want more and that this is a new animal but I guess the point made simple for me is that we have complied. We are asking for Preliminary approval. We are going to follow that up with final designs and everything else that go with the normal Final Plat that comes with a subdivision. Ostner: The curb and gutter that is in this drawing is basically on the table to be built. With the approval tonight you can go build it. I'm a little confused as to how things are up in the air. It says 14' from the declared centerline. Hargus: It won't be completely approved because we will have to show the tree mitigation plans with our construction plans. It has to still go through the city and be approved. Just by approving the Preliminary Plat it will not get us built. We still have several feats that we have to go through with the city to get this thing built. Ostner: The street tree planting plan is not really what I'm talking about. I understand that's existing on this project. It is the screening and buffering that I'm asking for. Gilbert: I hope that this is not too minor of a technicality Mr. Ostner but you can't build based on this approval. You have to go through the grading permit process and get that approval before you can begin construction. You've spoken of an incremental process. Everything I've done in Fayetteville Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 37 has been incremental to some degree. I will admit that this kind of takes it to new heights but you have a number of steps built in to your process. That is not unusual for cities to do. You have a number of steps built into your process where you can kind of slow this down and catch it and make corrections. Ostner: Specifically the drawing we have with the centerline and right of way could change. Gilbert: We have not been privy to all of the discussions but my understanding is that there are improvements which will be required to Deane Solomon to be constructed as part of this project but in addition to that, in order to conform to the Master Street Plan at some point there will be additional widening which will be necessary and I think that is what Mr. Haynes was speaking of as far as not really knowing where it goes. We have presented this widening of widening this half to 14' in width. That is what we understand the direction that will be required as part of this project. Here again, if we get corrected on that in the grading permit process we will have to make changes. I think Mr. Haynes' concern is we go ahead and build this and plant all of these trees and then at some point in the immediate future the Master Street Plan comes into play and all these trees that we have just put in have to be removed. Given our collective efinity for trees we certainly don't want to see brat happen anymore than anyone else involved in the project. Warrick: If I might make a note of the requirements with regard to buffer strips and screening. Buffer strips and/or screening are required when there is outdoor storage, when you have areas where non-residential uses are adjacent to a residential zoning district. What we have here is a residential use adjacent to a residential zoning district. Therefore, we don't have an ordinance requirement to buffer or screen. We also have a General Plan that encourages areas not to be walled in. I'm confused as to where we need to look with regard to regulations and standards as to what to expect to see as a buffer or screen along Deane Solomon Road. We need some guidance. If that is a Planning Commission requirement I'm not sure what to compare it to. Ostner: We already allow the subdivisions to turn inward so we are already basically giving up on walling or screening themselves off. I'm simply trying to mitigate what one of our rules. Coody: I would like to speak as a staff representative. Since we do work together, I'm going to ask you all please to approve this tonight. I generally, you haven't seen me up here doing this at any other meeting. This is important. I am going to explain why I'm up here asking you to please approve this this evening. Because the staff has worked closely with Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 38 Collins Haynes' organization. They have been very amenable to making all kinds of positive changes. I'm sure that staff and the Haynes could continue to work together to add buffer, trees or whatever minor details need to be adjusted to appease everyone. I'm sure they would be more than willing to do that. If you only look at the details there may be details that each detail isn't going to receive 100% detail by everyone. As you step back and look at the grand picture of this thing there has never been anything like this done in Arkansas that I know of, probably that anybody here knows of. We are preserving 125 acres of greenspace on the interstate to be used as a wildlife and environmental habitat classroom that the directors of Audubon have worked closely with the developers to come up with the surrounding commercial development design and guidelines and perameters and covenants that will be the most environmentally sensitive and progressive anybody in this state has ever seen. While we might disagree on what detail here is important or what detail there is important, if you back up 10,000 feet and look at it this is the most outstanding example of the balance between environmental and commercial and residential development we've ever seen. We can work out the details like the concrete trickle channel. We can work on that. I want to see something more attractive, staff does. The developers do and we can make something work there. If it is impossible to make something work then we might have to do something with the trickle channel and just make it as attractive as we can. We will try to make something work there that is as aesthetically pleasing as possible. As far as the buffering goes with the treescapes and landscaping. I'm certain that if I ask the developers to work with us to plant some more trees or to put some more screening on that, I feel certain they would be very accomodating as they have with every other thing that we have asked them to consider. We have worked with them on trail placement, where Audubon can accommodate their needs and the city can accomplish it's goal in making the city wide master trail plan program work. There has been movement on both sides to where we've all been able to achieve our goals by hammering out details in a very friendly and a very compromising partnership way. I don't see it stopping with approval tonight. I see it continuing. If there are details that you are uncomfortable with, let us know. Staff will continue to work with the Haynes and the developers and the engineers and EGIS and will continue to improve this as we move forward but I ask you to approve this tonight please. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Graves: It seems that some of the troublesome parts of the discussion tonight have been more to do with the PZD ordinance than it does with this particular project. Maybe there continues to be a misunderstanding of exactly what that ordinance does or did. I'm not going to claim that I understand all of it. There have been a lot of bright minds look at it on different projects. I Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 39 don't think anyone could claim to have a total understanding of how it works and that is to be understood with it being a somewhat new process. The way I would view this particular situation, the PZD was brought about to prevent having to break up a particular parcel of land into four or five different segments and zone them all different ways in order to have a mixed use type of development, which is what this is. I suppose we could've had a little corner of it that was R-PZD and a little corner of it that was C-PZD but part of the reason that it was all done C-PZD as I understand it, is that greater than 50% of that particular tract was going to be developed commercial. As an accommodation under this particular new ordinance the entire thing was zoned C-PZD. That doesn't change the residential characteristic of the parcel that we are looking at tonight, the particular lot that we are looking at tonight that this Planning Commission albeit, there are different members on it now than maybe when this first came before the Planning Commission. This is something that was already approved. I haven't seen or heard, and I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, I haven't seen or heard anything that convinces me that the Planning Commission gave anything away. It just doesn't seem like it is the right time right now to talk about what might occur on these commercial tracts at some future time. This isn't a Concurrent Plat situation. This is a Preliminary Plat that we are going to see again at Final Plat review. This is a situation where they have complied, in my mind, with the PZD ordinance which was when you've got a mixed use situation on a tract of land, you can use this ordinance as a better way to try to get your project approved without having to break it all up into different zoning parcels and then you present some conceptual drawings as best you can at the time and you either like the concept or you don't like the concept and it either meshes with that tract of land. This is sort of a peculiar situation with it being broken up into several different lots on one PZD tract. You either like the concept or you don't like the concept. As far as getting into nitty gritty details that doesn't seem to me to be at this stage of the game. I may be misunderstanding the PZD ordinance, but that's the way I understand it. I fully appreciate that there are collector streets that have houses that faces a collector street and I think anybody would agree that that's preferable. I would have huge traffic concerns with that particular stretch of road with a lot of driveways and people trying to back out onto that road, especially with that number of houses and that particular length of that particular stretch where this lot is. In my mind they have satisfied our ordinance. They have given us as much concept as they can have under the circumstances and it meets our requirements. Particularly under the circumstances of traffic concerns. I just think that getting into tree and landscaping issues at Preliminary Plat on a conceptual drawing on a residential portion of a C-PZD at this stage in the game is probably premature. I believe this is a good project, this developer has worked extremely hard to fit this project in with all the Planning Commission July 26, 2004 Page 40 different folks that nobody can dispute have been tugging at him on all angles with this project. I'm in support of it. Clark: I think this is a wonderful project but I think Commissioner Graves touched on something that sparked a thought and that is with a PZD you see a concept. You either like it or you don't like it. The only concept that I'm seeing in this development is preserving wetlands. What I wanted to see was the conception behind the residential, the commercial actual developments. I haven't seen that but it was passed anyway as Mr. Williams has already told us, that's done. The PZD is a done deal. I will say that in the future when PZDs come before the Commission while I'm on it I'm going to ask for more detail and I will be the one that votes against them every darn time if I'm told it is going to be incremental, trust us, pat on the head, you'll see it when it comes to you. With other developers you may not see it when it comes to you and gee, you've already zoned it. I think our hands are tied on this one to be perfectly honest with you. That really makes me uncomfortable. I don't particularly like the pressure on this one either because I think it wasn't needed because this has been done. All of those factors leave me to have a very bad taste in my mouth for tonight's activities on this project and it is a spectacular project. The Audubon group can preserve the wetlands, we can have something wonderful in Fayetteville. We still cannot abandon what our duties are as prescribed by the books that we are supposed to follow. Having said all of that, I will recommend approval of PPL 04- 1125 with all stipulations. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1125 was approved by a vote of 4-2-1 with Commissioner Vaught recusing and Commissioners Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Meeting Adjourned: