Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 8, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 04-1301: (FOGHORN'S) Denied Page 3 PPL 04-1263: (BRIDGEDALE S/D, 569) Approved Page 14 PPL 04-1264: (MAPLE VALLEY S/D, 363) Approved Page 23 PPL 04-1271: (RIVER HILLS S/D, 569) Approved Page 27 LSD 04-1266: (KEATING-TOWNSHIP BLDG., 290) Approved Page 31 R-PZD 04-1154: (CLIFFSIDE, 526) Forwarded to City Council Page 34 ADM 04-1304: (ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM/TERMINELLA) Approved Page 43 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Christine Myres Candy Clark James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Brent O'Neal Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 2 Ostner: Good evening. Welcome to the November 8th meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight commissioners present with Commissioner Graves being absent. Ostner: Item number two has been tabled by the applicant. That is VAC 04-1255. We will revisit that item at a later date. The first item is the approval of the minutes from the October 25`h meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Clark: So moved. Allen: Second. Ostner: Call the roll please. 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 November 8, 2004 Page 3 ADM 04-1301: Administrative Item (FOGHORN'S): The request is to appeal the requirement for a sidewalk. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is ADM 04-1301 for Foghorns. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: Our first item tonight involves a project you saw recently with a Conditional Use request for the Foghorns restaurant. Back in October, a little less than a month ago, the Planning Commission voted to allow a Conditional Use request for an outdoor music establishment located at Foghorns restaurant, which is at 2175 N. College Avenue. All Conditional Use Permits require the Sidewalk Administrator to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for either construction of a 6' sidewalk built to city standards and specifications or the other option is a money in lieu fee for the sidewalk construction and that amount was determined to be $1,579.50. The Sidewalk Administrator did make a recommendation that the sidewalk be constructed in this area. His findings are included on page 1.3 with a memo supplementing this packet. His findings include a physical inspection of the surrounding properties, existing sidewalks in the nearby area, potential for future pedestrian connection and the need for these connections in this area, and then a comparison of similar Conditional Use requests in the same area. As he mentions in his memo, at least three other properties in this general vicinity have had a Conditional Use request and been required to construct sidewalks. The administrative item tonight is for the applicant to appeal the Sidewalk Administrator's recommendation to the Planning Commission based on applicable code sections, which I have also attached. The request is to completely negate the requirement for a sidewalk or money in lieu in this location. Staff's recommendation, which was approved with the conditions of approval, was an ordinance requirement in which all Conditional Use requests are subject to. Attached is a memo from the appellant along with applicable code sections, which you can find on page 1.5, stating that an owner or builder may appeal the Sidewalk Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. Page 1.6 itemizes the required dedications and improvements section and basically, the appeal is based on the applicant's findings that the improvements are in excess of the rough proportionality of the impact of the development on the city's infrastructure. Staff is recommending in favor of the original conditions of approval and for denial of this applicant's request. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 4 Hodges: I'm Jeff Hodges, owner of Foghorns. Really, Jeremy summed it all up with what we are asking for. I brought with me photos of the subject property from different angles. Ostner: Hodges: Ostner: Hodges: Ostner: Shackelford: Williams: Shackelford: Trumbo: Pate: Does that complete your presentation? Unless you have any questions. I'm sure you all have a letter too. We can ask in a few minutes. Ok, great. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions, comments or motions. I have a question of the City Attorney if I could please. My question, as I look at this, is obviously, we are looking at this as an appeal process and I look at this it could be appealed if the improvements were in excess of rough proportionality. Is that rough proportionality in regards to the existing use of the property or is it in regards to additional traffic that the approval of this Conditional Use will add to this? It would be the rough proportionality of the increase in needs to our infrastructure. In other words, there is an existing property right now, but now that they are asking for a different kind of use or an additional use, then there may be some presumption that there will be an increased use on our infrastructure. That is what you would be looking at. You have wide discretion here as a Planning Commission determining what to do. Basically, almost from one to a hundred, 100% of what the staff has recommended down to 0% as they are asking, and anywhere in between so you have a great discretion in here. Whatever you believe would fit the rough proportionality requirements of our code. Thank you very much. He just showed us some photos that have a parking lot and then there were some islands of grass and a couple of entrance signs. Is that where the sidewalk would go or would it set back behind the islands? It would actually be set back behind the island at the Master Street Plan right of way line. If you look on page 1.17 of the packet, you can see that island is out in the right of way, that is the current right of way. The Master Street Plan right of way is actually back where that handicapped spot is. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 5 Trumbo: So it would not go through the dirt islands? Pate: Trumbo: Pate: Vaught: It would not. It would just be on the pavement? That is correct. I would assume this would mean they would lose parking spaces because you would be putting your sidewalk right through parking spaces. Ostner: This is something most of us drive by everyday. I appreciate these photos. The sidewalks are patchy along this stretch. However, there is also a dirt cattle path of people walking anyway without the sidewalk. I think there is a need for it I think there is a reason we have this on the books being the requirement to have the sidewalk. I tend to think that we need to hold the requirement in place. MOTION: Anthes: Allen: Williams: I'm trying to think about recent action this commission has taken and I'm remembering a motor car lot that we had a lengthy discussion about and I believe we upheld the sidewalk requirement there. I think we have had a couple of cases where the sidewalks were not able to be constructed because there was some sort of a ditch or something in the area in which case we took money in lieu, but I believe we took the full money in lieu in those cases. Then I'm also referring to the departmental correspondence from our Sidewalk Administrator where he claims that adjacent properties to the north and south of this particular property were required to construct sidewalks as part of the Conditional Use requirement. Seeing those things and knowing that this body has the discretion but also bas the charge to treat developments fairly and equally, I would move for denial of the request for appeal of this item. I second. If you would please consider as part of any motion, you should determine what the rough proportionality of the impact of this new facility is and whether or not the question that is stated in the ordinance is whether the required dedications, here we are talking about sidewalk, and the improvements meet the rough proportionality of the impact of developments on the city infrastructure that is being required. That really needs to be a part of any motion about whether or not the required development, the required improvements that have been sought by the city, if they in fact, meet the constitutional test of rough proportionality impact of this new business upon the sidewalk needs of the city. That Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 6 really needs to be addressed in any motion. It is not whether or not we need sidewalks or whether they would be good here or not good here. The whole test is whether their are new business, their changed business, it's impact on our sidewalk infrastructure needs meet the requirements of requiring them to build a sidewalk, is that a fair portion, their new business, to the cost of building the sidewalk? Anthes: That sounds like an economic assessment that we haven't really been provided numbers for in our packet. However, I would say that I'm thinking of other businesses, such as daycares that the building is already existing and that business is existing, and we have assessed sidewalk fees for those projects, as well as when I look at the area that this portable stage will serve, it looks to about double the seating capacity of the restaurant. Which, to me, you would have built a new fast food restaurant on that site that only had internal seating like a lot of them do. In those cases, we would indeed, assess the sidewalk. Without having hard numbers in front of me and putting it on the test of basic conceptual plans and what this is going to be for I believe we do meet those standards. Ostner: Also, there is a neighborhood probably not 200 yards from this strip. The Woodland Junior High and the entire neighborhood is to the west of here and ideally, this restaurant, just like the Dickson Street downtown area could be walked to quite easily from many neighbors in the area if there were a way. I would tend to agree that our granting of the Conditional Use did increase the possibility of pedestrians. To me, that addresses the rough proportionality test. Trumbo: It is an 8x8 stage so it is 64 sq.ft. only going to be used nine months of the year hours from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. To me, it doesn't sound like the usage is going to be enough to warrant this expense. I will probably be voting against it on rough proportionality. I would be in favor of a smaller amount of money in lieu but that is why I'm going to vote against. Ostner: Just to be clear, I believe that the original Conditional Use was not for an 8x8 stage, but it was for outdoor music. That makes a big difference. That changes a restaurant into an entertainment venue. To me, that significantly changes your market. Warrick: The applicant did build an 8x8 platform to provide for entertainers. They also built a 784 sq.ft. deck area for outdoor entertainment to supplement that stage. Trumbo: I'm sorry, I thought we were just talking about an 8x8 sq.ft. space. Vaught: I'm having trouble with rough proportionality a little bit. Our Conditional Use was for outdoor music, not for a deck, not for a platform. In order to Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 