Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 9, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Adoption of the Downtown Master Plan Page 2 PPL 04-1143: (Estates at Salem Hills Phase. II, 205) Page 5 CUP 04-1140: (Kantz Professional Building, 371) Page 10 CPL 04-1160: (Graves/Vawter PZD, 208) Page 12 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved No Action Taken CUP 04-1130: (Wal-Mart Mall Ave. Stockroom, 173) Tabled to the August 23, 2004 meeting LSD 04-1129: (Wal-Mart Mall Ave. Stockroom, 173) Tabled to the August 23, 2004 meeting RZN 04-1145: (Cobb/Westphal, 557/596) MEMBERS PRESENT Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught James Graves Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 2 Ostner: Good evening. Welcome to the August 91h meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine commissioners present. Ostner: Before we proceed with the approval of the minutes there is an item that we need to discuss. The Planning Commission received a memo last week addressing our comments during a Preliminary Plat that occurred with the springwoods development. I want to thank the City Attorney for enlightening us as to our comments and their relevancy. My concern is that this Commission needs to know when we are speaking inappropriately during the meeting. Some of our comments were deemed misconduct, some of them were deemed inappropriate and those aren't the kinds of comments that I would like to hear. I was at that meeting and was unaware that these comments were out of line. My concern is for the applicant. I would like the applicant to be served as best possible in this situation and I would appreciate any comments about our behavior to happen in a more timely fashion to better serve our community. With that, we will proceed with approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion? Anthes: I have a few comments on the minutes. There were a few grammatical things and some words that were interchanged that I would like to enter the changes into the record. Ostner: We can get those to Renee. Are there any other comments about the minutes? Do I have a motion for approval? Clark: So moved. Ostner: Is there a second? Allen: Second. Ostner: Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the minutes were approved as amended. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The first item on our agenda under new business is an Administrative item. It is adoption of the Downtown Master Plan. Do we have a staff report? Warrick: The staff report on this item was distributed two meetings ago with the materials on that and at this point staff is more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. Our recommendation stands. That is to Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 3 forward this to the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners, since we have no report we are free to discuss this. I am going to call for the public to comment right now. Is there anyone who would like to comment on the Downtown Master Plan? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Vaught: Do we have a time line on the detailed code changes that are going to be brought forward with proposals? Conklin: I'm Tim Conklin, Community Planning & Engineering Services. We are developing a scheduled time line for implementation of certain elements. I will have that and will get you a copy of that. That will be presented along with the plan to the City Council. I can let you know that at this time I'm looking at for this year working on trying to address the one way street conversion and on street parking and also develop a plan to implement r adopt the new code. Those are the two projects that I want to begin after adoption by the City Council. Vaught: I would like to say that this is an exciting project and it has been a lot of fun to be a part of. I think it is something very positive and exciting for Fayetteville and I would like to move for approval of this administrative item. Graves: Second. Ostner: I have a motion and a second. My guess is that Council would appreciate any comments that we would have since we are really not exactly approving this. They are going to see it whether we forward it or not. Allen: I think because there has been so much discussion about this and TIFs and everything else going on in Fayetteville at the same time that it might be appropriate to clarify that we are only moving forward with our feelings of approval of the basic principles of this. That is correct isn't it? Warrick: Yes. Allen: The walk ability, the downtown living, the smart parking, the smart rules, special places and experience based economy. Ostner: Thank you. The way I understand it this book with lots of pretty pictures is great ideas. We will slowly proceed to implement some of these ideas after we formally approve the plan as a city. That is just sort of to illustrate what you had to say. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 4 Clark: Mr. Chair, I don't want the Council or the public to think I'm not, I'm very supportive of the principles but I think our comments will best be served when the actual ordinances come through that actually start to implement some of this. There in will be the proof or the problem. I would encourage the public to stay abreast of the situation. The ordinances will be key. This all sounds tremendous, wonderful and what we would all like to see, but how it is implemented will actually make or break the situation. I'm going to reserve my comments for the ordinances themselves. This is great though. Ostner: In some of the getting there statements they make they line up a bunch of things that we should do that would be good for the downtown and they also give us little getting there bullets. Most of the getting there's start out with 1) adopt the master plan. 2) adopt the downtown district plan (which we are not seeing tonight.) 3) create a downtown redevelopment district to enable tax increment financing. (which we are not seeing tonight either.) My point is we are, as a city, fully engaged in all three of these currently and that excites me. This isn't really the beginning. The process has already started and that excites me. If there is any further comment we will move to the next item. Renee, please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of the Downtown Master Plan was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 5 PPL 04-1143: Preliminary Plat (ESTATES AT SALEM HILLS PH. II, 205): Submitted by TOM HENNELLY for property located at SALEM ROAD, NORTH & WEST OF PHASE I. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 140.58 acres. The request is to approve a portion of a residential subdivision with all or portions of 16 single family lots inside the Planning Area and the remaining 40 lots in the county. Ostner: The next item is PPL 04-1143 for the Estates at Salem Hills. If we could have the staff report Ms. Morgan? Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat. This Plat is a 56 lot residential subdivision on approximately 140 acres. It is the Estates at Salem Hills Phase 11 located west of Estates of Salem Hills Phase I. It is north of Salem Road and east of Rupple Road. The southern portion of this property containing all or portions of approximately 16 lots is located within the Planning Area. The remaining lots are located within Washington County. Connectivity to the subdivision is being provided from Phase I of the subdivision. Additional connectivity is being provided to the west and there is a proposed future connection to the north. Water shall be extended to serve this development and individual septic systems are proposed for this subdivision. The ordinance requires Heath Department approval prior to Preliminary Plat approval for those lots less than 1.5 acres and we will address specifically those lots within the Planning Area for this requirement. Staff recommends that PPL 04-1143 be approved with the following nine conditions. Condition number one states that should the applicant not be able to provide conditional approval from the Arkansas Department of Health prior to Planning Commission approval the number of lots shall be reduced to provide a minimum 1.5 acres per lot. After revisions from Subdivision Committee there are three lots which have less than 1.5 acres within the Planning Area. Those are lots 8, 9, and 12. At this time we have not received conditional approval from the Arkansas Department of Health. Additional conditions of approval include a property line adjustment is required to create a western boundary for Lot 55 of this subdivision. This shall be filed prior to Final Plat approval. Finally, Washington County Planning approval is required for this Preliminary Plat. