Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 23, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (Planned Zoning Districts) Discussion Only CUP 04-1130: (WAL-MART @ MALL AVE. STOCKROOM, 173) Approved Page LSD 04-1129: (WAL-MART @ MALL AVE STOCKROOM, 173) Approved Page PPL 04-1141: (SCHLEGEL SUBDIVISION) Approved Page PPL 04-1148: (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION) Approved Page PPL 04-1161: (PEMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION PH. 1 Approved Page LSD 04-1149: (ELDER CONDOMINIUMS): Approved Page PZD 04-1159: (BEACON FLATS) Forwarded Page Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught James Graves Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the August 23, 2004 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Can you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Clark being absent. Ostner: The first item is the approval of minutes from the August 9`h meeting. MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of the minutes. Myres: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 4 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (Planned Zoning Districts): This informational item presented by staff is for Planning Commission review and comment on proposed revisions to the Planned Zoning District ordinance of the Unified Development Code. Ostner: The first item was an Administrative item. It wasn't on the official, published agenda so we are not officially seeing it tonight but I thought I would bring it up if any commissioners had any comments or questions. That is the administrative item about the PZDs. Conklin: I'm Tim Conklin, Community Planning & Engineering Services Director. This item is on your agenda as an informational item. I wanted to share with the Commission what staff was working on with regard to amending our PZD ordinance. For those members who were not at agenda session, copies are being made and you will have those. I would request if you can get me comments back within the next week, that would be great so that we can continue to work on actual amendments to the ordinance. What we have attempted to do is to clarify the ordinance that was passed in December, 2002 which created the Planned Zoning Districts. At that time, we looked at how to combine rezoning with development approval. Basically, we have three types of Planned Zoning Districts that we have seen come before this Commission and City Council. That is when we subdivide land taking one tract of land and subdivide it into one or more additional parcels. We are also looking at site plan over one acre, that is known in Fayetteville as a Large Scale Development. Anything over an acre requires a site plan review and approval by the Planning Commission or Subdivision Committee. Also, we have a third type, which is coming forward on this agenda, and that is a development under an acre for a site plan review. At the time when we looked at how to combine our zoning and development, we drafted the ordinance in a manner that the requirements for the information was based on whether or not it was a subdivision or a Large Scale Development. The requirements within those existing ordinances are typically the information that you are receiving as part of that rezoning information that comes before this Commission. This summer we have worked on clarifying that. There seems to be a lot of questions regarding what type of information needs to be provided with what types of applications. We have seen Planned Zoning Districts from a reuse for St. Joseph's Catholic Church and School to a Lowe's Home Improvement Store to a single family home subdivision subdivided into lots. There are many different types of PZDs that have come before this Planning Commission. We are proposing to clarify that and add additional approval criteria for PZDs and then we are also going to propose drafting specific information that has to be submitted along with a PZD. I did go over that in more detail during agenda session with regard to that type of information. Specifically, we are looking at providing zoning information. Once again, a PZD establishes the land use and the bulk and area requirements on a particular development. Looking at major streets, Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page S Master Street Plan streets within the area. Looking at land use within specific areas and identifying those land uses. We have set out a minimum level of detail within a PZD and also, have proposed to require a statement of commitments to be provided by the applicant with regard to what is being committed to by the development. For example, dedication of parks, roads, drainage facilities, on and off site improvements, tree preservation, wildlife, wetlands phasing of the project. What type of fire protection and any other commitments that may be imposed through the PZD process. We are also asking details with regard to if there is going to be a park who will be building the park, when will it be built, who is going to maintain the park and who is going to own the park. We would be looking for that level of detail with a PZD. We have also proposed the creation of a Master Development Plan as part of the PZD process. We had some discussion last Thursday with regard to this idea. There have been some concerns expressed with regard to tying the rezoning to subdivision, preliminary plat, or large scale development approval. The requirements with regard to engineering that Fayetteville does require in order to process those types of development with regard to preliminary engineering on storm water, grading, streets, and that type of information. A master development plan would be a more general information including where the major streets are, collectors and arterials, what type of easements are proposed, 100 -year floodplains, what right of way would be dedicated, what type of parks. Specifically within the PZD ordinance, we would term as a Planning Area. What would the land use be within that area, how many units per acre, looking at non-residential square footage and not going into details with actual specific location of parking lots and building elevations. This Master Development Plan, we put an acreage requirement on that of 40 acres or more. We have also discussed as staff, whether or not that "concept" which that term has been used with regard to this idea of not doing a detailed large scale development plan. This "concept" would be allowed for something smaller. Basically, staff is looking for some guidance with regard to these proposed changes to the Planned Zoning District. There are many different ways of processing a Planned Zoning District, just by looking around the country, it is going to depend on the Commission and the City Council with regard to a level of detail that you want to see. The size of the project and when is it appropriate to require a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development and what size project would be required. That is all that I have this evening. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer those. Anthes: Mr. Conklin, have you ran this idea past developers and what is their reaction to the work required for the Master Development Plan? Conklin: We haven't had an opportunity to run it past a group of developers. Anecdotally, we have had developers talk to us about the requirements to do preliminary engineering along with the rezoning and if there was Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 6 another way to bring forward a concept plan and vest their development rights. That is what an applicant or developer is looking for, is gaining an approval to go forward with a project with a different level of detail. Once again, some developers have expressed concern over the level of detail we require right now for Large Scale and subdivisions. Anthes: This may be something you went over already since I wasn't at the last meeting. How does this, can you summarize what the difference between this and a concept plat that we have as one of our instruments now is? Conklin: A concept plat, we do have something called a concept plat. However, it is only advisory and it does not set out by ordinance exactly what has to happen within that project boundary. We are trying to draft language in this ordinance to get enough detail that when it is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council the developer can rely that within this 20 acres of this 80 acre site can have four units per acre, single family detached homes on 60' wide lots with 6,000 sq.ft. That level of detail. Hat is what we are trying to accomplish with this. Ostner: Are there further questions? This is just an informational item so we will see it again with the proper legal notice. Conklin: Again, I would appreciate any comments from the Commissioners. I think that as a commission you have one of the more challenging jobs in reviewing these PZDs even though it is a small percentage of the overall development that is coming through the City of Fayetteville. It has been challenging due to the fact that we have different sized developments, we have subdivision, we have Large Scale Developments with site plans. You are seeing different information with different PZDs and to clarify that would be beneficial for the Commission, staff and the applicants also so as we start the process they understand clearly what type of information will be required to process the PZD. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Since we have discussed it a little bit, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will close it off and since this is an informational item we don't really need to vote on it. Is there any further discussion? Allen: I was going to say that obviously, because of the duration of conversation that we have had about some of the previous PZDs the Commission does wish to have as much clarity as we possibly can so I appreciate the efforts that staff is making and I still think it might be a good idea for us to have some sort of workshop with the Planning Commission and the developers so that we are all on the same page and everybody understands what is going on. There is just too much confusion at this point. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 7 Ostner: For my comments, I think this is a great stop. It seems like a terrific tool that everyone could use so I'm excited to carry forward. Myres: I just have one question of staff. How quickly do you want our comments on this? Conklin: If you can get them to me by Friday that would be great. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 8 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 and the use of 12 outdoor storage containers during the 2004/2005 Holiday season. 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 s.f. 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: Our next item on our agenda is under old business, CUP 04-1130 for Wal- Mart at the Mall Avenue stock room. Graves: I must recuse from this item and the next item. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Graves. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd. and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and currently contains Wal-Mart, its accessory structures as well as a parking lot on this property. On January 26, 2004 the applicant requested that the Planning Commission grant a Conditional Use Permit to allow warehousing within a Commercial zone for the purpose of outdoor storage trailers, which had been stored on the site. This request was tabled at this meeting and the trailers have since been removed. In order to provide additional storage for this retail store the applicant has proposed an additional 15,607 sq.ft. structure south of the existing Wal-Mart for warehousing use. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit in tandem with a Large Scale Development request for the stockroom addition. The applicant's projected time frame for completion of the proposed storage building is after the 2004, 2005 holiday season. Therefore, in order to provide additional storage space from October ls` to January ls` the applicant has requested approval for the use of 12 outdoor storage containers located on the subject property in the rear of the structure in between these dates, October I" and January ls`. Regarding the requested Conditional Use, staff finds that granting the request will not adversely affect public interest. In addition, the structure will be permanent as well as meet commercial design standards as determined by the Planning Commission. It will not generate substantial traffic and it will not be visible from surrounding rights of way. The proposed addition will not require any modifications to current services Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 9 provided for Solid Waste collection. However, there is a proposed trash container and compactor with this proposed building and staff recommends that this be screened from pedestrian view who would be using the pedestrian trail with a minimum wood board fence of sufficient height. A total of 17 trees are also required for mitigation in conjunction with the development requests of the proposed stock room to be planted along the south and west of the property to screen the structure from the pedestrian trail to the south. Therefore, staff recommends approval of CUP 04-1130 with five conditions of approval. In conjunction with this Conditional Use request is LSD 04-1129. This request specifically includes the addition of a 15,607 sq.ft. structure south of Wal-Mart. In conjunction with this additional stockroom is also a request for 7,304 sq.ft. glazed canopy addition to the existing garden center north of the proposed structure, as well as a parking area of 109 parking spaces and a trail connection from this site to the existing trail to the south of the property. Additional dedication of right of way for Joyce and Mall Avenue is required in compliance with the Master Street Plan. Staff recommends dedication of additional right of way on Mall Avenue and has worked with the applicant in this regard. Planning Commission determination of required dedication for right of way for these adjacent streets is required. City Council approval is required should the applicant request lesser dedication. Staff recommends approval of LSD 04-1129 with 15 conditions. Some of those include Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards and right of way dedication. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Jacobs: Good evening, I'm Todd Jacobs with CEI Engineering. Wilgus: Dave Wilgus, Harrison French Architecture. Jacobs: Just a quick overview of what we are proposing. We are proposing a 15,600 sq.ft. stockroom/warehouse off of the existing store, which is currently a berm. With this stockroom this will help relieve the use of storage units permanently. We were back here in January talking about the same issue. We are coming back before you right now trying to solve it with this warehouse. Along with the stockroom, we are going to provide the trail connection to the new trail onto the Wal-Mart property. The landscape ordinance, there are existing trees on the berm. As far as construction schedule goes, it is going to start as quickly as possible. If it is possible to save the existing trees we will transplant them. If not, we will use the mitigation trees that are in the staff report and plant those at the appropriate time when the Landscape Administrator says it is ok. We are asking for the use of 12 trailers from October ls` to January ls`. The reason that we are asking for this is because of construction schedule. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 10 Right now as far as construction start time we are looking at October I" for the start of the actual construction of the warehouse. With the Christmas season coming upon us it does not allow enough time for the store manager to have room for layaways to store like she currently does. She will have a warehouse but it will still not be large enough to keep most of the layaways on site. We are asking for the twelve units for those specific dates. Once January I" comes they will be removed and it will no longer be asked for once the construction of the warehouse is complete. David can talk a little bit about the elevations and trying to match the shopping center. Wilgus: We are in a unique situation here being the bottom corner of a "L" shape with Wal-Mart on the west side of the "L" and a retail center on the south side. What we tried to do is look at the retail center and grab architectural details and elements and incorporating them with the materials and colors of the Wal-Mart building. One of the most significant parts, and I believe you have photos in the handout, the retail center identifies all of its stores with a vertical element and then the door. We also identify the canopies along the front of the existing retail center, pilasters, changing materials and colors and a wrapping around it. Taking all of those elements and putting them on our storage, warehouse building using the Wal-Mart colors and materials and interval colored block. It matches. All of the colors and banding will match together. Jacobs: The conditions of approval that are in the staff report, Wal-Mart does approve all of them. We will grant the 5' right of way of Mall Avenue and we would like to also dedicate the extra 15' along Joyce at this time and not ask for a lesser dedication before City Council. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I am going to open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this issue, CUP 04-1130? Seeing no one, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. They have presented both of these together, we will vote on them separately. Myres: I will make a comment. The opportunity to forever get rid of the storage trailers is very attractive and I have no problems at all with either proposal so I plan to vote for them. Anthes: Staff, I believe that when we saw this original paperwork at Subdivision Committee there was not the request for the 12 outdoor storage containers, is that the case? Warrick: That is relatively new information based on the applicant's determination on the time frame that it would take them to complete construction. Anthes: So that was added between then and now? Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page I1 Warrick: Yes Ma'am. Anthes: Are these storage containers permitted at the mall? Warrick: Not without the same kind of Conditional Use approval. Anthes: Have we granted a Conditional Use for these types of storage containers at the mall? Warrick: Not to my knowledge. Anthes: Any other big box stores that surround the mall? Warrick: No. Anthes: Anywhere else in town that you can think of? Warrick: I can't call any locations that this type of Conditional Use has been requested. Anthes: Any other place that we have seen those before have happened outside the permitting of the city? Like these were before we had them removed. Warrick: Right. Those types of trailers have popped up in various locations and been there for a few days or weeks and then gone. To my knowledge we have not processed any Conditional Use requests to allow that type of storage in a commercial district. Anthes: Am I correct in my math saying that that is a 3,840 sq.ft. quantity of square footage building space contained within those trailers? Warrick: I haven't calculated it but that sounds accurate. Anthes: I guess my comments on this have to do with this is three months which is a quarter of the year basically for metal buildings to be set outside of the structure that don't meet any kind of commercial design standards and we haven't approved this in any other part of the city. I'm concerned about setting a precedent of allowing these kinds of structures outside of retail stores in our city. I'm particularly curious about it not being on the original request that came through Subdivision. Myres: Did we not approve these structures last year? Warrick: No. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 12 Myres: They were just put up and then taken down. Warrick: When this item was brought forward earlier this year it was tabled by the applicant in order to allow them and staff additional time to work at the direction of the commission to find a better alternative than providing semi-permanent trailers that would be located on the site. With regard to the request for these twelve trailers that is not an additional item that was added to the Large Scale Development that was seen at Subdivision Committee. The Conditional Use is a request for warehousing in a commercial district that is being seen for the first time now at the Planning Commission level because it is not a development item, it is a land use item. It goes directly from staff review to the Planning Commission. It is information that we received after we received after we received the original request. However, it is not information that has been delayed in reaching the Planning Commission in any way. This is the first time that you would be considering the Conditional Use portion of this request just because of the way that those types of items are processed. This is something that staff supports because we feel that the applicant took the direction of staff and took the direction of the Planning Commission. It is fairly unfortunate that the timing didn't work out but this is a situation that we don't believe that we will ever be seeing a request for this type of temporary storage in the future. I think the applicant understands that that is not desirable to the city. This is a similar solution to the store on 6`" Street. That was an addition to the existing structure. I believe that has already been permitted and is under construction. There has not been a request for trailers for that site for this season. That s the background information on this that I can provide. Ostner: Thank you. Anthes: I agree with Dawn that the Conditional Use wasn't heard at Subdivision but we did see the paperwork on it and I went back and read the original paperwork and that is why I had a question on it. I still have a real hard time thinking that these metal structures should be allowed. They were able to get a storage building permitted and underway at their other location with the request for the temporary trailers came through at the same time at the beginning of this year. Therefore, I believe if it was that pertinent they could have fast tracked this project and been able to get this project under construction in time. Perhaps this applicant would never apply again for that kind of use but there are other large, box stores in our city who may see that as a way to get some temporary storage at other times. Ostner: Thank you. I just want to add that Conditional Uses as a matter of policy are a case by case basis and we are allowed to examine each one. In a way this is sort of a precedent but in a way it is not. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 13 Jacobs: If I could just address the construction schedule. We have fast tracked this project as fast as possible. Our intention was to have a warehouse up and operational before the garden season came. We worked with the surveyor and the civil and the full intention was to have it operational and ready to go so that we would not have to ask for these temporary trailers. Realistically, we have to look at the construction schedule, where we are at, and with the fall and winter months being a little bit wetter and the berm is going to be a little bit longer than what a normal warehouse will take to be built. That is the reason that we have asked to have the trailers at this time. Shackelford: I will go ahead and vote in favor of this Conditional Use for a couple of different reasons. First of all, I understand your concerns. One thing that comes to my mind is this is basically going to be used for lay away services. My understanding is Wal-Mart is basically the last big box retailer that offers lay away services and it is a seasonal need as the Christmas season approaches. That is when lay away usage is the largest. I understand why they need this space. I understand how we got here. I think that this is a nice compromise that they are willing to make as we get into the process of building a permanent structure that does meet commercial design standards. You can somewhat compare this to the temporary trailers that we have allowed in real estate development areas that don't meet standards but we have allowed developers to set up temporary trailers to facilitate the sale on a temporary basis of those needs. I do see their purpose for doing this. I appreciate how hard they have worked with the city to find a solution that is within our code and I understand that they do have a need for this simply because they offer some services and products that other big block retailers don't. It is a unique situation. It is not a precedence that we want to have set to look at in any other areas. I do think that there are some unique situations to this that won't repeat themselves in other areas. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1130. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1130 was approved by a vote of 6-1-1 with Commissioner Graves abstaining and Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 14 Ostner: The second item, we have already had a presentation. It is LSD 04-1129 for Wal-Mart Mall Avenue Stockroom. Commissioners? I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to comment about the Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: We saw this item at Subdivision Committee. I believe that the engineers and architects worked hard to connect to the trail and work with the Landscape Administrator in order to come up with some good ways to either reuse the trees that are on the site or come up with some other options. From what I understand, tonight they are willing to go ahead and take the full dedication on the Joyce Blvd. side and we worked through a lot of different items that I think satisfied our concerns at that Committee level. We did have questions about the west and south elevations. The original drawings for those were completely unarticulated and blank and they have added some detail here. I still wonder whether these meet our commercial design standards. They are not really seen from a lot of areas except they will be viewed from the new trail that is going through so we have some questions about that. Otherwise, I think they have done a real good job in bringing this up to standards and requirements that we have requested. Ostner: Thank you. Specifically, we have been asked to make determinations on our first three conditions of approval. The first determination would be with the commercial design standards. Is there any discussion about that? I will take that as a satisfactory vote. The second item is the determination of the required dedication for right of way on Joyce Blvd. The third determination is the dedication for right of way on Mall Avenue. Is there any discussion on these items? Shackelford: Since on condition number two staff was recommending in favor of a lesser dedication, which I now understand we are being offered a greater dedication, do we need to designate what that dedication is, how many ever feet from centerline? Warrick: The applicant, by ordinance, is required to dedicate in compliance with the city's Master Street Plan. Joyce Blvd. is a principal arterial which requires 55' from centerline. It is built out in a full five lane section in that location and that is why staff felt that if the applicant chose to pursue a lesser dedication they could support it. At this point it seems that the applicant is willing to make the dedication in compliance with the Master Street Plan and therefore, would not need to go forward to Council for a determination on that. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 15 Shackelford: Should we eliminate condition number two or should we state within that condition the 55' from centerline? How would you prefer to see that work? Warrick: I think that consistent with the applicant's offering and with the Master Street Plan, 55' from centerline would be applicant. MOTION: Shackelford: With that being said, I am going to concur with previous comments. I think that we have done a good job of working on this project with the applicant to a point that it blends well with the other buildings located around it. I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1129 with all conditions of approval with number two reading right of way of 55' from centerline for Joyce Blvd. will be dedicated. I think that is the only change that we need to make. Trumbo: I will second that. Ostner: I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1129 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Graves abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 16 PPL 04-1141: Preliminary Plat (SCHLEGEL SUBDIVISIOlS): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE SW CORNER OF DEANE SOLOMON AND SALEM. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 73.39 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 176 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Our third item is PPL 04-1141 for the Schlegel subdivision. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This property is located at the southwest corner of Deane Solomon Road and Salem Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 73.39 acres. The applicant is requesting approval of a residential subdivision with 176 single family lots proposed. Surrounding development includes single family residents to the north along West Salem Road. Areas to the west and south currently are vacant and are comprised of Agricultural land. Crystal Springs subdivision Phase III is under construction to the south of the property. Lot 4 of the springwoods C-PZD is adjacent to the east, which is the intervening property between this property and Deane Solomon Road. The property's only existing frontage currently is 270' along West Salem Road to the north. Gypsum Drive, which is a collector street, is shown on the Master Street Plan as an east/west connection through the subject property. A street stub out as shown on your plats is proposed to the west and to the east, as well as a connection to the street constructed with Crystal Springs Phase III. The primary entrance currently would be from the north from West Salem Road, which is currently an unapproved street. As part of the Annexation and Rezoning request for this particular item, stated at the time without improvements to West Salem to the north, which is currently a narrow gravel road, an additional alternate means of access the proposed number of units would create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in this location. As part of the street improvements recommended with this subdivision staff is recommending that 14' from centerline including standard pavement, curb, gutter, storm drainage and 6' sidewalks be constructed along West Salem Road. The north side of the street will be required to be improved to County standards. West Salem Road is also required to be widened to a minimum width of 20' of pavement from the project east to Deane Solomon Road. All interior streets will be constructed to city specifications. As part of at least two Subdivision Committee meetings, the applicant and staff have had ongoing meetings to determine a suitable solution to issues surrounding this subdivision. Primarily, the existence of a collector street on the Master Street Plan running east and west and the best suitable location for the neighborhood park as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board. The Parks and Recreation Board did meet for a second time on this project on August 10`h and made a modified proposal and recommendation to the Planning Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 17 Commission. That proposal I believe Mr. Williams has passed that out as part of a resolution and contract that will need to go forward to the City Council. That is for a recommendation to accept approximately three acres of park land more or less to be developed in total by the developer. The subdivision also utilizes a unique feature a round about at the eastern entry. This entry is indicated by the applicant to be located directly across from the approved entry to springwoods Lot 5 entrance, which is of course, the intervening property being in between. The Preliminary Plat before you does contain a street designated as a collector street with 70' right of way stubbing out to the west for future connectivity. The collector street does run east and west from the round about south on what is called Long Fellow Parkway and then west on Thoroughfare. It s part f the Planning Commission's determination for condition number one for Master Street Plan compliance with regard to Gypsum Drive as shown on the Master Street Plan currently, an east west collector street. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat for 176 lots with 14 conditions of approval. Staff has received signed conditions of approval. Items number one and two do require Planning Commission determination. I would request that item number two be modified to modify the condition of approval per the submitted contract to Mr. Williams tonight, our City Attorney, which will be forwarded onto the City Council. Item three, sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of all proposed streets. Sidewalks are considered a part of the public improvements in a street section. That is including those surrounding the park which will be constructed as part of that street section. Item number four, the landscape islands within the public right of way as well as the round about shall be designed to conform to established standards and approved by the Engineering Division. Item number eight, the developer shall provide payment in the amount of $72,600 to be deposited into the city's tree fund for tree canopy and mitigation prior to Final Plat approval. There is an option now within our ordinances that allows the developer to actually submit a mitigation plan, a street tree planting plan, that is still an option prior to Final Plat. This just really identifies that number that is approved. With that, I can answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward and introduce himself and give us your presentation? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company representing Tracy Hoskins, owner and developer of this project. Jeremy has adequately presented the findings and we agree with his determination of those findings. The owner/developer has reviewed the conditions of agreement and has provided his signed, dated agreement to those conditions of approval. The exceptions to those conditions, as Jeremy has pointed out, item number two is based on the contract agreement that Mr. Williams has provided tonight. The other is condition eight, which there are alternative methods Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 18 to the tree mitigation and we have discussed with Jeremy a more accurate determination of the canopy. That canopy is based on air photography and passed tree canopy that is on the GIS system. We will more accurately determine those tree canopies with actual surveys. Jeremy is aware of that and we will take one of the two alternatives so basically, we are in agreement with that. I would like to point out that the process that we've gone through in this development has been tedious. It has been very productive and we are excited about the outcome and are very proud of the fact that this particular development has achieved some goals far beyond just the boundaries of this project. This developer, along with other developers in the area, have taken this project and addressed it with other projects into a more area master planning for development throughout this entire area. We think that that is a very positive step forward and I think that that process has been well received by the Planning Commission and staff. At this time if there are any questions we will be glad to answer those and we look forward to your approval. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Jefcoat. At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on PPL 04-1141 entitled Schlegel Subdivision? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: I've got a couple of questions for staff. On condition number two, we have the new correspondence from the City Attorney, I see one difference and that is the amount of time that the P.O.A. will be responsible for the maintenance. The conditions that we have reviewed shows 15 years and this shows 10 years. Are there any other significant differences that I'm missing between these two proposals? Williams: No, I was responsible for reducing that. It wasn't even at the request of the petitioner. Obviously, this is going to be a city park and almost all city parks, I don't know of one that is not, is maintained by the Parks Department. The P.O.A. sometimes maintains private parks. I was a little concerned that we were requiring the P.O.A. to do city work for more than 10 years. After 10 years sometimes some things in a park may need to have substantial maintenance and I just didn't feel like it was fair for that neighborhood to have to support their own public park when other neighborhoods don't. I asked that it be reduced to 10 years from 15 years. I thought 15 years was too long in this particular case. I'm responsible for that. It didn't come from either the applicant or from Planning. That was my suggestion for that change. Shackelford: That is the main significant change between the two? Williams: Yes. I will say that when the contract is presented to the City Council it should have as an exhibit a concept plat from the developer that will show Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 19 the City Council exactly the type of amenities that he is proposing to build in the neighborhood park. He wasn't able to get that together tonight for you all to see it but they have assured me that they will have that ready for the Council when the Council considers this contract. Shackelford: Thank you. My next question regarding condition number eight, we have heard about some alternatives, mitigation and relocation plans. As it is worded now will that in any way impair the applicant's ability to look at other alternatives between now and the time that the Final Plat is done? Pate: Staff would welcome a modification to that condition of approval allowing essentially for our ordinance requirements which does allow a residential subdivision to utilize on site mitigation. Shackelford: Should we make that part of this condition at this point to allow them to do that or to work with staff without coming before this board? Pate: Yes Sir. Vaught: On condition number one, the rerouting of Gypsum Drive, would you go through the thought process of making a collector street around a round about and then turn the corner and go straight instead of making an easier pass? Warrick: I'm going to ask the applicant's engineer or representative to describe that. Jefcoat What we have done is we presented several different alternatives in order to meet the spirit of the Master Street Plan. The round about is a traffic control mechanism utilized as well as the 900 turn that then provides connectivity through the adjoining property that lines up with Gypsum Drive and that was the whole reasoning for providing the connectivity was to give a street that provided the opportunity between the vacant property that lies between this and Crystal Springs Phase I where Gypsum Drive also dead ends out to the vacant property in between. Vaught: I guess my follow up question on that would be for staff. Do you guys feel that the design is adequate for a collector street or would you have rather seen that a straight street? Warrick: They are proposing the necessary right of way for that to be a full collector street. It does make the connection from east to west through this project so staff was comfortable with at least bringing that forward and allowing Planning Commission to review that as an option. We feel that they do obviously make that connection that is necessary to fully traverse the site east to west. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 20 Vaught: You feel comfortable that the design as this is, is capable of handling collector street traffic? Warrick: The final design will have to be reviewed by Engineering. We certainly want to ensure that the same traffic counts that would be adequately handled by a collector street could be handled by this street. Provision of the right of way to allow for the widening of that street if necessary in the future is appropriate. Vaught: My second questions would be on improvements to Salem. We are requiring 14' with curb and gutter along the property line and then 20' from the property line to the intersection with Deane Solomon. Why wouldn't we want better improvements between the property line and Deane Solomon? Is it just a cost issue or is it outside of our scope? Casey: You are asking about the offsite improvements between the property line and West Salem? Vaught: And Deane Solomon, yes. Casey: Currently the pavement width in that area is not sufficient. It does not meet the minimum requirements that we see for a development for Fire Department access. That is the reason that we were asking for the additional pavement width. We are not necessarily asking to bring it up to the full minimum street requirements that they will be required along the property frontage. Vaught: Why wouldn't we want a better street there because that is going to be servicing this development for a while until we are assuming Wilson Springs will come forward in the near future with a development to collect Gypsum Drive collector. Casey: It would certainly be ideal to have the full street improvements along that area but we felt that that would be asking for more than what we normally ask for. To be consistent with our previous recommendations for other projects and also, we are dealing with limited right of way in this area and the more improvements that we do the wider it gets and it would be encroaching upon these other people's properties. Vaught: So we don't necessarily have the right of way? Casey: That is correct. Jefcoat: I might add to that, the 14' is just from the centerline side so the actual width would be there. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 21 Warrick: I would add also that providing the width for two cars to safely pass will provide the capacity. The curb, gutter and storm drain will not necessarily improve on the number of vehicles that the pavement can handle. The width is really the key in order to ensure that there is possibility for emergency vehicles, but also enough width for traffic going and coming out of the subdivision. Anthes: I want to thank Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Jefcoat for bearing with us through quite a project here. They have a project that is responding very well to a lot of the concerns that we have in this and previous subdivisions. They are providing the connectivity that we asked for. A big thing that I want to focus on is that they are also providing a full neighborhood park instead of the money in lieu and I think that this is fabulous for the people who live here and the people that are going to travel through here. They have also configured that park and that property's face onto the park rather than having back doors and back fences back onto it and that is really contributing to the reaction that I'm having to this development. With that, I would like to move for approval of PPL 04-1141 with the conditions of approval to find in favor of the Master Street Plan compliance. Condition number two to be amended to read Planning Commission determination of park land dedication per submitted contract. Condition eight to read added to that, or by submitting an onsite mitigation plan to be approved by city staff. Myres: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1141 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 22 PPL 04-1148: Preliminary Plat (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE BARRINGTON PARK SUBDIVISION. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.49 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 9 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is the Preliminary Plat for Piper's Glen Subdivision. If we could start with the staff report? Pate: This property is located in the Planning Area for the City of Fayetteville. It is located at the eastern boundary of the Barrington Park subdivision south of Fox Hunter Road. The property contains approximately 10.49 acres. It is contiguous to the city limits on the west. There is no zoning in the Planning Area. To the east is Fox Hunter Estates subdivision, which is also in the County. To the north and south are properties that are residential and agricultural in nature, and those are also within the County. To the north of the proposed lot number nine, is a City of Fayetteville Park named Trammel Park. It was dedicated as part of the requirements for the Barrington Park subdivision in the mid 1990's. The applicant tonight is proposing that this 10.49 acres be subdivided into nine single family lots, each lot approximately one acre in size. Lot number nine containing the existing developed home, barn and some ponds, is proposed to be the largest lot, containing approximately 2.07 acres. Access to the eight lots is proposed from the existing street stub out, Caston Drive, constructed with the Barrington Park subdivision to the west. This stub out was a requirement of the developer in order for Barrington Park subdivision to be approved. I have attached correspondence regarding that subdivision for your review. Lot nine has approximately 27' of frontage onto Fox Hunter Road. The applicant requests this larger two acre tract retain access to Fox Hunter Road. Lots 8 and 9 currently have access to water and sewer through prior arrangements with the city. The developer will be required to extend water service to lots 1 through 7 as well. Septic system approvals have been granted for lots 1 through 7 by the Washington County Health Department. Right of way required is 50' along Caston Drive extension on the subject property and a minimum 35' from centerline along Fox Hunter Road along that 27' that is fronts onto Fox Hunter Road. Street improvements required, staff is recommending a 28' street with curb, gutter and sidewalks on Caston Drive per City of Fayetteville standards. The developer will be extending that Caston Drive from where it was stubbed out with Barrington Park. The applicant is proposing to extend Caston Drive. That was the primary point of discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting, as noted in your minutes. Lot nine is proposed to retain the existing private drive to Fox Hunter Road. Staff has not previously recommended a street connection north to Fox Hunter Road based on the amount of traffic generated by nine single family homes. I believe the applicant hopefully has the information Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 23 regarding site distance from Fox Hunter Road as well as our first hand experience in the van on Thursday at the Planning Commission agenda session. Staff is not recommending connectivity in other directions due to the nature of existing development or terrain, particularly to the south. The applicant has offered, and it is part of the conditions of approval now, to restrict construction traffic to existing private drive off of Fox Hunter Road as opposed to accessing through the Barrington Park subdivision. As I mentioned here in your staff report, there has been significant public comment. I did pass out two more pieces of information for you today. One is from the developer/owner of the property who also presides on the subject property, Mr. David Wilson. As well as a letter from a resident of Barrington Park. There was a signed petition containing approximately 61 signatures. I included one example of those in your staff reports as well. Those were in opposition to this subdivision. For a little background, in 1994 the Preliminary Plat for Barrington Park subdivision to the west was approved by the Planning Commission. It was appealed to the City Council and a resolution approved the development of this subdivision modifying the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. Part of the agreement between the developer and the city at that time, stated in the attached resolution in your staff report, was the additional dedication of parkland to the north of the subject property as well as the dedication of approximately 1,000 feet of nature trail, then known as Red Woof Park and what is now Trammel Park. The developer was expressly not required to construct connection to Fox Hunter Road and protective covenants were established to protect existing trees along Fox Hunter Road. Additionally, right of way was required to be dedicated at the southeast of the Barrington Park subdivision to allow for future access to the property of Mr. Wilson which is currently under consideration for Piper's Glen Subdivision. I would point you to page 4.20 and Mr. Wilson's comments from March, 1994 in the City Council meeting. He did state that he owns 10 acres and had no plan at the time for developing that property. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat for a nine lot subdivision with 12 conditions of approval. Item number one, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a creation of a lot in the Planning Area without adequate frontage that is lot 9, which as I mentioned, only has 27.29 feet of frontage on Fox Hunter Road. Item two, Planning Commission determination of adequate access and connectivity for the proposed nine lot subdivision. Eight lots are proposed to access from Caston Drive. Lot nine will access from the existing private drive to Fox Hunter Road. Items three through twelve are self explanatory. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Jorgensen, B.: I'm Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates representing David Wilson on the project, Piper's Glen. I did inform Mr. Wilson of the staff Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 24 report and the conditions of approval and he complies with all of these. I did visit the site today and according to the ASHTO standards green book I ran some sight distance calculations. As you have all seen the access that would be onto Fox Hunter Drive. If one was to take a left turn the required sight distance would be 336'. Currently there is about 115'. If you were to take a right turn the required is roughly 95' to 100', they have about 60' to 65'. There is a large oak tree obstructing much of the view there and as noted in the staff report, there is a tree preservation in the covenants that was previously established. Any other questions regarding this development from staff or from the Commission or the audience, I will be glad to answer. If I can't Chris Brackett from Jorgensen & Associates will hopefully be able to. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Jorgensen. At this point I will open it up to the public. Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Johnson: My name is Phyllis Johnson. I'm an attorney here in Fayetteville. I have been asked to represent the residents of Barrington Park who are here tonight. Several of them I think attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and they asked that I speak for them tonight. I would ask if you would permit me that they raise their hands to indicate those folks who have come tonight in order to be here. Those of you that are with Barrington, if you would please raise your hands to show the Commission who you are. Thank you for that. I wanted to see Mr. Chairman, initially, I started helping these folks a couple of days ago. They have some general questions that I think staff might best be able to ask if you would indulge my asking a few general questions to staff it might possibly be very helpful to them and answer a whole lot of questions that I couldn't give them anything about. Ostner: That would be fine if you wouldn't mind if we answered your questions later and not actually get into a conversation. Johnson: Let me tell you the kinds of questions. One of the things that they want to know is what the process would be if Caston, which is now stubbed out, were amended so that it becomes a cul-de-sac? I have given them my opinion about that which is that it would be difficult to go back at this stage and modify their approved plat. But that is something that they want to know what the process would be. Ostner: For the Barrington Park to change that stub out to a cul-de-sac. We will answer that thoroughly. Currently the development is there and there is a stub out and that is really the issue on the table. Johnson: Another question is once a subdivision is accepted and approved by the city what is involved to amend it. Since this subdivision is actually in the Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 25 county does the county have any authority over the subdivision's streets once the city approves it? That, I think is a key question that if there could be an answer to that it would be very helpful at this time. Warrick: I think to answer that I would need to know in what context you mean authority over the streets. Is it maintenance of the streets? Johnson: Two things. First, the configuration and second, the maintenance. Then a concern is that the construction traffic, which has been recommended to all come off of Fox Hunter, my clients would request that a barrier be erected at the end of their subdivision so that Caston could not be used by construction traffic in the interim and that it then be opened after street construction has been completed because of the fear that that construction would cause a great deal of damage to their streets. They want assurance that once this is approved if the subdivision is not developed as planned that they would get notice if the developer comes back with suggested changes in the future. In other words, if there is to be eight residences and that is it, that is not what they understood at the Subdivision Committee meeting, so that would change their position considerably if they had that essentially in concrete. They want to know whether the cabinet business is in the proposed plats. There is now a house and a cabinet operation that Mr. Wilson has on this property. If it is a single family subdivision they would assume that that couldn't continue but they are not sure whether it really is in the platted property. Once this comes in, if it does, as a city subdivision, they want to know what control the city then has over any future changes that he would try to make of the subdivision in terms of street configuration, Caston then being extended and a lot narrowed so it could go to a boundary and such. I would request the right to be able to speak again after the staff has answered these questions or the Commission because the answer to these questions will affect whether or not all these folks feel that they need to talk to you or whether I will talk to you again very briefly. I don't know if you are willing to do that. Otherwise, I feel like they think that they would need to visit with you. Ostner: They are of course, welcome to talk to us. The applicant will be the last party we hear from. Right now is the public comment section and that will close and we will go to a conversation format with the applicant and there will be no more public comment after that. Johnson: Then I guess given the fact that is the way the procedure works that they must either visit with you now or they lose their right to speak then I think that their request would be that consideration of this be postponed so that they could have firm answers to these questions because of the fact that they know that there could be access to Fox Hunter and because of the fact that this subdivision is in the county. They do have some particular concerns with the cabinet business and such. I would request on their Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 26 behalf that this not be decided tonight but that it be put on the next agenda and in the meantime they will be able to get answers to all of these questions from staff without having lost their opportunity to oppose it if they feel like they need to. Ostner: I appreciate that. Thank you. Johnson: I'm Zed Johnson. I own all of the land to the south of this development. My concern is a little bit different than the Barrington Park neighborhood. My family has owned that property for 50 some years. I've been out on it for many, many years and the difference in my view from the other folks is that certainly there is Not in My Back Yard. I feel the same way. The reason I feel that way is this is a steeply sloped site that goes right down into a very pristine creek on my property. What we have got is septic systems directly draining into the creek with lots 1 and 2. If there were two lots instead of four on that side you would have enough room to put a decent drainage system in. I am an architect and have been around the block a little bit and know you don't have enough room, especially with lot 1. Right now these good people up here treat my property in many ways, as their private park. I go and clean up about two bags of trash every three months because you throw it over the side, it goes down the slope, down the creek. We have got kid's balls, pop bottles, beer cans, you name it. Then you add septic stuff to it. I have a seven year old son and I like to go down there and play in this beautiful creek with big rocks, etc. It would be an ideal park in the future. Certainly, it is not a good place to make a drainage field. If Mr. Wilson would've been in town I could've talked to him. I got this information relatively late because it was mailed to my parent's home. They are dead so they can't respond very well. Once I got it and found out that David was no longer around, he is up in Canada building or something, there was no opportunity for me to negotiate or do anything to change what is happening there. I would have liked to seen if I couldn't have got him to do a few less lots on the south side and possibly let me buy a piece of land for a private drive so I could access and maintain my property. Now I'm completely cut off and I've got essentially a maintenance problem in perpetuity. I just would like you to consider the drainage issues, the trash issues, and reduce that density on the south side of the street as a minimum. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Johnson. Glass: My name is Aimee Glass, I'm a property owner in the Barrington Park subdivision. I also would like to request a postponement to any decisions to be made here. I have spent many hours doing some research and legitimately, every time I ask a question I'm getting a different owner from the city, from the property owner and my concern is that we don't have all the answers. It is hard to make an argument or even to find out if Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 27 we have an argument to make based upon our lack of true and honest information I think we have. I am asking for a postponement for at least a month so that we can do better research and find out if there is something else that we object to or if there is anything that we object to at all. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Glass. Harrison: My name is David Harrison. I live in Barrington Park. I'm a lifelong resident of Fayetteville with the exception of 13 years. I believe I would like to maybe in lieu of if it is not possible to delay this process in regard to answering some real questions that I think are still out there that might be very helpful to the Barrington Park P.O.A. and it's residents but in addition to that to the applicant. What I would like to try to do is characterize some of the issues that we are discussing as a P.O.A. First of all, it is unanimous throughout our resident neighborhood there that no one is opposed to further development of the City of Fayetteville. This is not your classic case, I've lived through the incinerator ward and this is not NIMBY syndrome. I will assure you that. What we have got is we have got some legitimate concerns in regard to the history of this process as to whether or not Barrington Park would be appropriate for connectivity to concern this subdivision and then I guess beyond that a true concern, if it connects to some other subdivision. I don't know how well rehearsed you are, perhaps very well rehearsed on the nature of the subdivision. My thought processes and the information that I've been given is connectivity works where you have meandering, curving streets that discourage high volume and high speed traffic through a neighborhood. What we have that was a result of the passage of this neighborhood in 1994 is in essence, three streets that service the entire length of this neighborhood and I don't think I'm wrong in characterizing these three streets and three drag strips. You have got long straight a ways that the main entrance to Barrington Park is slightly elevated so not only are they along straight a ways but in essence, you have a down hill grade through them. In addition to that, as part of our P.O.A. group we have a swimming pool that services all of the folks in that subdivision that pay their P.O.A. dues. As one of our restrictive covenants you are not permitted to drive to that swimming pool. If you are going to access the swimming pool you have to walk, ride a bike, a scooter, that type of thing. It is a true neighborhood concept. You've got children accessing that pool from all parts of the subdivision with three drag strips. Now you see what our concern is. What we tried to do is retain Phyllis to answer some questions because the process in all actuality feels like it is rolling down hill and a lot of the frustration on the part of the residences is we haven't been able to answer questions to legitimately input and that could be a positive input as well as a negative input. That is why we have tried to ask Phyllis to be our spokesperson to really try to answer questions to see what our next move is. However, as a Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 28 fall back, as she has indicated, if perhaps you don't see fit to either delay for additional information that might be helpful on both parties part and if the train has already left and we have got a stub out that there is legitimate concern as to the genesis of that stub out as to whether or not that was retained as the result of a bargain or exactly what the nature of that was in the original approval of Barrington. Bottom line is if we are forced into a situation what we are deathly afraid of is we've got three drag strips and not only is Caston, and thus, our entire subdivision going to access eight one acre lots, but then the possibility of the next subdivision that Caston may or may not connect to, which might be 36 more homes or the next one that might be 40 new homes. That is our main concern if this is the main artery of ingress and egress then if we are forced into that position then we are absolutely beseeching the Commission to give us every assurance possible either through engineering means or potentially through contractual means to make sure that Caston can never connect to the next subdivision down the road. As I said, to reiterate, what we are truly asking is let's stop. If you are willing to consider that as possibly beneficial to both parries, and I'm an attorney, but I'm not going to put form over substance. That is what we are asking you to do. Let's put substance first. Let's do some fact finding first that might be mutually beneficial. In the alternative, if we are forced into this situation where we have to decide now then we are absolutely critically asking you for your assurances and whatever form that that can take that Caston will go no further than these eight one acre lots. We feel like we've got a problem with our current residents right now and there is no telling the safety hazards and the special needs that would go into play if we went to the next subdivision. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you. Are there other members of the audience who would like to comment if you have anything new? I want you all to know that we have received a lot of letters from you all and we have read them and we are aware that you have lots of comments and concerns and that you are all here obviously. Collins: I will make it short. I'm Bill Collins at 1736 Buckley. I am right next to that stub out and Mr. Wilson is right behind me, he is a nice man. He plays the bagpipes on Sunday night, that is kind of interesting. I would like, he does, there have been many, many mornings that there was more than one pick up lined up on Caston which is now not paved, it is a dirt road. There are two pick ups waiting to get into his commercial property. He is a cabinet maker and he is currently doing business as a commercial property. I would like to emphasize that question that Phyllis asked about, what assurances are we going to get that this is not going to be commercial property or that he is not going to take that Lot 1 and keep the commercial property and do the rest residential? Thank you. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 29 Ostner: Thank you Mr. Collins. Davidson: My name is Jay Davidson, I also live in Barrington. There has been a bit of reference made to the park that was made part of the Barrington subdivision plat. Most of the residents do not know it exists. There is no signage whatsoever to indicate the park is there. It is a nonexistent park. There is a sidewalk that goes between two houses that ends abruptly and there is currently a pile of brush at the end of that sidewalk. I presume that that would've theoretically been our access to what is being referred to as Trammel Park. Again, the P.O.A. took a straw poll and no one knew it was there. It is not benefiting the residents of that subdivision as it currently exists or as it is currently set up. We would ask that that be considered also. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? Holloway: I'm Carey Holloway, I also live right next to the stub out. I want to make sure the question that was asked as I wanted to understand. Today that is a city street ending on the city line and that transitions onto a County property. What jurisdiction does this board have to enforce what happens on that county property so that again, today I also experience the pick ups, and today Caston, which is actually the street I live on, is accessed and utilized as a commercial venue where Mr. Wilson can get to his cabinet making operation. I just want to understand what are the jurisdiction that this board has once he crosses into the county and whether he chooses to go with his original plat or chooses to put another commercial operation, duplexes, or whatever the case may be. That would certainly not benefit our property and the things that we have done there. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? I assure you I have a long list of questions that we are going to talk about. If nobody else would like to speak, we will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions and comments. I will just start with Ms. Johnson's questions. Those are mostly for staff. Let's just start with her first question. What are the possibilities for a cul-de-sac instead of a stub out? Warrick: The City Council took action when the Preliminary Plat for Barrington Park was approved and through resolution required a stub out. Anything that deviates from that would really need to be revisited by the City Council. The appeal period for a development proposal such as a Preliminary Plat is 10 days after the final approval. Final approval is granted at the Planning Commission level and that appeal may be brought forward by either an owner of the property or an alderman. That was the process by which this went on appeal to the City Council back in the mid 1990's when Barrington Park was originally proposed as a Preliminary Plat. A change in the infrastructure and the conditions of approval to that Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 30 Preliminary Plat should go through that appeal process if that is the desire of either the owner or an alderman. At this point in time Caston is a public street. It is stubbed out to the property line, which in this case, is also the city limits line. If that were to be reconfigured and a cul-de-sac created property would have to be acquired from adjoining property owners and somebody would have to build it. Because that is a city street that burden would very likely fall to the city. That would require an expenditure of funds, a review by the Street Committee and approval by the City Council. Ostner: Thank you. The second item I have written down is the controls. Since this changes from city limits to Washington County the concerns about the cabinet shop, pickup trucks parked and a future commercial activity outside the city limits. Warrick: As far as the jurisdiction over the street goes, this is a property that is within the Fayetteville Planning Area, however, outside the city limits. The type of street that will be constructed must meet the city's minimum street standards. It will be a curb and gutter street, 28' wide with curb and gutter, storm drain and sidewalks I believe. As far as the configuration of the street it will look like the city street that it is being connected to. Maintenance does fall to the county because it is outside the city's jurisdiction with regard to where we maintain public infrastructure. Land use is not under the jurisdiction of the city. The county does not have zoning. The land use would be controlled either through covenants within the development or it would be at the will of whomever owns the property as far as what the use would be established on each of the lots. Matt, you might want to add to that. Casey: Just to add to what Dawn was saying, we will be reviewing the construction documents for this project for the street construction, grading, drainage and the water construction. We don't have all the information at this time because this is in the county but we will be reviewing those construction plans for those issues and they will have to comply with all of our city ordinances because it is adjacent to the city limits. Ostner: Does each home have to have a building permit? Casey: No, I'm only talking about the street, drainage, water. The septic systems will have to be reviewed by the County Health Department. I do want to add that the inspection of these items will be done by our Public Works Inspectors through the Engineering Division during the time of construction. Not only are they required to design it to our standards, we will oversee the construction and make sure that that is done to our standards as well. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 31 Ostner: Since it is outside the city each building does not require our normal building permit. Warrick: That is correct. Ostner: Just one follow up, on the septic systems, I didn't quite understand, they don't talk about a septic field or some different type. Warrick: Each individual lot will have it's own septic system. Preliminary approval has been granted by the County Health Department for those systems. Ostner: Ok. So there is no special system? Warrick: Not for this project. Shackelford: Just for clarification purposes, this question as it was asked. I want to answer it as best as I can for the residents. The authority of the street in regards to configuration and maintenance. If I'm understanding correctly, city standards will play towards the configuration of the streets as they are developed to include drainage, grading, all the size, sidewalk and everything else. Configuration will fall under street standards. Maintenance will fall under county, is that correct? Warrick: Yes. Shackelford: The other question that was asked was jurisdiction of city standards on the county property, which I assume to be the development. That is not within the city's jurisdiction, is that correct? Warrick: We are looking at the configuration of the lots but not necessarily the land use because this is not a property that has a zoning designation on it. It is Washington County. Shackelford: We look at the configuration of lots as they exist but we do not look at what is ultimately built on those lots, is that correct? Jorgensen, B.: I will clarify David Wilson's intended use. The cabinet business he has in there right now exists on a lot that is going to be sold. He will suspend that and quit doing that because he is going to sell off the land. I want to read a couple of things he has mentioned for his covenants he is going to include. He is wanting the houses to be 3,000 sq.ft. of heated space, attached garages, no carports, rear side entrance garage, all single family, no kennels, farm animals, breeding animals, a minimum of 80% masonry on exterior. No cars parked in the street, no campers, RVs, no metal fences, no out buildings without approval of the developer, all front yards sodded and seeded with landscape. Roofing material limitations. All Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 32 drives poured concrete, no asphalt. Basically, he is going to follow any city standards that would be included for a subdivision. It will fit right in with the surrounding subdivision. He is not going to continue the use of the land for commercial purposes. Allen: I have a question for the applicant. I wondered the nature of your dialogue that you have had with the neighborhood. Jorgensen, B.: Most of my conversations have been through David Wilson in response to Aimee Glass, the President of the P.O.A. of Barrington and the letter that Zed Johnson has written to Mr. Wilson, mostly from email since he is up in Canada doing some construction. Everything that I've done has been strictly email. A few personal conversations after Subdivision Committee met. I included a fax to Jeremy today and Mr. Wilson's response to Aimee Glass' request to table this for a month. He is definitely being as courteous as he can and considerate throughout this whole process. He doesn't wish to disturb anyone and make the value less than it is. He is going to try to make a nice subdivision. Any conversations that I have had has been mostly through email. Allen: I'm certain that is correct but I was wondering if you have met perhaps with your neighborhood association or if they had requested a meeting with you. Jorgensen, B.: No Ma'am, I haven't. Allen: Have you had a request? Jorgensen, B.: I have not. I tried to contact the P.O.A., but they weren't listed as being registered with the city so it took me a while to acquire the number. I did make an attempt to try to address the questions that they had at the Subdivision Committee. Every question that they raised I answered and replied to Mr. Wilson who included it in the email to Ms. Glass. Myres: You mentioned some general covenants, are those in a written form that could be shared with the residents of Barrington? Jorgensen, B.: He is kind of waiting for this subdivision to get passed before he drafts covenants. I have a document here and if people want it I can email it to everyone. Myres: I think that that would at least give them more information than they appear to have now. The other general comment I wanted to make, I don't know how appropriate this is, I would hope that you are aware that the document that we work from, the request for granting a Preliminary Plat, is a public document that is available to all of you if you choose to go to Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 33 the Planning Division or look it up on line. The conditions of approval I think answer several of the questions that were raised by both the residents and by your attorney. If you would take the opportunity to read this, or would have taken the opportunity to read this I think some of your concerns might have been mitigated a little bit by the conditions of approval that are already in this document in terms of streets and standards that are going to be exacted. At least, not necessarily on the individual properties but at least on the build out of Caston Drive into a cul-de-sac, which ends at two properties at the end of the parcel. It doesn't look like there will be any opportunity for a stub out to be constructed there so it is intended to be a dead end with no more connectivity to anything. If you haven't taken advantage of the opportunity to read this I would urge you to do so regardless of what we decide to do tonight. Vaught: I would also like to have the staff address the traffic calming policy. The city is instituting a new traffic calming policy, or in the process. Warrick: It is online. It is available on the city's website. There is a procedure by which a citizen or a resident of the neighborhood can go to the city's website or contact the city's neighborhood coordinator in the planning office and request that their neighborhood be studied for the potential of implementing traffic calming measures. That is certainly a resource to neighborhoods and that is a process by which a neighborhood can be reviewed. It includes review from our Transportation Division as well as the Police Department, depending on how the survey is answered. There are various steps in the process and we can explain that and walk somebody through that if they wish to understand it a little bit better to see whether or not they want to submit a request to have their neighborhood looked at for traffic calming. Vaught: I think that is one of your options that can help control traffic in the neighborhood that is part of the problem and also any additional traffic that this puts on. It sounds like from the applicant some of the commercial type traffic will be reduced that is already going through the neighborhood since the commercial operations will be relocated. I would also like to have staff or the city attorney address when we are looking at a neighborhood in the county we are limited on the things that we can take into consideration for approval. Warrick: This is a little bit of a hybrid because it is immediately adjoining the city limits. However, property is located outside in Washington County. The city will review and require the infrastructure for the water system, as well as the street system to meet city standards. We do not review for land use. We do, however, review for lot configuration. We do not have the ability to enforce our tree preservation and protection ordinance. Nor do we have the ability to enforce our parkland dedication ordinance. Impact fees will Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 34 only be assessed for water connections as these properties will not be allowed to connect to the city's sewer system. Brackett: Just a general comment to let the adjoining property owners know that this isn't the end of the review process for this development. It will have to go before the County also. I know that I spoke to many of the people directly adjoining after we sent out notification and tried to answer all of their questions. If they would like to organize a meeting we would be more than happy to try to answer any questions that they might have. Graves: I think I know the answer to this question. I know that the City Attorney has previously warned us that we aren't supposed to request any Bill of Assurance. Assuming that they have put something in writing at this point making certain promises on how the property was going to be developed, would the city even have any capability of enforcing anything like that? Warrick: No Sir. Ostner: I would just like to point out that condition of approval number four reads construction traffic shall be limited access to the existing private drive, a clear note to this affect shall be included on the final construction drawings. That is the one leading north to Fox Hunter. Warrick: Staff would not be opposed to including in a different condition that the existing Caston Drive be barricaded until construction is complete. We feel that that is something that would be manageable through our construction review process and would alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors with regard to construction traffic coming into the development prior to Caston Drive being complete. Anthes: Mr. Shackelford, Mr. Vaught and I were all at Subdivision and I feel like we didn't answer a couple of your questions well enough because I understand you are still confused about a few of these things and I hope that we can be very clear today. Believe us when we say that we are as frustrated as you are on some of these issues because we have different things that we can review