7 have 100% assessment, I don't know, not knowing what our normal calculations are, I know we have calculations on homes, I know we did one on a daycare for increased traffic on Mission. Do we have anything like that for a restaurant verses an entertainment facility as far as traffic counts or expected use? Warrick: Rough proportionality is a judgment call by the Planning Commission. It is your decision as to whether or not you feel that the amount of impact exceeds or is equal to the amount of improvement that is being proposed. What we do for commercial development is if there is an option offered by the Sidewalk Administrator, that option is to either install the sidewalk or to play an equivalent fee based on the linear frontage of the property. That fee is $3 per square foot. That is what we come to as far as how we base this type of requirement. If this lot were wider than it is deep then maybe there would be a situation. This particular lot is fairly narrow, adjacent to College Avenue and deep running to the west. There is not a significant amount of frontage when you compare the geometry of the lot. There may be differences based on the size of different lots that you are considering that might have impact based on the amount of foot traffic that they would draw and whether or not it would then be proportional because of their physical characteristics for instance. In this particular case they really don't have a whole lot of frontage and I think it is reasonable to expect that having this additional attraction at their place of business will draw additional foot traffic as well as vehicular traffic. Vaught: I wasn't at the last meeting, so if you could enlighten me on why we struck the money in lieu option? Warrick: That was the recommendation of the Sidewalk Administrator. When we originally published the agenda we didn't have a hard recommendation from him. His recommendation is for construction. Shackelford: Obviously, if you read the minutes, I'm one of the ones that spoke out about this requirement. Does outdoor music cause more foot traffic? I think you hit the nail on the head that that is a judgment call that we have the authority to have the discretion to make that call. Where I'm still struggling is common sense wise. I personally don't know that not having a sidewalk here interferes with pedestrian traffic anymore than having a sidewalk here would encourage it. I struggle with the requirement to rip up a slab of black top and replace it with a slab of concrete. It doesn't connect to anything on either side. In my mind, this is a lot like some of the Conditional Uses that we approved for the daycares earlier where we gave the applicant the option for money in lieu instead of building a sidewalk where there is already asphalt. I don't know what we gain by that. I would ask the motioner if they would be willing to add the option for money in lieu to the motion as it stands? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 8 Anthes: Ostner: Warrick: Ostner: Vaught: Pate: Ostner: Shackelford: I guess I would say that the Stephanie's Gentlemen's Cabaret is not necessarily one that might add a lot of foot traffic for the same reason outdoor music doesn't and yet they were required to install the sidewalk. In the same way that we require sidewalks in residential areas to go through driveways there is a visual cue that is given to pedestrians that this is your zone and is not an auto controlled area and therefore, I would like to see the sidewalk installed as per the recommendations of our Sidewalk Administrator and city staff. Staff, in granting this or considering it, do we have the latitude to over rule the Sidewalk Administrator and offer money in lieu? Yes you do. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes. The Sidewalk Administrator, this is his job to decide whether a sidewalk is needed here o if the money in lieu can be spent in the district better. We have that all the time where a sidewalk is not appropriate and the Sidewalk Administrator says if we just had that money in lieu we could build one over there where we need it. I would tend to agree with the motioner. I'm like Commissioner Shackelford. I have trouble with this for another reason because we are losing parking spaces when we do this. Do they still comply with our parking ordinance if they lose two spaces or whatever they will lose? I believe, based on their correspondence to you in the packet, they are sharing spaces directly behind with the office building as well, so I believe they would meet the requirement. I'm not sure how many spaces will be lost. We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? I'm going to vote against the motion, not necessarily because I don't think we need sidewalks in this area or that this applicant should be treated different than any other applicants. I honestly think the money in lieu is the proper direction that we need to go in this area. I served on this Commission prior to the money in lieu option. For many years we looked at these projects where we required people to build sidewalks that didn't tie to anything that ended at the property line, that replaced areas that didn't need sidewalks. I believe Commissioner Marr and some other people fought very hard to get this option in lieu for this specific opportunity so that the Planning Commission can make a determination so that this sidewalk that may or may not be used anymore or may or may not tie into any additional sidewalks in the future needs to be built or if that Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 9 money could be better used in the neighborhood surrounding the development. I think that is the proper decision to make at this point. Although it looks like I'm voting in favor of treating this differently than we have before, I'm voting against it for how the motion has been made. My opinion is that we need to look at a money in lieu situation and try to put this money to work in the district in an area that needs sidewalks more than this particular business. MOTION TO AMEND: Vaught: I might make a motion to amend the motion to include the money in lieu option. Ostner: We will vote to consider the amendment. Vaught: I will formally make that motion. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: The motion is exactly to amend it to include money in lieu. Is there further discussion on this amendment first? First we will vote on the amendment and then if it passes or fails we will vote on the original motion. Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to amend the original motion to allow a money in lieu option was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to three. Ostner: Commissioner Anthes' motion has been amended. Anthes: My comment would be that if this piece, accepting money in lieu essentially negates the sidewalk idea all together. Not because it is a different piece of paving material but because this area is striped as parking and there will be cars parked where this alleged, inferred sidewalk will be. Therefore, I stand with my original statement. How does this read now? Williams: The motion would be the requirement for sidewalk construction meets the rough proportionality of the impact of development on city sidewalk infrastructure but the petitioner may choose money in lieu of construction of the sidewalk. Is that what your motion should say? Anthes: I would like to withdraw my motion. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 10 Allen: I would like to withdraw my second. MOTION: Shackelford: Vaught: Warrick: Shackelford: Clark: Warrick: Clark: Warrick: Clark: I will make a motion as stated by our City Attorney Williams for the record. That includes the finding of fact that the rough proportionality test has been met and it does allow the applicant the opportunity to pay money in lieu in the amount of $1,579.50 or build a sidewalk per sidewalk specifications. I will second. Is that a motion to approve or deny? Deny the request however, hold them to construction or money in lieu. Can the Sidewalk Administrator, should we pass this motion and they have the option to put the sidewalk in or pay money in lieu, can the Sidewalk Administrator do an evaluation and determine gee, that is where we need a sidewalk and use the money in lieu to put a sidewalk there? Yes he could. There is a master sidewalk plan that the Sidewalk Administrator assists in the development of and our Transportation Division installs. They would use that to prioritize sidewalks within this quadrant of the city if this area perhaps happens to be part of that then it could be installed in this location. I'm thinking that that might be part of what guided his suggestion that we mandate a sidewalk to begin with? There is several criteria that he uses. Whether or not people have actually walked in the area. If there are worn pathways across grass or dirt areas, whether or not it is a priority within the master sidewalk plan, whether or not it looks as though there is a reasonable extension of other pedestrian areas. Those are all criteria that are applied. Let me ask you the silly civic question here. If we pass this as amended to require money in lieu or a sidewalk, assuming that they are not going to build a sidewalk, they pay money in lieu, how would a citizen who would like to see a sidewalk across Foghorn's trying to get to Woodland Junior High, go about pestering the Sidewalk Administrator to put one in? Warrick: They can reach the Sidewalk Administrator through the Engineering Division. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 11 Clark: Well isn't that neat! Anthes: My intention of course, is to vote against this because of the reasons I stated, but if I vote against the motion to deny, that is insinuating that I'm in favor of the appeal, which I'm not so I'm confused. Williams: I think your comments on the record are clear what your position is. I wouldn't be concerned about it. Whatever way you decide to vote I think people will know why you are voting that way. Clark: If this motion fails then where are we? Williams: Then we still have this issue before us and we'll work it out one way or the other. Allen: I would like my opinion on record too because this confusion of voting against meeting for. It is kind of like the pole signs to me, if we don't start somewhere trying to make that area more walkable then we won't start. It has to be some place. I think that that area is starting to have pieces of sidewalk so that gradually people will be able to walk along College Avenue without fearing for their lives so I don't want money in hen, I want a sidewalk. Ostner: I would agree with you. The difference, is, as Commissioner Clark was clarifying, if we ask for money in lieu the Administrator might have it built here anyway. It might not be any time soon. It could be five years. They have a lot of areas that need sidewalks. The money goes into a pot and they are doling it out here and there. I think Foghorns has their Conditional Use, they are in operation now. I think, I would be curious to know Commissioner Shackelford, before the money in lieu option, did the Sidewalk Administrator, he obviously didn't have the power, but it seems to me that with the money in lieu option the Sidewalk Administrator is making a very important decision whether it is needed now or it could be used somewhere else. In this case he says now and I would tend to respect that decision on his part since that is his job and he is a paid employee to make that decision. Clark: Does he have to make the rough proportionality argument to himself as well? Warrick: No, that is your decision. Ostner: He is making a sidewalk decision. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 12 Myers: I am now so totally confused that I have no idea what I'm going to be voting about. If somebody could clarify what this motion now says one more time. Ostner: This motion holds the applicant to either build it or pay the money in lieu. Our previous approval two weeks ago did not give the money in lieu option. It said you must build it. He wants to appeal the build it and he wants to appeal the money in lieu. However, the current motion does not address that, it simply says he must do one or the other. If you vote yes he will either build the sidewalk or he will pay the money in lieu. Myers: Ostner: Williams: Vaught: Warrick: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: MOTION: Anthes: Allen: Ostner: If we vote no? Then he must build a sidewalk if it fails because the previous Conditional Use will still hold is the way I understand it. If this motion fails then there has to be a motion eventually that will pass so we won't know until that motion is made what they are going to do. I have one question for staff. The other two businesses cited in the memo from the Sidewalk Administrator, Coolwater and Stephanie's, were they required to build it? They were required to build it. I think that both of those were prior to the option and I believe at least one of those was in conjunction with a parking lot permit. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny the appeal but to allow the appellant to either build the sidewalk or deposit money in lieu with the city failed by a vote of 3-5 with Commissioners Clark, Allen, Myers, Anthes and Ostner voting no. The motion fails. I move to deny ADM 04-1301 the request to appeal the requirement for a sidewalk. Second. Shall we discuss this further? Could you call the roll? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 13 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ADM 04-1301 was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Trumbo, Vaught and Shackelford voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to three. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 14 PPL 04-1263: Preliminary Plat (BRIDGEDALE S/D, 569): Submitted by MILHOLLAND CO. for property located at 1341 ROBERTS ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 25 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item will be a Preliminary Plat for Bridgedale. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: The subject property was recently annexed and rezoned to RSF-4 by the City Council in August of this year. The property is located at 1341 Roberts Road, which is south of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 7.47 acres. It contains two tracts of property, west of Roberts Road and accesses into the Stonebridge subdivision to the west. It is surrounded primarily by single family residential or vacant property at this time. The applicant, with this Preliminary Plat, is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision with 25 single family lots proposed. The detention for this subject project is proposed to be offsite on property located within the Planning Area. A Property Line Adjustment will be processed to create a legal lot for this subdivision. Total density of the property being developed is approximately 3.27 dwelling units per acre which does meet our zoning ordinance with a maximum of four units per acre. There are a couple of changes in your staff report that I'd like to make. Primarily, the reference to Eastpoint Drive on your plats has now been changed since the last revision deadline. It is not called Pinnacle Drive. For the right of way being dedicated, 40' for Pinnacle Drive is required. That was the stub out from the Stonebridge Meadows subdivision. Staff is recommending that that right of way dedication and the 24' street that was constructed extend east to Roberts Road. Additionally, staff is recommending a 50' right of way for Northpoint Street, a 28' wide street stubbed to the north and a 28' wide street to be constructed with sidewalks on both sides. I would mention that this is a departure, the Subdivision Committee voted to change this recommendation and so we have a Subdivision Committee recommendation and a staff recommendation in this case. That is outlined in condition number one. The Subdivision Committee actually voted to modify Northpoint Street to a residential street standard with a 24' wide street and a 4' sidewalk within the 40' right of way. For Roberts Road, staff is recommending improvements including 14' from centerline widening including pavement, storm drains and 6' sidewalks along the property's frontage. As per our ordinance requirements, staff has also investigated the width of Roberts Road north of the subject property to Huntsville Road, the nearest arterial. At no point does this existing street have 20' of width. However, as you may have noted in the visit to the site, there has been a recent overlay by the city from Huntsville south to the city limits. That width ranges anywhere from 19' to 19' 10". As you may have noted south of that city limit sign to the subject property, I'm Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 