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hennelly: My name is Tom Hennelly. I'm with Tomlinson Asphalt Company. I'm the project engineer for this. Suzanne pretty much summed it up. It is an unusual project in that only a portion of it is in the Planning Area not contiguous with any of the city limits of Fayetteville. A majority of the property is in the County. I don't particularly have any problem with the conditions of approval that were stated with the exception of number one Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 6 and it is really not that I have a problem with the condition rather than the way it is worded. Just to give you a little background on it, I knew of the requirement for lots under 1.5 acres in the Planning Area needed to have a letter of conditional approval from the Health Department and I had test pits dug on those three lots, lots 8, 9 and 13 and had soil analysis done to determine the loading rate for the septic system and sent that to the Health Department. They proceeded to tell me that they would not give me a conditional letter of approval for those three lots until they received soil analysis on all 56 lots. Normally in a county subdivision that is not required until construction plans are submitted. What I would request is that you all give me approval of this contingent upon me getting that letter of conditional approval. We are in the process of staking and digging those 56 test pits. We spent most of the day today doing it and will continue to until we get them done. The reason I'm asking for that is because the County Planning Commission only meets once a month. If I'm not able to get approval here then I won't be able to submit to the County for an additional month and there is a significant financial impact by doing that. If I'm not able to obtain a conditional letter of approval for those lots, which I believe I will based on the soil analysis and the loading rates, if I am not able to then I will not submit construction plans for the water line to the city engineer for a subdivision that has anything less than a 1.5 acre lot in the Planning Area. I will revise the plat and drop a lot if I'm not able to get that condition. I don't have any problem with the other conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak about this Preliminary Plat for the Estates at Salem Hills? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. My first question for staff was does condition of approval number two help to satisfy his problem? Morgan: After reading through these it appears that if the Planning Commission approves condition number one condition number two is void. Approval will not be necessary with the lots containing 1.5 acres. Ostner: Does staff have any ideas as to how to overcome this quandary? Warrick: This is truly a Planning Commission decision. The ordinance requires approval from the County Health Department on lots that contain less than 1.5 acres at the time of request for a subdivision. That is now. This project is somewhat unique as the applicant and Suzanne described. The property is primarily outside of our jurisdiction, even outside of our Planning Area. Phase I of this project was wholly within the Planning Area and we saw that recently. It has been installed with a Master Street Plan connection as well as water system connections. We have a few points at which staff could control whether or not the plans met the Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 7 requirements of the 1.5 acres or the letter of conditional approval. The Planning Commission is one of those points. The next, and really only other, point for us to determine that prior to the subdivision being installed is at the time of submittal of construction plans. If the Planning Commission chooses to allow this applicant a little more time to ensure that they can obtain that letter of conditional approval or at least have the review completed staff can regulate that at the time of construction plans if they have not been issued a conditional letter of approval then the lots would be required to meet the 1.5 acre threshold or greater. If they do obtain the letter of conditional approval the construction plans can be submitted for the plat as you see it before you. There are three lots being affected as mentioned, lots 8, 9 and 12 and it is really just a determination of your comfort level and it is a little bit of a departure of what we would typically do. Usually we do have those letters of conditional approval at the time that the project is before you or on a Lot Split before the Subdivision Committee. In this case there is more involved. Ostner: Thank you. Graves: Is it staff's and the City Attorney's opinion that we have the power to move forward with it in that way if that's what we decide even though we don't have that letter now? Warrick: It is my opinion that you do have that authority. This is a development regulation and that is governed by the Planning Commission as far as variances or waivers with regard to development regulations. Ostner: Could we simply create a condition of approval somewhat stating that at the time of construction permits we would require another... Warrick: My recommendation would be if you choose to modify condition number one the wording would really need to just state "Prior to construction plan approval." Instead of "prior to Planning Commission approval." Vaught: It lists 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 as the lots affected in this first condition. Shouldn't it just be 8, 9 and 12? Hennelly: Yes. The initial submittal that I had showed those four lots being under 1.5 acres. After Subdivision Committee I revised the plat and took in some of that P.O.A. parkland to make as many lots over 1.5 acres as I could so it just left those three under 1.5 acres. Warrick: That is consistent with the plat that you have in front of you. You could eliminate 10 and 13 from that condition statement. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 8 Shackelford: Since we are talking about one and two kind of saying the same thing would it be easier to eliminate condition of approval number one and substitute condition of approval number two, prior to submittal of construction plans for approval individual septic system approval shall be obtained from the County? Warrick: That would work as well. Ostner: Is that a motion? MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve PPL 04-1143 to include omitting condition of approval number one and restating condition of approval number two to read "Prior to submittal of construction plans for approval the individual septic system approval shall be obtained from the County for those lots having a gross area of less than 1.5 acres. A permit for individual septic systems must be granted by the Arkansas Department of Health for each proposed lot in this size category." All other conditions as stated. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: I don't really see that there is a big problem with this for any reason but since we don't see many of these I just wanted to ask the City Attorney whether this move is a precedent setting move or whether this is something that is case by case and we are pretty safe in this instance? Williams: I would agree with the City Planner and say that this is something that is within your power. Each case is really different. You want to treat people fairly and equally but on the other hand the reason you have so much power in granting such a variance is because each piece of land is different. Each development is different. I don't think that you are bound by anything in the future and just use your best judgment on this one. Shackelford: For the record, part of my decision process, this seems to be just a logistics issue. The fact that this development is primarily outside of the Planning Area and our jurisdiction I think that it is a good cause for this to be granted. I agree that it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Ostner: Before we vote, I do have one question for staff. Condition number five, the property line adjustment to create the western boundary of Lot 55, could you explain that to me a little bit or maybe the applicant could explain what happened with Lot 55. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 9 Hennelly: If you look on the application there are several property owners involved in this. About half of the property on the west side of the development is owned by the Strigler family and it was parceled up between Gary, Gayle and Keith Strigler. Because we are only utilizing a portion of the parcel of Gary Strigler's property in creating the boundary on lot 55 and 56, we need to adjust that lot line from that parcel to create the full subdivision. Because we are not utilizing the entire parcel. That has all been submitted to Planning. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any further questions or comments? Could you call the roll please Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1143 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 10 CUP 04-1140: Conditional Use (KANTZ PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 371): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at HWY 265, CROSSOVER ROAD, S OF 2755 KANTZ DRIVE.. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to approve 4 residential units on the second floor of an approved commercial project. Ostner: The next item is CUP 04-1140 for Kantz Professional Building. Morgan: This subject property is .52 acres. It is located west of Crossover Road two lots south of Kantz Drive. It is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The applicant is proposing a development for a two story building. The first floor will be utilized as a professional office with the second floor as a residential. Four residential units are being proposed to utilize the second floor of this two story building. The zoning for this land allows the developer to develop a single or two family residential unit on this property. However, multi -family units are allowed within the Residential Office zoning district only as a Conditional Use. The request is for a Conditional Use approval to allow for four attached residential units which falls under Use Unit 26 in this R -O zoning district. With regard to findings, staff finds that granting the requested Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. Traffic volumes will not increase substantially. Additionally, the use will be complimentary to the surrounding residential developments to the west and further utilize the commercial services available in this area. Also, construction of a 6' sidewalk for pedestrian traffic will be provided. Sufficient parking is available to meet the needs of the office as well as residential units. Temporary dumpster location is proposed and shown on the plat provided to you. It is proposed to be located within a driveway connection to the south to provide for cross access to future development for the property to the south. Staff recommends approval of CUP 04-1140 based on these findings within and recommends approval with seven conditions. We do have signed conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Could you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Mitholland Company. Suzanne stated the conditions of approval accurately and the findings accordingly. The client has signed the conditions of approval and accepts those and we invite your approval. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Jefcoat. Does anyone from the public wish to speak to this Conditional Use? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page I1 Shackelford: As I look at this property I think it is in line with what is going on in this area. Basically, as I understand it, the reason that this is before us is because they are asking for four residential units on this property where two would be allowed by right. I think it is a good part of town for a multi -use building. I think it is in good accordance with the neighborhood there. There is a lot of multi -family and commercial that is a good mix in this area. It is my understanding that things that we typically might look at like commercial design standards and that sort of stuff, can be reviewed by staff at the time of permitting. Knowing that they are capable of doing that I am going to make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1140. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1140 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 12 CPL 04-1160: Concept Plat (GRAVES/VAWTER FOR A PZD, 208): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at HWY 112 NORTH FROM I-540 APPROXIMATELY 0.30 MILES. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 125.98 acres. The request is to review a Concept Plat for a future Planned Zoning District. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CPL 04-1160 for Graves/Vawter for a PZD. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: Thank you. This is a Concept Plat. This commission I don't believe has seen a Concept Plat, at least in my tenure here in the last year and a half or so. For the public's knowledge and for your knowledge I will explain it a little bit. A concept plat doesn't necessarily constitute a recommendation for approval or denial. We are not seeing a project that will be constructed tonight. This is really for informational purposes for both the applicant here tonight which will present their project to you as well as for you to provide any feedback, concerns or issues that you would like to see addressed once the development does come before you. This property is located along Hwy. 112 north of I-540 approximately .3 miles. The property currently is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and is shown as residential on the future land use map as part of the General Plan 2020. The developer proposes to process in the future a Planned Zoning District on this property of 126 acres approximately and has on your plats tonight indicated a potential land use, potential major street connections in order to receiving comments prior to a formal Planned Zoning District. It is the developer's desire to receive any significant input that may have significant affects on the proposed project site development plans. The developer contends that this proposal responds to the mixed use needs seen as a necessary element of development in this area of the city. A number of different uses are identified including Thoroughfare Commercial. A central business commercial node, multi -family residential and single family residential. An east/west collector as shown on the Master Street Plan, is indicated with this submitted concept plans. Several areas of designated wetlands have also been identified and I passed that Corp. of Engineer concurrence to you tonight at the beginning of the meeting. The intent of the developers is to bring forward a Planned Zoning District for a large tract of land, obviously, 126 acres consisting of this subject site. The PZD development plans we anticipate will consist of large lots, primary streets to be constructed, utility extensions. In the process, if approved by the Planning Commission, the plans will then of course proceed to the City Council for adoption of a unique Planned Zoning District incorporating the land use desired for each lot. Restrictive covenants, development standards, any commitments made by the developer for the overall development on each one of these lots. Upon approval of the Final Plat each of the lots are created and then they are required to return to the Planning Commission for actual development of Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 13 the subject lots. That is sort of a run down of the process of how it would get to you before you actually see any permits granted or anything go into the ground. The surrounding land use and zoning for this particular property to the north is single family homes, abandoned vineyards and some industrial use. To the south is the springwoods PZD. To the east are commercial properties, the drive in movie theater, Hwy. 112. Hwy. 112 also curves up to the north and a portion of this property is adjacent to Hwy. 112 there as well. To the west are single family homes and agricultural property currently. Staff has submitted some concept comments, comments based on the general sort of diagram types of land uses for the C-2 property. We looked at issues such as requesting that a traffic study be utilized for this subject property because of the intensity of the land use and the potential impact based on the numbers. We did some quick calculations and there are approximately 30 acres of multi -family which would yield a maximum of 700 new dwelling units. Approximately 15 acres of single family at four units per acre would yield a maximum of 58 dwelling units. Approximately 50 acres of C-2, commercial development is shown. Approximately 13 acres is shown for the central commercial. Approximately 18 acres of buffer, detention and wetland area. The Parks Department has reviewed this Concept Plat as well and based on their Parks and Recreation Master Plan a neighborhood park is needed in this area. Parks and Recreation Staff will be reviewing this land and the proposed developments in terms of suitability for a typical neighborhood park. They have recommendations as listed in your staff report. Additionally, a tree preservation plan will be required for this development and submitted as part of the PZD process pursuant to our city codes. There are some other general comments. We have basically posed some questions to the developer and to the Commissioners sort of to get the ball rolling for a dialogue tonight. Those are there for your review and if you have any questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If you could introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. Christopher, a member of our staff, will be giving part of the presentation. We have the honor of Tracy Hoskins with us who will also be giving part of the presentation and his staff architect, Jim Ramsey, is here so he will be available to answer some questions also. I will give you a small hand out real quick. That is a duplication of the larger picture and the picture on the floor. As Jeremy stated, we are looking at 126 acres that we are proposing to bring in as a PZD after this concept review. As late as today we were developing a concept area for the Parks Department to help identify part of the theme as we envision the development for our project. We do have a C-2 area, a mixed C-2 and C-3 use. We have recently come to the conclusion that this property is in relation to the entire area. What we are going to be Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 14 proposing with our PZD is installation of a main collector street east/west. That collector street ties all the way over to Salem and the future Raven Drive and of course Deane Solomon would be improved. That is the east/west connector and we would also install the north/south connection, Raven Drive. Along with the street improvements we will be making all of the other infrastructure improvements like water, sanitary sewer and other provisions for the developments as they are presented back as LSDs or Plats that come back before you. Our infrastructure and our PZD would be the streets and the water and sewer services for this new project. We have already initiated contact with a Traffic Consultant to do the traffic study. We talked to them today and we talked to them last week. That will be forthcoming in a few weeks during the process of presenting the PZD back. At this time we will let Christopher from our staff and Tracy and Jim give you a little better in depth presentation on what we see and envision happening and then we will be open for questions and try to relate as much information as we can to you. Nelson: Good evening, my name is Chris Nelson. I would like to share with you some of