in a development process if the piece of land is within the city. What we tried to describe during those meetings is we had three different items on the agenda that had slightly different configurations. One was in the city, one adjoining the city and one was in the county not adjoining the city. We have very different things that we can look at that we have any control over at all in those three conditions. I know that may have been confusing if you were sitting through those other agenda items. We can look at lot configuration and I understand clearly now that you are very confused about the number of users on the street and the possibility that there would be future connection to other subdivisions. What we understand when we look at our plat and with our Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 35 staff report that clearly indicated no connectivity to the east. These eight lots would be the only lots that would ever have additional access to your street. That is something that the Commissioners understand explicitly. I would like staff to reiterate that so you have that assurance. Is that true? Warrick: This is proposed to be a cul-de-sac with no future connectivity to the east. Anthes: So the number of users are only those generated by the houses that are on those eight lots. I do have another question. I know that to follow up on Commissioner Vaught's comments, we can look at street construction, which our City Engineer has talked about tonight, and we can look at water supply, and septic systems, which we have the letter from the County and that is what we can look at. We can comment about grading and drainage and I know that that is a serious concern to the property owner to the south. Can Mr. Casey talk about the protection for grading and drainage beyond the street construction and are there any controls or any mechanisms that we can look at that have to do with runoff to the adjoining property to the south? Casey: With the review of the street and drainage plans we have also reviewed the grading and will make sure on those plans that the proper erosion control measures are included. That will also be for construction as well. Our inspector's top priority is to ensure that those erosion control measures are in place. That will cover the time of construction up until Final Plat. The individual home constructions we will not have any authority over the runoff control. Anthes: I'm unfamiliar with what the County does with respect to that. Can you enlighten us on this? Casey: At this time I do not believe that they have any permitting process for individual home construction. Ostner: I have a question for staff. I believe the neighbors and Ms. Johnson understand that this is a cul-de-sac, but my question is what if What if one of these homes and the developer is willing to tear down a home and build a new street, would that ever be possible? Warrick: It would only be possible through a process such as this where public infrastructure would be proposed to be installed and it would have to be reviewed by the city as well as the county. There would be some sort of public process. It would be similar to the scenario if Caston Drive were amended to create a cul-de-sac street whereby right of way would have to be purchased, infrastructure would have to be designed and funds expended in order to build that street. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 36 Brackett: I would just add that this property is isolated because of the topography that is out there now. That is one of the reasons why we are not showing connectivity, which is one of the things that we normally show, is because of the extremes in the topography. The likelihood of anything connecting to this cul-de-sac is highly unlikely because of the topography surrounding it. That is one of the reasons for connecting to Caston. Ostner: Someone brought up the access to the park. Does staff know any information? Warrick: I can't speak for the brush pile situation. I've seen in past trips out to the neighborhood that there is a sidewalk that ends but I don't know that I've seen the brush pile. We will certainly contact the Parks Division and let them know that they may want to take a look at that condition and see if it is something that they may want to apply some maintenance to. Ostner: This park, even though it is technically outside the city limits. Warrick: It is property that is owned by the city Parks Division and it is designated as park property. Ostner: It is under the city's responsibility? Warrick: It is. MOTION: Vaught: Seeing that I feel like we have answered a lot of questions that we are allowed to consider when approving this knowing that it is going to go to the County for their approval as well. I feel like we have answered all the questions that we can consider for this so I will make a motion to approve PPL 04-1148 subject to the twelve conditions of approval granting the waiver for the lot frontage on condition number one and finding that there is adequate access for the eight lots on Caston Drive with the addition to condition number four that Caston be blocked until construction is complete of the subdivision. Graves: Second. Ostner: The motion is for approval with the only addition being condition number four to add installing a barricade at the intersection of Caston and the stub out. Is there further discussion? I do have one other question. Since this is in the County is this going to come through our Final Plat process? Warrick: It will. The project is required to after a project is approved at the Planning Commission level at the city, it is required to go to the County Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 37 Planning Board for approval. After that, construction drawings are submitted and actual infrastructure development takes place, construction happens. Once the infrastructure is installed then the project will come back through the City and the County processes before the filing of the Final Plat. Ostner: At the Final Plat process could we request covenants, is that appropriate? Warrick: We can certainly request them if the applicant chooses to provide them. They typically do and we like to have those on file in our office just so if someone has questions we can reference them. While we can't enforce them we do try to provide the information as often as we can so we will certainly make note of that. Ostner: That is dually noted for the record. Anthes: Because we can look at lot configuration, normally we look at an acre and a half or more in the county unless we get Health Department approval for a smaller. Warrick: Our design standards call for a lot that is 10,000 sq.ft. in size with a minimum 75' frontage on an improved street if it is a lot in the Planning Area. The criteria for an acre and a half is in order to exempt the lot from having to submit a conditional letter of approval from the County Health Department for septic installation. Anthes: We do have that letter now on all of these lots? Warrick: Yes. Anthes: Because we can look at lot configuration, is that the only way we can talk about it, I'm concerned about the size of these lots and the grading and drainage issue, is that anything we have control over when we look at lot configuration? Warrick: The way that it is described in our development regulations is really to ensure the orderly re -subdivision of lots in the future should lots have potential to be subdivided and in order to provide reasonable street connections. The minimum is of course, 10,000 sq.ft. land area and 75' frontage on an improved street. Anthes: You've reviewed this and you believe it meets those? Warrick: Yes. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 38 Shackelford: One final thought. By no means do I want to make a political statement. As somebody who has served on the Annexation Task Force to consider development in the county, I would like everybody to be aware of the fact that the City Council and possibly the general public will be considering the recommendation of a large annexation to add to the city limits in Fayetteville. This would give us the opportunity to look at a more conformed, precise development plan going forward. I would encourage everyone who is listening to take this opportunity to get involved in the future because there is a lot of this type of development on the outer limits of our city limits that would be better addressed, or could possibly be better addressed in the large picture instead of on a piece meal basis. I would encourage everyone to get involved in that process as it comes before the City Council. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further comment? We have a motion. Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1148 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 39 Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1161 for the Pembridge Subdivision. If we could have the staff report from Ms. Morgan please? Morgan: This subject property is approximately 20 acres. It is vacant property located east of Hwy. 265 and south of Albright Road. The proposal is to create a 48 lot subdivision with one lot containing an existing pond and reserved for common open space to serve the proposed subdivision. Two lots have also been identified for the purpose of detention. An annexation and rezoning request to RSF-4 was approved by the City Council for this property in May, 2004. Surrounding land use and zoning consists of Copper Creek subdivision to the south and east of this property zoned RSF-4. Stonewood subdivision to the west, zoned RSF-4 as well. To the north are located residential single family homes on larger lots in the county with no zoning. 50' right of way is proposed for interior streets with the exception of Lions Hall Place and Queensway Drive proposed to be dedicated as residential streets containing 40' right of way. Connectivity will be provided in all cardinal directions. Also money in lieu of dedication for park land is recommended in the amount of $24,975 for 45 single family lots. Public comment was received at the Subdivision Committee meeting of August 13, 2004 and staff has also received comments and notification receipts with comments and concerns. Traffic as well as sight distance, visibility, construction traffic, connectivity and type of development proposed within the subdivision were the majority of the concerns. Staff is recommending approval of PPL 04-1161 with twelve conditions. The first two require Planning Commission consideration. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Bunch: Good evening. My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks. I'm here this evening representing the NBI Group, which the owners of that particular corporation are here tonight, John and Leslie Nooncaster if you have any questions for them. Suzanne has covered all of the details here. We are proposing to construct 45 single family residential lots at this time with the required city street, infrastructure as well as water and sewer infrastructure. We are proposing to meet all of the city ordinances. We have on our plan connected three stubs that were existing for an approved subdivision plan. We didn't have a lot of opportunity otherwise. Addressing the cul-de-sac length waivers, in this particular instance, we felt like this configuration worked best to help to preserve the common space that we have, we have an over two acre common space that is planned to be used as a P.O.A. park and that cul-de-sac configuration was basically proposed to keep from disturbing that particular area. In this case we do have three opportunities for emergency vehicles to turn around, one being the hammer head at the street intersection and the two Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 40 full size cul-de-sacs. We don't feel like that is anything that would impede emergency access or violating the other rules. We are here to answer any questions tonight. If I'm going too fast I apologize. I think that is it, thank you. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Bunch. Would anyone in the public like to comment about this project? Gavowski??: My name is ?????, I'm a resident of the Stonewood subdivision, which is adjacent to the proposed plat. Our subdivision is very young. Some people have lived there for less than a year so it is a little difficult for us to organize. We don't have a P.O.A. yet but we had a meeting with the developer and we expressed some major concerns about this new subdivision. The first one, you can see that this is an upscale area of Fayetteville and we are concerned about the new construction being in the lower level and we would like assurance that the new construction will be at the same level or higher. The second one was about access to Hwy. 265 and the traffic going through the existing subdivision. As you know, Hwy. 265 is an extremely busy road and according to the recent publication in the paper the density of traffic has increased 60% in recent years. I know there are plans for widening Hwy. 265 but that is not something that is going to happen anytime soon. The Graystone Street exit is extremely dangerous. If you have driven this part of the city on Hwy. 265 and you try to exit on Graystone Street you will notice that visibility on the south side is limited to less than 200'. If you are trying to get on Hwy. 265 and turn towards Springdale you are lucky if you don't get somebody beeping at your back because they almost hit you. The situation in the opposite direction is not much better. Graystone Street is a very curvy street and visibility for anybody on this street is quite limited. There is a lot of safety concern for the people who live in that subdivision. We have a lot of young kids and unfortunately, there is no park area where kids can play. If you go into the subdivision you will see lots of kids riding their bicycles and running around in the streets. Graystone goes straight into this subdivision and that creates a lot of public safety concerns. When we discussed the plans that were proposed by the developer we noticed that there is really no other entrance to the subdivision than Graystone and this Running Springs Street. When we asked about the possibility of getting access through Albright Road, which is a county road, that doesn't have much residential development right now. We were told that this would not be developed anytime soon. All of the construction traffic is expected to go through Graystone. We just finished building our subdivision, we have only two lots available and we have two houses that are being completed right now. People are expecting to enjoy the developed subdivision, the safety of the residences and have small traffic. With this new development we will be seeing another two, three or maybe even four years of constant construction traffic. All the trash and debris Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 41 and dust that construction traffic brings to the streets of our subdivision. I'm strongly opposed to the current plan. I suggest that it needs to be revised and the developer needs to find some way of bringing construction traffic through alternative locations, either Zion Road or Albright Road, thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about this project? Summitt Good evening, my name is Brian Summitt. I am here with my wife Ann and we are residents of the Stonewood subdivision. I've been a resident of Fayetteville now for two years. Prior to that we lived in Springdale and prior to that we spent 20 years up in the snow belt. I want to say that we are very pleased with where we live. We have a beautiful neighborhood setting. The reason I am here today is to add my comments about this expansion going on. It is a subdivision added onto a subdivision added onto a subdivision. The article in the paper yesterday was titled "Expand and Contract". That is why we are here. As we expand we are unfortunately straining ourselves. Our subdivision currently has two main, more specifically, Jeff Hawkins, Director of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, identifies Arkansas Hwy. 265 as one of the most stressed roads in the area with a 63% increase in traffic flows between 2002 and 