15 not sure what that dimension is, but that portion has not been improved at all at this point. That is about 15' to 16' wide. I mentioned staff's recommendation for Northpoint Street which stubs out to the north. Staff retains our initial recommendation, a residential street, which is a 40' right of way is designed to carry about 300 to 500 cars per day per our Master Street Plan. A local street I believe is designed to carry 4,000 to 6,000 cars per day per our Master Street Plan. There are eleven lots shown fronting onto this street currently with obvious connections in the future either all the way out to Huntsville or to head back east toward Roberts Road. The property is already developed to the west so there can be no connection directly to Stonebridge Meadows at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat at the Planning Commission level. There are eighteen conditions of approval. I won't go over all of those but I would mention item one, which is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. There are three specific streets in there that I've outlined in the staff report. If you would just look over those in your findings. Also, Parks and Recreation Board is recommending parkland fees for this property in the amount of $13,875 due prior to Final Plat. There are a couple of plat revisions there as you can see. Obviously, the property line adjustment to create the detention lot is required as well. An assessment in the amount of $5,500 shall be paid by the developer prior to Final Plat for the un -constructed portion of Northpoint Street stub out to the north (approximately 90' in length). I believe all of the other conditions are self explanatory. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Milholland: I'm Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the developer. We concur with all of the items of the conditions of approval with the exception of item one. I heard Jeremy state on the part of widening Roberts Road from the north end of the proposed development to it says Hwy. 16 but the city has already improved part of that up to the city limits so there is still about 300' down through there. We would concur to widen it if you change it from Hwy. 16 to the city limits, widen it to 20' down to there. The city has already overlaid and paved to almost 20' leaving about 300' from there to the subject property. We do concur with widening it to 20' on that one side. The other item is we concur with the Subdivision Committee's vote to modify the condition on Northpoint Street be reduced to residential street standards of 24' wide and a 4' sidewalk and a 40' right of way. Any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. Otherwise, we respectfully request your approval. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 16 McDonald: I'm Doug McDonald, no relation to the property owner. I own property that adjoins this property. I'm opposed to this at this current time due to a number of conditions. Number one being the amount of traffic in the morning and afternoons that occurs on Hwy. 16. Right now it is currently hazardous to try to make a left hand turn in the morning out of Stonebridge. We are already adding additional traffic with the new Stonebridge addition, which is another 200 houses that is going to exit either Roberts Road of Goff Street down to Hwy. 16. We either need a stop light at Roberts Road to break up the flow or we need to widen Hwy. 16 to allow these cars to make the turn. My other concern is the number of houses on this property and the amount of construction trash that I pick up in my yard every morning just with the small amount of construction that is going on in Stonebridge. I may as well live in the inner-city. Ostner: Would anyone else from the public like to speak? Roberts: Members of the Planning Commission, Mr. City Attorney, Kit Williams, thank you for allowing me the time to come before you to discuss some issues that I have with this development. My name is Eldon Roberts, I live at 1197 S. Roberts Road. This property has been in my family for a hundred years or more before it was sold to the people that the developer just bought it from. To say that I don't know this property and know what the lay of the land is and what the problems are out there would be a vast understatement. I came before the Subdivision Committee two weeks ago and talked to them about this. The property lays just exactly like a bowl. The outside perimeter, 360° all the way around this property, is higher than the center part of it. There is no natural drain to this at all. I assume that the water can be channeled over to the new subdivision just to the west there which is Stonebridge Meadows, but after speaking to Mr. Milholland I understood from him that the city has provisions that you can't take the water from one subdivision and send it to another one and so that even heightened my concern. I spoke with Mr. McDonald and I'm not here to oppose the development of this property. I know what he is trying to do. He is trying to turn a profit and I hope he does. But, we have a really serious problem with this drainage here. I don't know what the seller told Mr. McDonald about the property and the flooding of it but I know I told him personally before his deal was finalized what he was getting into and he went ahead and bought the property anyway. Whatever he is required to do to fix this properly where this won't be a problem I don't think he should be surprised at. All of the houses I'm sure are set to be built on the high part of this property which is just going to enhance