our ideas for trails running through our development. Being located close to not only the I-540 bypass with Landers there but also along Hwy. 112 makes us what we envision a sub regional shopping area with the compliments of residential areas. What we envision is really this being a destination for people from all over Northwest Arkansas to come and enjoy the trail system in Fayetteville. With regards to transportation, this particular property is an important link in the overall trail system. The Trails Master Plan proposes a connection from parts west of the city along Clabber Creek and then to connect over to Gregg Street that is not shown on your maps. With the development of springwoods to the south that connection has been impeded and what we would like to do is reroute that through our development so that we can continue that east/west connection. The trait connections on the east side of the property, particularly along the major thoroughfare that we have to the south property line represent an opportunity to link with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission's civil war trail that follows the Hwy. 112 corridor. In addition, like I said previously, this road provides an opportunity for the Fayetteville trail system to connect further north and further east. More particularly, the trails proposed through our development really represent an opportunity for residents on the west side of the property to access all of that commercial development that we propose putting in. As more development occurs to the west it provides even more linkage into that commercial area. In regards to the environment, the parkland property contains magnificent natural areas. On the north side of the property you might be able to see it in the Park West at the Audubon, there is a great little pond that has numerous wetland species of plants and it provides habitat for birds as well. What we envision is not only trails running along this corridor but also along the Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 15 spring that is located close to the mixed use development on Jim's map there and then south towards the trail head there with the big yellow star. It actually feeds into Clabber Creek so this would be a magnificent opportunity to perhaps tie into that development in springwoods. Besides preserving these important riparian environments Park West attempts to achieve two other important environmental goals. First and foremost, water quality is going to be affected by any development that we propose in here but with these naturalistic buffers that we have along there we are going to allow any waters that comes across to be filtered naturally through these ecosystems. The second very important goal is the preservation and extension of habitat. There are all kinds of birds and animals that live out there and by having that preservation area in springwoods and connecting it through our development it provides a large amount of biodiversity to preserve as well as it makes access to larger habitats that those species might incur. With that, I will give it to Tracy. Hoskins: Good evening, my name is Tracy Hoskins. I'm the developer. I have visited about this project with several City Council Aldermen and to my surprise, it has been better received than what I thought it would be. With this project we are proposing an arterial east/west connection from Deane Solomon Road to Hwy. 112. We believe that that connection will alleviate a lot of the traffic off of Hwy. 112 and off of Mt. Comfort Road. Hwy. 112 runs to the north and Mt. Comfort Road to the south. We also believe that west Fayetteville is a little lacking on amenities. With this connection and the infrastructure we are going to put into these projects, of course the project to the left is mine as well. With these projects as they come through we will be providing amenities to west Fayetteville that don't currently exist. We are anticipating lots of small shops, grocery stores, we have talked to some folks about different projects. We have amended our plans a little bit. I was reading staff's comments over the weekend and found that staff supported mixed use on the northwest comer of the project and I agree with the staff. There are a lot of good things about this property. I know that there have been some environmental issues with the Haynes project to the south of us and upon our wetlands study we were pleasantly surprised that there were not near as many wetlands existing as what we anticipated. As a matter of fact, through our project we will actually be increasing those wetlands and enhancing those wetlands. We feel that this is a very environmentally friendly subdivision. I think it is going to bring a lot to west Fayetteville. Unlike some projects before, typically when developers come into a project like this, because it is a very, very large project, and develop this out in stages which means this east/west connection from Hwy. 112 to Deane Solomon Road may typically get built in increments. The connections to springwoods to the south may typically get built in increments. We are not suggesting that at all. What our intention is is to come in off of the get/go and provide that Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 16 connection all the way through from Hwy. 112 to Deane Solomon Road. With this project and some other projects going on in the area, Deane Solomon Road, all but a very small portion of it, is ultimately improved. There have been issues about the "S" curve in Deane Solomon Road which have been addressed with the springwoods subdivision. Of course, a lot of our property fronts on Deane Solomon Road as well and so a lot of that will ultimately be improved. We think it is a great project. We have the opportunity to connect our east and west walking trails from the east side of Fayetteville to the west side of Fayetteville and offer some trail heads and some north/south connections to the trails. At this time if you live in west Fayetteville you either have to go to Hwy. 62 or up by the mall to get groceries. We are hoping to cure a little bit of that with this subdivision. We think it is a neat project. We think it is very environmentally friendly. We are going to be enhancing the area. We are going to be tying it all together with our trail systems, with our buffer areas, with our street tree plantings, etc. We wanted to present at this time as well our anticipated zoning. We are using a stepped down zoning from Hwy. 112 west to Deane Solomon Road and we are hoping in the RMF -24 area, we have four or five blocks of that proposed. You will notice on those designs that there is one, two, three, etc. The intention behind that is to have you understand that there would not be one particular developer that would go out and put up a glut of apartments that look identical to one another. The intention is that within these different blocks we would have different styles of apartments, etc. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Jim Ramsey. Ramsey: Good evening, I'm Jim Ramsey with Paradigm Development. Basically, they said everything that I was planning to say except that what we are trying to do is create a sense of place in this area of Fayetteville so that you know you have arrived there. You don't just pass through it and think what was that but there is a centrally focused sense of place. In the preliminary it is kind of hard to draw all of that out but what we would like to do is at the intersection of the two main roads, the north/south road and the east/west road, is to create a very pedestrian oriented shopping and work experience that is surrounded, especially on the west side there, with housing to support it and then the trail systems and the sidewalk systems would allow people to move through it also along the road we would keep the natural environment there where the pond and the waterway is. We would like to use that as an amenity. It needs a lot of cleaning up right now but clean it up so that it is an attraction to the area. As Tracy said, we did not want one set of apartments in there just filling the whole area but we wanted to break that down in scale so we broke the apartment areas into four different groups. Each one would have their own architectural style and not be developing and overpowering a group of apartments there. The mixed use area that is up in the upper left hand corner on some of the drawings that you may have it may show that as a single family Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 17 residential. In a very late development we decided to show it on the color drawing over there as a mixed use. Residential possibly above a commercial area or something like that. Thank you. Jefcoat: We do want you to understand that this is a concept plat. We are in the process of doing our due diligence. We have met with Ward 4 aldermen Shirley Lucas and Lioneld Jordan. We have also met with Kyle Cook and some other members of the City Council to show this plan to them and get their input. It has been received rather favorably by everyone we have talked to. We have also been to Ward 4 meeting and met with the constituents. We had a good conversation with several of the constituents of the Ward 4 area and got their input. They are very excited about what is happening. In addition to our meeting with them some discussion has gone on with staff so we understand our infrastructure and our water. We are getting a handle on our sanitary sewer needs. We are working with RJN Consultants on the placement of the sewer line. We have met with the utility companies and Tech Plat Review. We understand the dynamics of underground utilities and what will be required there with fiber optic lines existing on the highway. We have talked to the Highway Department in regards to improvements on Hwy. 112 that will be required. When we come back with a PZD we hope to have a lot of the questions that you may anticipate good concrete answers to. We are trying to do our best part in presenting a really good, acceptable plan that has some foundation that can actually materialize into what we envision to happen. We will be glad to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Jefcoat. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this concept plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: I have a question of the applicant. One thing that we are charged to look at and talk about is potential concepts in development standards. What we are looking for in a development of this size, as we have seen in other developments, is some sort of theme or concept that is going to run throughout the development. Can you guys talk briefly about possible concepts in development standards for this entire development? Jefcoat: I think Jim and Tracy can both add to the comments. The overall theme would be our connectivity and our sense of pedestrian friendly atmosphere with the buffers, with the linear parks, with the pedestrian connections from residential into commercial. The user friendly park atmosphere would be our overall theme. That includes street plantings and tree plantings. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 18 Clark: Since the 2020 Future Land Use Map dedicates this as residential land what kind of conflict are we getting into making over 50% of it commercial? Warrick: This is a pretty large shift from what our General Plan identifies for this tract of land and staff would recommend that as this project is brought forward if the configuration and the land use breakout is similar to what is being presented with the concept that the applicant also seek an amendment to the city's land use plan. That would require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and it does have to have Council action in order to bring about that type of a change. Ostner: Would that happen simultaneous with the PZD? Warrick: It can. That may be something that the Planning Commission wants to give the applicant some direction on and what their feel is with regard to that type of change. It is 126 acres. It is a large tract of land and right now it is wholly identified to be residential on the future land use map. Right now I would say what they are looking at would fall more into our category of future land use that would probably equate to a community commercial type designation and so that warrants some discussion and it would require council action. I think it is important that when we have this large of a shift that we do look at a change to the policy document. Ostner: Thank you. On that same note, what does the General Plan say about the springwoods development? Have we already varied from this? Warrick: The springwoods project was identified, it was zoned Industrial. I believe it was identified as mixed use? It was identified as industrial on the future land use map. When that came through there was not an amendment to the future land use plan brought through with it. I think it would've been appropriate to have done so and from this point forward I think you will see staff making those types of recommendations when we have a shift to the General Plan because it is appropriate. We will make an amendment, or we will see amendments to the General Plan with the five year update which will occur next year in 2005. We can take care of some of those issues at that time but when we are looking at a larger piece of property like this you will see staff bringing forward those recommendations with a project or preceding them. Ostner: Thank you. My point was being that I'm betting we are already altering that General Plan. The fact that this was designated residential in itself doesn't really tell the whole story. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 19 Jefcoat: Right. That is why we would like to bring it through all at one time rather than separate pieces. We would like to in our PZD presentation have it rezoned, that is what the PZD concept would be for. Vaught: I have a couple of questions. The first has to do with as we see more stuff in this area develop and I know we have some more at Subdivision on Friday going on in this area of town, traffic concerns and the concerns with Hwy. 112 and Deane Solomon Road intersection are always mentioned. Just a question for staff, on different ideas and things that we can do to possibly reroute Deane Solomon Road or improve that intersection. I know we haven't looked in detail but that is one concern that I have. I know especially with the subdivision north of Hwy. 112 going in we had a lot of those same comments. Warrick: We are looking at options. We have started talking with this developer about possible changes to Deane Solomon Road and that is one of the reasons tat staff has recommended and the applicant has agreed to contract for a traffic study for this project. It is very important that we understand the dynamics of traffic. Mixed use developments are sometimes tricky to understand what numbers to apply and it is important that we have that type of a study in order to evaluate how things are going to work and the different dynamics that need to be addressed with regard to traffic. That is why we made that recommendation and we will continue to look at the impacts that various developments are having to the infrastructure out there. Vaught: One question on this one. I see through the mixed use we have a north/south road connected to Hwy. 112. Is there a precedence where we could reroute roads, possibly reroute Deane Solomon further to the east? Have we ever asked for things like that? I know it is more than improvements along the existing road but is that an option that we have for offsite improvements? Warrick: I think that there are all sorts of options and I would not rule out anything until we understand what the most appropriate and safest mechanism to route traffic is going to be. There may be an option to like you say, possibly cut off the existing connection of Deane Solomon and Hwy. 112 and create a new intersection at a better location. That is not an option, we are not ruling that out as an option. The connections that this developer is proposing to make are consistent with the Master Street Plan and they have been on the city's plan for more than five years included the east/west connector and that will also hopefully alleviate some of the traffic that goes all the way to the corner to the north and turns west on Hwy. 112. I believe that the more options that are available to the driving public will help as long as those options are safe and appropriate and so Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 20 we are trying to be very careful and understand what the dynamics are before we set anything in stone. Jefcoat: To add to that, we are not setting anything in stone yet. We have talked between staff and the traffic consultant that there is a possibility that yes, this road may come up and tie into our subdivision. We would eliminate this portion of Deane Solomon Road and take it across the subdivision to the north. We are looking at safety concerns. Vaught: I do agree that this area is a great area for some commercial. It is an area where it is needed and just as the city grows I think those areas change over time from residential to where commercial may be needed and as this area develops it is developing commercial with a lot of residential past it. I do think it is a good idea. I do have questions on the C-3 going that dense on us on a strip that is next to the pond that is sensitive. I know C-3 is pretty permissive on what it allows. Also, just a question on the C-2 on the southwest corner and what the idea is with that instead of keeping it residential. To me if it is a transition we wouldn't have C-2 over there, it might be R -O or something in that lower southwest corner below the mixed use, the thought on that. Hoskins: Tentatively, we visited among ourselves and with other folks, the public at large or whatever, everybody thought that that might be a nice comer for a convenience type store without having to go all the way into town to Hwy. 112, etc. As Tom said a moment ago, if you look at the colored map up there we have actually put in the street that connects from our east/west corridor north to Hwy. 112 and then from Honey Lane across Hwy. 112 bringing it across into our north/south connection. For now what I'm advocating is absolutely removing the intersection of Deane Solomon Road to Hwy. 112 and getting that intersection totally away from that 900 curve on Hwy. 112. As far as the C-2 and C-3, we see that as the new term for it is "lifestyle shopping". We see mom and pop stores in there. We see the little pizzeria, the dress shop, the dry cleaners, etc. In other words, the folks that need tighter, smaller space that don't need three acres to put their big box store on. That is something that the mom and pop stores can more afford to build their business there and operate there. Vaught: My question to staff is do we need C-3 in there or can we accomplish that in C-2? I know C-3 starts opening up more possibilities by right and not by condition. Warrick: When we look at this as a PZD we won't be looking at zoning