2003. I understand and I also know that Fayetteville as a city has agreed to expand Hwy. 265. That is not going to occur until about 2007 or 2008. I applaud this decision because all of you who do drive this understand where our problems are coming from. We have in addition to our two main feeds off of Hwy. 265, Zion Road. Zion Road is unfortunately, totally undeveloped as you go to the east and about half developed if you go to the Hwy. 265. Graystone Drive where my neighbor lives here, is very dangerous. If you attempt to get onto Hwy. 265 and you are turning south you have less than 200' of vision. There is a very significant dip in the road. You cannot make a safe exit o the south. Hopefully, when Hwy. 265 is improved you are going to either shave 8' off the hill that we are on on Graystone or fill in the dip but it has to be done. That is a safety issue. It is a safety issue for the state, it is a safety issue for the city, it is a safety issue for our current residents because all of the current residents go to the southern entrance. That is just a fact of life if you are going to make a safe exit. It is a consideration though if we are going to bring all of that construction traffic in and it will load on, it is not a safe situation. Zion Road, a decision needs to be made on Zion Road. I'm a little dismayed from what I've seen before because you say some things are beyond your ability and some things are within your ability. I don't agree with you. You are the Planning Commission, you have the power to make things happen. You have the power to do things right. You have the power and necessity to do things on a long term basis and not on a short term basis. I applied some specific recommendations and would like to make a few. The gentleman before said there will be access Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 42 to all cardinal points. I do not see a cardinal point access to the north. I heard it but I don't see it nor is it on the proposal. I'm going back to Albright Road. We must force an access to Albright Road, if at least, a developed feeder road. At least a road that is a less occurring flight. We must force another access point, I don't know if we can force another access point up through Copper Creek subdivision. There is just one there now. I would like to have at least another one there. I noticed also in the paper, it was a very interesting paper because it pointed out the problems of expanding and contracting, the problems of the long term planning assumptions that the city is making with the possibility of annexing 19,000 acres. If you annex those 19,000 acres Zion Road has to be improved as a feeder road from Butterfield Coach through to Hwy. 265. Why can't we make that happen? Why are we making these short decisions without forcing the commitment? We have to annex to make good decisions. You can't make a serious short term intermediate decision, those are silly decisions. We need the access to Zion Road. We need the 265 improvements. My wife and I are very committed to Fayetteville so we wish you could make these long term decisions to preserve our quality of life. That is what again, is your primary interest. That is to ensure not only the future but the existing quality of life by the right decisions. Thank you for your time and attention. The article is an excellent article and I commend the paper for that too. Ostner: Thank you Sir. Would anyone else like to comment about this project from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Some of the questions we have been asked to address, first I wanted to ask Ms. Bunch the quality controls on any buildings or any covenants that you might be offering. Bunch: The owners discussed this briefly at the meetings that they attended. They intend to have similar or better homes than are constructed in Stonewood and Copper Creek. The lot sizes are the same, we expect the same houses. Ostner: Just one quick note, there is a stub out to the north. Bunch: There is an additional stub out to the east to the planned Copper Creek subdivision. Ostner: A stub out is a street that just stops at the property line and when development happens to the north it will be hopefully a through street to Albright, that is the idea. Bunch: Based on the current plans as I understand them, things are actually in process now that within two to three years all of those connections will be made as well as to Albright that will connect through the stub out that is provided to the east here. The Hwy. 265 issue, Dawn informed us that at Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 43 the time that Stonewood Subdivision went in the visibility of the Graystone and Hwy. 265 intersection was a concern but there was a sight visibility study that was required at that point in time. I will agree with the residents that it is a difficult turn. It is always a difficult turn when you turn left into oncoming traffic on a major arterial. That study did show that there was adequate sight visibility at that location. The additional access point to Copper Creek will again, be facilitated through the east/west connection that is made to Copper Creek III. Copper Creek I is to the west and below our property. Copper Creek II and III are to the east there. Those are platted subdivisions that are currently under construction. Ostner: Thank you. Staff, on the issue of Hwy. 265, and I understand this intersection does have proper sight distances, just for the audience, the people who have to use that, what might happen? I understand that there is a five lane proposal in the talk. Warrick: I don't know that I can say anything more than what you've said and what we've determined through looking back at the history of the Stonewood subdivision. We checked the sight distances when we looked at a connection to an arterial and the condition of the road is the way that it is right now. There is a desire within the administration and the City Council to see improvements made to make that a better functioning through there. It is a principal arterial that can carry a lot of traffic. It is meant to, it is a state highway. Ostner: What about a signal at Albright or Hearthstone or Graystone? Would that possibly be part of the discussion with the five lane from the Council? Warrick: I'm sure that there are a lot of things that could be part of the discussion and that is not outside of the realm of possibility. It is probably not to the point yet that it would be necessary in order for the Highway Department to approve signalization at that intersection. The warrants have to be met at a specific point in time in order for the Highway Department to release approvals for the installation of a signal and it takes quite a bit of traffic to do that. Meeting those demands at one peak hour isn't enough to warrant that installation. That is something that we can ask our Transportation Department to look at. They generally assist in doing analysis to submit to the Highway Department whether or not it is appropriate to install signalization. It is probably appropriate to start looking at that. Especially considering that this is not the last of the property in this area to go through the review process for development approval. We are still looking at requests in this area for annexation and zoning and there are several phases of other subdivisions that are proposed to be installed out here. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 44 Anthes: I know a lot of the residents have commented that it seems like Graystone Drive was the only way that construction traffic and other traffic would have to access this subdivision during and after construction. I'm reading it differently so I would like clarification from either staff or Ms. Bunch. These other subdivisions that are shown here in white are platted and under construction now, right? Bunch: Yes. Anthes: The way I'm understanding it is those are ahead of you in the development process. This project when it would go through would follow those probably in how it is worked out. If everything proceeds according to normal development practices where they are in the stage of things it looks to me like when this subdivision goes in there will be two connections to Zion Road, one connection to George Anderson Road, two connections at Hwy. 265 and then two future connections to Albright Road with Phase II of this subdivision. Is that true? Am I reading that correctly? Warrick: That sounds right. Bunch: The concept for Phase II does address the connectivity to Albright in the cardinal direction. However, that layout is subject to further staff review and that land is currently under the control of the county and also a portion of it is within the City of Springdale. Anthes: If we discount the unknowns we would have nothing to Albright but we are certain that we are going to have two to Zion, one to George Anderson and two to Hwy. 265. Graystone is actually one of five outlets that this subdivision will have when it is constructed, correct? Bunch: Yes. Shackelford: Staff, do we have signed conditions approval on this? Morgan: Yes we do. Shackelford: I think I am going to go ahead and try to formulate a motion here. I concur with everything that has been said here. During the development process it always seems to be more of a bottleneck and more of a traffic issue than after development is done and these things tie together. I happen to live across the street from the gentleman who spoke to us last and I would love to see all of those things that he asked for occur. Hwy. 265 entrance is manageable but it is not the best thing in the world. Hopefully, it s a state highway that will be addressed. Albright connection would be a great connection to add to this. We will continue to address that through Phase II. There are some issues with that going into Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 45 Springdale and how we are going to do that. I do see that happening at some point down the road. Zion Road would be great to have improved. It is a county road, unfortunately, it is up to the County and not the City of Fayetteville to do that so we have very little day in that. There is connection opportunities in basically every direction from this property. As it develops out I think that that will alleviate itself. Currently, our ordinances ask for planned growth and connectivity from neighborhood to neighborhood which is exactly what this does. I am going to have to find that this falls in line with the ordinances and the requests and the desires of the City of Fayetteville as they exist now. I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 04-1161 with specific findings to allow the cul-de- sac lengths as addressed in conditions number one and two based on the length of the neighborhood. Ostner: Do I have a second? Vaught: I will second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Anthes: I just have one other comment. That is that the P.O.A. area with the pond, you know me I'm never really in favor of a real long cul-de-sac but we discussed this at Subdivision and we are convinced that their plan was substantiated by the preservation area and the fact that their major roadways are also taking advantage of that as a scenic route for other people traveling to the neighborhood as well as a private park that is viewed by the public as a good amenity to the neighborhood. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1161 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 46 LSD 04-1149: Large Scale Development (ELDER CONDOMINIUMS): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at SALEM ROAD, N OF WEDINGTON. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to approve an apartment complex with 116 bedrooms and 145 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item is LSD 04-1149 for Elder Condominiums. Pate: The subject property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The Planning Commission has seen this in a couple of different forms. A Conditional Use was approved allowing Use Unit 26, multi -family dwellings, on this subject property. The specific lot was platted in April of this year with the Final Plat for Salem Townhouses. Conditions of approval for the CUP 03-31.00 as attached with your staff report stipulated certain conditions including a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre, a Large Scale Development being processed, which we are in the process of reviewing currently. The screening of utilities, trash enclosures, planting of street trees along Salem Road among other items. The subject LSD entitled Elder Condominiums is proposed to meet these requirements as well as all other applicable ordinances. The applicant is requesting to develop the subject property with 58 two bedroom condominium units for a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. A total of 116 bedrooms are proposed with a total of 145 parking spaces to serve future residents and visitors. A wrought iron fence is proposed to surround the development on the south, east and west along with a fence and vegetative screen along the north property boundary adjacent to the existing single family residences. Access is proposed from the existing curb cut along Salem Road, which was constructed with the Arkansas National Bank. The developer is required to build a private street with 6' sidewalks to city standards along the south boundary for future connectivity. This is part of the conditions of approval for both the Conditional Use and the Final Plat for this particular development. On the tree preservation numbers, the existing is 2.2%. You will notice that preserved is 0.01%. Even though the developer is not proposing to remove any trees, the reason for this is that the existing trees are located within a recorded utility easement. All the measures necessary have been taken to hopefully preserve these trees. Staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development with 19 conditions of approval. I will go over a couple of those for you. 1) Planning Commission determination of the Conditional Use compliance. I have included that report. I will not list those conditions for you now. That is a determination that staff wishes you to make for this project. 2) Any grading proposed within 5' of the property line shall be done only with written permission of adjacent property owners. This situation does occur along the north and south property boundaries in numerous locations. 3) The stub out connection to the south for future cross access at the far western drive aisle requires Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 47 permission of the adjoining property owner for the proposed grading on the adjacent property as noted on your plat. The stub out shall be constructed to the south property line with the subject project. This particular condition results from the Subdivision Committee meeting. Before it was not stubbed out to the property lines, this is one of those conditions that came forward. Also, number four pertains to this issue as well. Fencing along the south property line shall be constructed such that future vehicular connection is readily evident and possible without extensive reconstruction and removal of that fence. Items five and six are to the plat submitted. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the affected building, the existing 20' utility easement along the overhead electric line on the southwest corner of the property shall be formally vacated and the overhead line relocated underground. The applicant has indicated that this will occur. 6) Additionally, the building proposed for the northwest corner currently violates the R -O setback ordinances with regard to height. Based on the information supplied by the applicant at the last Subdivision Committee meeting the building requires an additional 6' of setback for it's 26' height. The site plan shall be revised and submitted for staff review prior to the issuance of a building permit. Items seven through nineteen are pretty self explanatory. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services, the engineer for the project. I've got with me Mr. Steve Miller who is the architect for the project, along with Chris and Carrie Elder, the owners. We do have a letter from the adjacent property owner to the south. We were able to get that to handle the stub out to the south to be able to grade on their property as well as saying that we can grade within 5' of their property. To the north we have adjusted the grading to allow us to be back 5' on the north side so we don't have to get letters on that end. We are all here and would be happy 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 to this Large Scale Development? Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. ??: I own the property to the west of the proposed development. They have answered a couple of questions. I think I heard it said that there was going to be a wrought iron fence constructed, is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 48 ??: That was one concern. My house sits back off the road some distance by itself and I was kind of concerned about easy access to it by potentially hundreds of people. Do you know how tall that is intended to be? Moore: It is 6'. ??: The other concern was about drainage. That property is a little bit higher in elevation than mine and I know that the property that fronts Wedington is owned by someone else, but I've got a drainage issue there that I've addressed with some folks at the city. I just want to make sure that where my house actually sits, which is adjacent to where this is going to be built that I will not have a drainage problem there. That was it. Ostner: You live at the northwest corner of this proposal? ??: It would be the whole west side. Ostner: We will talk about that. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. If we could get a response from staff about protecting this man's property from any drainage. Casey: We can guarantee through the construction review process that there is no adverse impact to the adjacent properties. I have already stated through our plat review comments that this is something that the applicant needs to address. Their comments I might need to refer to Mr. Moore. Moore: We are actually pulling all of our water to the east into a detention pond. No water from our property will be going to the west. Shackelford: Have you reviewed these conditions of approval? Moore: Yes Sir. Shackelford: Do you have any issues with these conditions of approval? Moore: No Sir. Shackelford: Thank you. Ostner: On condition number four, could you elaborate on that Mr. Pate? I'm not sure exactly what that means. Pate: Essentially, what we would like to see is that whatever is constructed along that fence line, the south property line, are not installed in such a manner that it will take extensive reconstruction or reinstallation of that Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 49 fence. There should be a street connection readily evident and available for future development of that commercial property to the south. Ostner: This seems to be not very important, but on condition number five there is a typo that makes a distance. The southwest corner of the property shall be "formally" rather than "formerly" vacated. Anthes: The way I see condition number four it looks like there would be a section of fence that would have standards on both sides that would just pop out, is that what you are getting at? Warrick: Ideally that is what we expect. If it is possible that it is just a panel that would come out so that when development to the south occurs that you don't have to tear down the south property line of fencing to ensure that there is vehicular access to the lot that is developed south of this property. Anthes: Another question regarding the fence, and something that I touched on briefly at Subdivision, I know that we have different fencing materials that are options for us and since we have the neighboring property owner to the west here my concern was erecting a wrought iron fence allows vision, unobstructed vision through it, and they have a lot of backyards and back elevations lined up that face that west property line, which would be a clear view of those through a wrought iron fence. I didn't know if the applicant had considered providing a fence that had more visual obstruction there so that the privacy of the adjacent property owner might be more preserved? That was one comment. The other comment I have, I have a question about condition of approval number six. Has staff or the applicant reviewed this condition and felt that that could be absorbed within the existing site plan or will that require a major reconfiguration? Moore: We can just adjust our buildings to allow us meet setbacks. Anthes: We are going to have a drawing that looks almost identical to this is what you are saying? Moore: Correct. Anthes: I guess I just have one other general comment about this development that I made at Subdivision Committee. We have seen several of these developments where the city street ends up being the parking lot through the development. Warrick: This is not a city street. Anthes: So it is an internal drive. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 50 Warrick: It is an internal access drive for this private development. Anthes: Ok. It is a street but it is an access drive, it will function as a street though. That kind of blending is something that I think can work really, really well but I'm not sure it works well the way we've been doing it. Particularly when we have driveways and garages that are forward at the building and entrances that are back. I don't think that we are building community and doing what we are intending to do with multi -family. It meets our development ordinances but I just wanted to go on the record to state that I think that there are ways to configure multi -family developments that are more in keeping with our intent with community building in the City of Fayetteville. Allen: I would be curious to know how affordable these town homes might be. Elder, C.: We think that they will be in the $125,000 to $145,000 range. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on staff's findings and report included, I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1149 subject to all 19 conditions of approval. Myres: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1149 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 51 PZD 04-1159: Planned Zoning District (BEACON FLATS): Submitted by MORGAN HOOKER for property located at 867 N COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned R - O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to approve a Planned Zoning Development with office space and 9 dwelling units proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is a Planned Zoning District, R-PZD 04-1159 for Beacon Flats. Trumbo: I need to recuse myself from this item. Pate: Many of you may remember this property, the old Nick's Auto Lube. We saw a Conditional Use last year to rehabilitate the property. This is a different applicant, the same property. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The applicant is requesting a R-PZD on the .69 acres. It is located at College Avenue, Pollard Avenue and Cleburn Street. The applicant proposes with the PZD a rezoning and Large Scale Development approval for a mixed use redevelopment consisting of three buildings. The applicant proposes to renovate the building at the corner of Cleburn and College into a 2,500 sq.ft. office space. The connecting building to the west is to be demolished and rebuilt into two two bedroom apartments and two one bedroom apartments with six parking spaces located underneath. An entirely new building is also proposed on the site housing five two bedroom apartments with two parking spaces underneath each. The applicant also proposes to construct on street parking to meet parking demands along with patio landscape plantings, lighting and outdoor courtyards. Page 7.1 I put together a chart for you essentially showing the requirements of parking spaces and the amount of square footage proposed. The number of units total is nine. Therefore, the proposed density for this PZD is 13 dwelling units per acre. A total of 2,718 sq.ft. of office space is also proposed. The development is proposed to have one means of vehicular access onto the site from Pollard Avenue. All other access points are on street or pedestrian oriented. Buildings are near the street. There is on street parking proposed and the placement of landscaping for the development has been situated to create a desirable pedestrian oriented streetscape along the two fronts at Pollard and Cleburn. Parallel parking and sidewalks are incorporated with the development and the on site parking is located to the rear of the structures. The primary greenspace is located along College Avenue with the addition of numerous plantings. The steps that currently lead down to College Avenue are proposed for removal with the reconstruction of a pedestrian access in a safer configuration. Additionally, 6' sidewalks are proposed with this development to connect to those along Cleburn Street. Careful selection of plants for the comer of Cleburn Street and College Avenue is also necessary and we have been working with the applicant to ensure safe sight distance lines for the east bound traffic going onto College Avenue. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 52 Architectural elevations of the proposed structures have been submitted for the Planning Commission review. The materials and the situation of these structures does lend itself to a transition from the commercial development along College Avenue to the single family residential neighborhood approximately one block to the west in the Wilson Park neighborhood association. As you know the site is currently an abandoned automobile gas service station. A tall retaining wall exists along the eastern boundary of the site, which is essentially the Highway Department's boundary along Hwy. 71B. Surrounding properties are primarily Residential Office or Thoroughfare Commercial in nature. Existing tree preservation, there is a certified arborist report in your staff report. As you will notice, with most PZDs we like to see a high percentage of tree canopy preserved. In this situation existing is 17% and preserved is 0%. Mitigation is $3,300 into the tree fund. That attached arborist's report along with the Landscape Administrator's evaluation indicate that the trees on the site currently are in a great state of decline. With regard to findings for a PZD, the proposed redevelopment of this site into a mixed use residential office space, staff finds that this achieves the transition between the commercial development along College Avenue and the single family residential only one block west. It will contribute to the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. Staff is recommending approval of this R-PZD with 15 conditions of approval. A couple of those are Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Planning Commission determination of lesser dedication of right of way along College Avenue. This will have to go forward as a separate request in tandem with the R-PZD. College Avenue is currently a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan requiring 55' from centerline right of way dedication. The applicant requests the dedication of 45' from centerline along College Avenue, the dedication necessary for a minor arterial, due to the constrained nature of Hwy. 71 in this location. Staff is supporting this request. Item number three is a little unique, in that Planning Commission determination and confirmation of the Fayetteville Board of Director's Ordinance #964 passed in 1950 vacating 5' right of way along the eastern side of Pollard Avenue. Obviously, our Master Street Plan has been created since then. Staff is recommending in support of this confirmation of the vacated right of way. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Cooper: My name is Tim Cooper, I'm the architect and developer for this project. I will just give you a little history on the project. I looked at the project with a partner probably six years ago and couldn't make it work. There have been a few projects that have tried to go in there since then and haven't been able to make it work. This last time we looked at it again and we think we have a project that really comments the neighborhood Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 53 and will be a good project for the city and it works for us. The project itself, there are really three parts. There are townhouses on the top part of the site, there are five of them with on street parking in the front and we have in the covenants that the residents actually park in the rear so they won't actually be parking vehicles in the front. That helps on parking. We actually have rear garages and then also stacked parking for them in the back as well. Then we have a garage that is underneath the other four residences, which there are two that are one story, single bedroom flats and then there are two that are two story two bedroom lofts. Then we have that professional office space, there is 2,700 sq.ft. of professional office. Part of that space will be my office. Also, we did see the conditions of approval and signed them. If there are any questions I will be glad to answer them. Ostner: I will open it to the public if there is anyone who would like to speak to this issue? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: A question of the applicant. I am a little confused, on the east elevation as it is proposed, the first time I saw this there were two different stairways. One of them has been taken out and one is shown tonight. Does that stairwell stay and if so, does it stay in the configuration that it is drawn here or will it change again? Cooper: That was one of the issues. This stairwell is the one that will be abandoned. If you go down it, it almost just throws you out into traffic. We actually brought this one back into the site so it is a lot safer and there is also this greenspace increased to level this out a little bit. Shackelford: How far does that stairwell sit off the highway approximately? Cooper: It is probably 3' at the foot of the stairwell. Vaught: I have one question. As far as along College is there additional screening along the parking lot and the top retaining wall? I know on one of these drawings it does show some plantings in that greenspace, are those garage doors going to be screened? Cooper: Yes. Then there is also going to be some plantings here. Vaught: So the garage doors will somewhat be screened from College? Cooper: That is correct. There should be some plantings in those area. Planning Commission August 23, 2004 Page 54 Vaught: On condition of approval number seven do we need to add language for on site mitigation as we did earlier tonight, the payment in tree fund in case they can do on site mitigation in lieu of fees? Pate: Due to site constraints on this property the landscaping there is actually required landscaping per our landscape ordinance which is separate and distinct from the tree preservation ordinance. Anthes: I think this is an extremely positive project for the City of Fayetteville. It takes a currently derelict property and not only causes it to meet our ordinances but I believe strongly inverses the spirit of the Downtown Master Plan intent for infill development and mixed use. I know that the applicant has met with the neighbors and has a positive response there. Because of those things, I would like to move that we forward R-PZD 04- 1159 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval and with a positive finding on conditions of approval one through three. Allen: I would like to second saying that this is a bonanza to that presently unattractive site on College Avenue. Myres: I would also like to add that I would hope it would be some impotence to surrounding properties since they will then look even worse than they do now that that will make them think about making improvements in the area in general. I think this is an all around great thing. Ostner: I would concur with those comments. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 04-1159 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Trumbo abstaining. Announcements Ostner: We are adjourned. Thank you.