districts for the various areas that are being identified. We will be looking at finite use units, which are more descriptive. Some of the use units that are found in the C-1, which is the neighborhood commercial district would probably be very appropriate to what Mr. Hoskins is describing. It allows for Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 21 neighborhood shopping, it allows for convenience store type uses. Identifying more finite uses as opposed to an overall district is going to be the result of seeing a PZD that will identify a use area and more specific listings of uses that are permitted there. Ostner: For springwoods for example, what they did was they said this area is going to be C-3 and they listed the use units and they struck out half of them. It was very helpful explaining exactly how they envisioned it and that sounds like what you are going to do. Hoskins: Right. That is going to come to us more over time. As we get your input and staff's input, etc. we will be able to narrow that down more as we come back through the process. Again, this is a fact finding mission to see if you basically support what we are doing. We knew that this area was slated to be residential. I think we are finding that things that were slated five or ten years ago to be a particular use gets changed everyday. Again, the springwoods project has gone from industrial to a mural of all kinds of zonings and it is a good project. We believe that our project the way that we have it lined out, is very conducive to how springwoods is laid out as well. If you have any more questions I will be happy to try to answer them. Vaught: I'm done. I would just say that this is exciting and it is a unique opportunity for us to be able to develop some of these improvements that are needed in this area and that the residents have been asking for. Hoskins: We believe this project is totally going to change west Fayetteville. I have yet to find anyone in Ward 4 that wasn't supportive of the project. I'm sure that they will want to have more input as time goes on. Again, we are willing to just be able to come back through having worked with the Parks Board and with you folks and Technical Plat, etc. and knowing what we are up against going in so that we can bring a good project through the first time without any major significant changes. This is a very, very large project and it is going to be a very expensive project to put together. I think it is going to offer a lot of benefits to west Fayetteville and I think it is going to take away a lot of traffic from Hwy. 112 and off of Mt. Comfort Road and with our proposed connection up to Hwy. 112 I think it is going to make a very dangerous intersection go away. Ostner: Since you are here on a fact finding mission, we talked about that main intersection inside your development where the east/west meets your north/south and Mr. Ramsey talked about envisioning that intersection as I understood almost a little town feel. There is a pedestrian feel and if you all could sketch or even cut out magazines just so we could picture. Things like is there going to be parking in the front or is it going to be in the back? It makes a big difference. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 22 Hoskins: I am going to refer you to Mr. Ramsey. He is very passionate on this. We catch him all the time on the internet trying to read all these articles and he gives me plenty of reading material to take home on the weekends and night about your very question. Ramsey: This development doesn't lend itself completely to a new urbanist type approach yet there are some principles that would work especially at that intersection and creating a sense of place. After we did this drawing we thought we should do an enlarged drawing of that intersection showing how it works and where we would place the parking and all of that. What we are trying to do is create a village or sense or arrival at the center of this little town at that intersection there. That would be the heart of this development. One quarter of that square is a natural landscape with the pond that is there and then you have potentially an out lot type building in front of a grocery store there in the southeast corner. Offices or retail spaces around the other we would like to do some very nice paving or landscaping that is pedestrian oriented there. Maybe even across the main street there a little bit of protection for the trails that could come up and turn and go that way. We are excited about developing this into something that is more than just a group of buildings. We would like it to be an enhancement to Fayetteville, but especially for the people who live right in this area who will be driving by it everyday and walking by it. We would like to use very nice simple amenities like light poles with banners that you drive through there and think this is a nice place. We have thought about this part of Fayetteville as a lot of bedrooms in a house and we have a lot of bedrooms happening around here and what we are trying to do is create a living room and a dining room out here as well. Ostner: I'm just trying to let you know what helps me later on when we do go and do this properly under a PZD. Pictures are great. Shackelford: I was just going to concur with Commissioner Vaught and give you some of my comments for the record. I have looked at this property and property in this area for many years on the Planning Commission. While I understand that the 2020 Plan does call for this to be residential and that is a guideline that we go by, that is something that obviously changes over time. I am very much in support of looking at this project in a commercial and multi -use way. A lot of the comments that I made as we have looked at this in the past is I see Hwy. 112 developing as a secondary north/south corridor for all of Northwest Arkansas. You can drive it from this point all the way north to where it hits Hwy. 12 and see tremendous development in this area. I think if anything that has been spurred on with the recent development just north of here at Clear Creek. I think that this is a piece of property that needs to have some serious consideration for multi -use and commercial needs. I love the opportunity to get an Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 23 east/west corridor from Deane Solomon to Hwy. 112. I think that would be great. I like the idea of working on that intersection like we've talked about. I think there is a lot of god that can be done in this area. I am encouraged that you guys have met with City Council and Ward 4 for their input. I think that is all great and I hope to see this project come forward. I will also go forward with the comments that our chair has made and I think that we need to look at as much detail as we can when this comes through. In particular, any sort of conceptual or architectural themes that are going to run throughout the entire project. I think that that is going to be important information for us to see as well. Beyond that I am encouraged with the project. I think it has a time and a place and I think that it would be a good project for the City of Fayetteville. Thank you. Myres: I don't believe we need to take any action on this. Ostner: I want to call for anymore comments. Anthes: First of all, I would like to say that Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Jefcoat have done an excellent job bringing this before us tonight. I really appreciate it. The project that is shown immediately west of here we saw at Subdivision last week and it has a lot of beneficial amenities for the citizens of Fayetteville and for the residents of that area with the neighborhood park and some of those other concerns. I appreciate that they are looking at what Fayetteville needs in a holistic way instead of saying I'm a developer that develops houses and not looking beyond that. We are looking at a concept for what really contributes to community. I'm really encouraged by seeing that. I do have a few comments. To build on what Commissioner Shackelford was saying a moment ago, he and the other Commissioners were talking about use units and zoning and sort of how the patches are laid down on the property. We are having a dialogue within the Commission itself about a large scale PZD and what that does. I believe our staff report says we will set a use unit and then you will come through with Large Scale Developments in those areas. To me, I struggle with that in that I believe that the intent of a PZD is to allow mixed use zoning and when we put a patchwork of things together that but up together essentially that is something that individual developers could do. It would be a patch of this and ten acres of that and 15 acres of that and it just goes together. It really doesn't accomplish the broad stroke that might be accomplished with a PZD when you really think of mixed use. What is interesting to me about what Commissioner Ostner is actually talking about is that the success of this project does not necessarily have to be the colored patches that say C-2 or C-3 or those things but really how things are constructed within those patches or whether those patches don't even need to exist necessarily if it is an integrated mixed use development. Setbacks, massing, building height, architectural character and theme are the things that are going to really contribute as well as how these buildings Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 24 contribute to these new streets that you have very well thought out and put through here. If there is a true hierarchy of those streets do we need a 36' wide street or do we look at if we are looking at neighborhood commercial, are we looking at a street that has a certain character with on street parking and street trees and lights and all of the other things that we are talking about rather than just our standard street designations. Then are buildings set up close to those and then do those patches of zoning actually embrace the streets by occurring on both sides of them. In traditional towns usually the same thing happens on both sides of the street, not one thing on one side of the street and another thing on the other side. I guess from a land planning standpoint, I would really encourage you to look at the street pattern and how both sides of the street relate to one another and maybe the commercial zones really emphasize your new arterial that you are putting through there and then the residential stuff starts stepping back behind on narrower more residential streets more like a traditional town pattern rather than being too hung up on this discreet parcel is this one kind of thing and this discreet parcel is this kind of thing and another. I think a PZD allows us to do that in a really positive way. I am encouraged by a lot of what you are talking about about the town feel and I believe your answer to Commissioner Shackelford about the theme was the pedestrian nature of the place and the connectivity in which case again, your setback strategies, your sidewalks, your lighting and street trees and all of that will really play into that concept plan and in certain ways the sidewalks and how that system works together with the trails as an overlay is just as important as what you are showing as the street grid. As this comes forward I would really be interested in seeing that illustrated. I am encouraged that in the mixed use area that you have designated now that you just eliminated like four cul-de-sacs and are providing good connectivity. I know that you have met with Council and neighbors for both of these projects and I think that is great. I know that is something that we have really encouraged and I'm sure you are getting positive feedback there and am glad to hear that the residents understand a need for a variety of uses in the area. I had another question and that is regarding, there are some comments in here that say based on the parks and recreation master plan a neighborhood park is needed in this area. As the developer, have you thought about this and how this would work within this development or is this preserved area? Jefcoat: Yes we have. The identity of a neighborhood park within the residential area would have to be defined. What we are proposing to the Parks Department is to assist us in our linear park developments so that we are not looking at just sidewalks. We are looking at 70' or 100' or even 150' wide linear parks that incorporate our sidewalk and trail system that lead a long, natural environmental areas that need to be protected that can be assisted between buffer protections and accomplish several things in the linear perspective. As far as a neighborhood park, yes, a neighborhood Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 25 park would maybe not be the traditional neighborhood park we planned for but it would be more identified in the residential areas as trailheads where you have shared parking from the commercial parking so that you can get onto the trail systems and things. Anthes: To follow that up I have a question of staff. On the Park Policy, page 4.7 of the staff report number three says parkland should be surrounded by residential uses and provided with street frontage. Neighborhood parks should not be located adjacent to commercial zoning. Adjacent offsite uses would be included in the review of park property. Is this a long standing principle and do we have no method by which neighborhood parks in the City of Fayetteville can existing in a mixed use area so that they are accessible by people who are coming to commercial uses and other things rather than purely imbedded in residential neighborhoods? Warrick: This is wholly a recommendation from the Parks staff and the Parks and Recreation Board. As you know, the parkland dedication requirement comes with the development of any residential projects within the city, multi -family or single family units or lots. I know that within the Parks Master Plan they have definitions of different types of parks and goals as to spacing on those types of parks. I am sure that through discussions with the applicant that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board may choose to look at this as more of a different type of park. I can't think of the various hierarchy of the type of parks that they have. There are pocket parks all the way up to a community or regional type park. There are a lot of different opportunities and it may be that this doesn't necessarily function wholly as a neighborhood park as it is defined within that planned policy document. I can't speak for the Parks staff or their parks board but what they recommend when it does come through this development review process will be up to the Planning Commission to affirm or modify as a recommendation to the Council in this case with the PZD. There is a process involved and I think that we are still in the evolution of that. I think that there are like with the street systems, still options that can be explored. Anthes: That is encouraging to hear. They are really going to a lot of trouble to bring a lot of different kinds of use and a park or a town green that is surrounded by some commercial, some residential, I don't know if there is an opportunity for some sort of civic use out here that could be really nice and contributing. If we could as a city figure out a way to accept those and it sounds like we do have a way depending on what Parks' interpretation is. That is good to hear. Thank you. Jefcoat: The Parks Department has looked at the concept plat and reviewed it for a traditional neighborhood park. In doing that we stressed to the Parks Department to assist us with the process because as each individual Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 26 development comes back as individual Preliminary Plats the opportunity to do what we are wanting to do on the front end may not be there because of the options of money in lieu of land to developers. From that perspective Parks is working with us to try to visualize a residential neighborhood park. Hoskins: If I may add to that, with this new unchartered territory we are going into, a lot of the things in the ordinances are based on quantity. For the amount of residential that we are developing the parkland dedication may be relatively small. It may be three, four or maybe five acres. We haven't calculated it. However, with what we are proposing to the Parks Board it actually gives them a lot more property than that. In fact, I think we have calculated approximately around 10 acres that we would be donating into this thing but even that 10 acres is surrounded by another 10 acres of green area, buffer area, etc. We think it is going to be a great project and are very encouraged about the Parks Board working with us. I think the idea of linear parks is kind of a new concept. We are not talking about developing alley ways for people to walk through. Anthes: I have one more question for you Mr. Hoskins. Do you plan to after this initial PZD if this proceeds through like we expect. Do you plan to bring this as a series of rezonings and then you would come through with each discreet parcel as it's own entity or do you plan to bring this to us in one big chunk. Hoskins: I'm not sure I understand the question. Anthes: It has to do with what we look at and how the approval is made. Our standard PZD process is one in which we see the engineering, we see the streets, we see the sidewalks for the entire development at once. With this large piece of property we have one other, springwoods, that has come through where basically the PZD approval gave them the use units in each area and then if it were approved just like this you would come through with that C-2 one lot as it's own thing and then your RMF -24 as another thing as stand alone plats. I was wondering which method you planned to use for this. Hoskins: I am going to have to defer to the engineer because he knows a lot more about this PZD stuff than I do. Jefcoat: It would be the latter case. We would not come back with a holistic complete development package. What we are doing is presenting a PZD for a residential/commercial subdivision and each lot would come back to you, just as springwoods, as individual lots. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 27 Anthes: Unfortunately, I think that what that does is we keep creating that patchwork affect. I just wanted to talk through the process so we as a Commission know what we are getting. Ramsey: We want to grow this thing as one thing. It may come in little chunks but we are going to grow it and design it as one thing so it all works together. One thing that we didn't want is hodge podge patchwork. If it comes through technically through the engineers in small steps that is one thing but we want it to be thought out. I would like to keep the dialogue of where we have started growing as the whole thing and not break it into little pieces too fast. Anthes: That is interesting. I think that reinforces what Commissioner Ostner was talking about at the very beginning of this process which was when you bring that forward can you have pictures, can you show us what you are thinking in terms of setback equality and the site concepts and all of that so that it has more life to us during the review. Jefcoat: Definitely in the presentation of the PZD we would set standards, set the concept, yes, we would do that. Clark: I have a question for Mr. Ramsey. When this comes back before us in the various designations if I were to ask you how does this residential LSD reflect on the commercial development that is across the street from it will you be able to tell me how they are architecturally similar or the theme that you are using throughout the whole PZD? Ramsey: We hope to. We are not going to make every building match. Clark: I understand that but you will have a theme, an overall architectural vision for the entire PZD? Ramsey: Yes. At this point that is not developed but we would like to bring that along. Clark: I have an overall comment. I think that this is exciting. I think it is a very good idea especially in terms of some of the connectivity issues and getting rid of some of the danger on Hwy. 112. I think it has some superior ideas. I also get a sense, and I may be wrong, that there is a vision for this entire development and this entire PZD, which I personally think is the spirit of a PZD, that it is not just a convenient way to hop scotch around but when we do ask you about the overall plan even if we are talking about one LSD you are going to be able to relate it to the rest of the development. I think that is the idea of a PZD. I was heartened to read today in the newspaper that the staff was going to be working on some of the wording for the PZD and retooling some of it because I think Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 28 that we have exposed some of the problems with this type of a tool. I think it is a wonderful tool but I think that it needs to be retooled for lack of a better word. I am sensing that there is a cohesive vision with all of this and it is not just all pretty pictures and a great idea. I sincerely hope that we continue that thematic discussion as it comes back to us and that you are prepared to show us how one element in the middle isn't just going to stick out and be different from everything else. I don't think that is what I'm hearing from you and I am really looking forward to seeing this develop. If it does you will be breaking new ground and I think really making some positive advancements in our city. Ostner: Along those same lines, we did not have this opportunity with springwoods. I'm sure everyone, including the springwoods developer, wishes we had. We jumped right in and we did the best we could and we are learning a lot from that process. Is there any further comment? This is not a formal item. Thank you. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 29 CUP 04-1130: Conditional Use (WAL-MART @ MALL AVE. STOCKROOM, 173): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3919 N. MALL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 24.93 acres. The request is to approve a detached stockroom for warehousing/storage, with the associated Large Scale Development. Ostner: The next items on our agenda, I failed to warn people, the applicants have requested that they be tabled but we are still going to formally hear them. The next item is a Conditional Use for Wal-Mart, CUP 04-1130. We are not going to make a presentation by staff. The applicant has requested that we table it. If anyone from the public would like to speak to this issue we will hear you now. Graves: Mr. Chair, I must recuse on the Wal-Mart matter, which are the next two items but I think the last item is also being tabled so I am going to ask to be excused. Ostner: Thank you. Once again, is anyone here from the public to speak about the Conditional Use for Wal-Mart? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on the request of the applicant I am going to move that we table CUP 04-1130. My understanding is that this is a time specific table request and we need to make a recommendation that it is tabled to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Warrick: That is consistent with the applicant's request. They are very close to being able to finalize this and they just need a little more time to work it out within divisions of corporate. Allen: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 04-1130 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Graves recusing. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 30 LSD 04-1129: Large Scale Development (WAL-MART @ MALL AVE STOCKROOM, 173): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3919 N MALL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 24.93 acres. The request is to approve a 15,607 sq.ft. stockroom, 109 space parking lot a glass canopy addition at the existing garden center and a trail connection to the new city bike path. Ostner: The next item is LSD 04-1129. The applicant has also requested that this be tabled. Would anyone from the public like to speak to this? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: Do we know why they are requesting this to be tabled? Warrick: With any Large Scale Development it is a requirement that the applicant dedicate right of way to meet the Master Street Plan. If they do not they are required to go to the Council for a lesser dedication approval. The applicant is considering that. Joyce Blvd. on the north side of the property is lacking sufficient right of way to meet the Master Street Plan requirements. It is not very significant up there and that street is built out to a full street section with four lanes plus a turn lane in the location that it adjoins this property. On Joyce Blvd. staff is not opposed to the applicant not dedicating additional right of way. We believe that it is sufficient as it is. However, we feel like on Mall Avenue it is appropriate that they dedicate to comply with the Master Street Plan because we do feel that there are some improvements that can be made if we are able to work with the various owners of property within that corridor. Of course Wal-Mart is one of the larger properties that adjoins Mall Avenue south of Joyce. Anthes: It is my understanding that we have been asked to table this item because basically we don't have signed conditions of approval. Is that correct? Warrick: That is correct. They want additional time to discuss it amongst the various planners. Wal-Mart is a very large corporation and they have different divisions that look at development type actions. They have asked us to provide them some additional information which we will do and they just need some time to consider the impact of that dedication and whether or not they want to proceed with signing off on the conditions of approval or seeing whether or not they want to take it to the City Council and request a lesser dedication. Anthes: That helps a lot. Thanks. Ostner: Do I have a motion to table? Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 31 MOTION: Shackelford: Per the applicant's request, I will make a motion that we table LSD 04- 1129 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Clark: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Warrick: I just wanted to make one further comment on both of these items. The applicant is very amenable to staff's recommendations and the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee with regard to the trail connection to the Mudd Creek trail, the improvements to the fagade that were discussed with regard to commercial design standards and screening. Really there is no issue with regard to those details and I did want to make that clear. We really are just trying to provide them the information that they need to make a decision on the right of way. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 04-1129 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Graves recusing. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 9, 2004 Page 32 RZN 04-1145: Rezoning (COBBIWESTPHAL, 557/596): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOC. for property located at S OF HWY 62, W OF LOWE'S. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY — 24 UNITS PER ACRE, AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY — 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 8.36 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1145. Here again, the applicant has requested that we table this issue. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this rezoning for Cobb/Westphal? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: My understanding is this one Dawn has not been requested until the next meeting but to be tabled until what triggering event? Warrick: The applicant has asked for additional time to review their request and possibly submit either supplemental information or a different request. We are waiting for them to respond to some in house discussions that we have had to see if they want to modify their request. Shackelford: So it would be appropriate to table this to no time specific? Warrick: Yes Sir. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion to table RZN 04-1145 subject to that conversation, no time specific established at this point. Clark: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Ostner: Second. Is there further discussion? Renee? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-1145 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries by a vote of eight to zero. That's the end of our agenda. Are there further announcements or discussions? Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:18 p.m.