the runoff tremendously whenever we cover up the higher elevations of this property with asphalt streets, concrete sidewalks, concrete driveways, the houses themselves. That is going to increase the runoff tremendously and it is going to runoff quicker and more runoff is going to come from this because it is not going to be able to absorb into Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 17 the ground these areas that we cover over with all of this hard surface asphalt and concrete. With that being said, I don't know who's responsibility it is, whether it is this Commission's or the City Engineer, to see that this is done correctly and that this problem doesn't become worse than what it already is. Like I said, I have lived out there all of my life and I'm 57 years old I think I know it as well as anybody in this room tonight for sure what can happen out there. It would be easy to say that this property doesn't flood, we have had some rain in the last few days. It is not those kinds of rains, it is after a rain comes for a day or two that saturates the ground, a slow drizzle for a day or two and then whenever a rain comes behind that, a 2" or more rain, which we have several of in this part of the country in any given year. At that point in time that is whenever it floods. There is a lady just south of me, I think she has written a letter where water actually gets in her garage. I don't know where the water will go eventually it will build up deep enough to go over Roberts Road I guess to the south of where I live but by that time it would probably be 2' or 3' deep out in the lowest part of this low area that is surrounded by the outside perimeter that is higher. The offsite detention pond that they are referring to, it is offsite from where the houses are going to be built, but it is still onsite as far as being within this property that is surrounded by the higher perimeter on the outside. These ponds that I'm seeing around town being built appear to me to have a means about which they drain after they fill so full. If that is the case, these ponds, once they fill so full are going to drain back out onto the same piece of property in the low lying area where the outside edge is higher than the center. I don't know what could be done but I'm asking that this Commission or the City Engineer monitor this. The gentleman was told what he was getting into before he ever bought the property so whatever he has to do to make it correct, I don't think he should be surprised at. Thank you for your time. Ostner: Would any other members of the public like to speak about this subdivision? Pumble: My name is Jeff Pumble. I'm a 17 year resident of Roberts Road. I would concur with both of the items that the previous people have stated. There is definitely a problem with traffic as well as the water issue on the land. Three or four times a year it definitely ends up under water. Aside from the problems people mentioned earlier, it is kind of interesting for the kids and I to go browse when it gets under water. I'm sure there is something that could be done for that and I'm all for progress but we need to look at the overall perspective of this land. There is a small corner of Roberts Road, you guys come down probably ''A mile with the city limits and then there is a spot where it is county road and as soon as it makes the loop it is city again. I'm not sure why the discontinuity is there but it doesn't look like it has been very well thought out as far as an addition to the city. I'm Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 18 right across Roberts Road from the land in question. I have been trying to get into the city limits for a number of years. I know that sounds odd to want to pay more taxes and things but in a long run I think it would help me. I am all for the progress, I hope the extension goes in. I do feel that that may be a few more houses on that tract of land than what is preferred I suppose. It doesn't look like it is going to match that well with Stonebridge Meadows as far as the size of the houses as opposed to the amount of acreage per house. That is purely speculation on my part. Those are some of my concerns and some of the statements that I would like to add to this adventure. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further comment from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Mr. Milholland, if you would like to address us you may. Milholland: Just to respond again to the comments regarding the existing conditions that are there with Mr. Eldon Roberts and his neighbors. The city drainage ordinance requires us to handle all additional increased flow, which we have said before that we intend to do and I'm sure that Mr. O'Neal will see that we are doing. He is familiar with this also. Anthes: I have a couple of questions. Obviously, the drainage and the street width were the two items that were discussed the most at length at Subdivision Committee. As far as our recommendation from that level, we had requested that Mr. O'Neal and Mr. Roberts and the applicant all go out and visit the site and look at the conditions there and existing conditions downstream and then have City Engineering look into this and make a recommendation. I was wondering if staff had further comment O'Neal: Not at this time. I did get a chance to visit the site. I did not get to visit with the applicant or Mr. Roberts however, I did look at the site during a rain, but not a very hard rain. It was very difficult to see just how the property drained. Other than that, I really can't comment on the existing conditions not having witnessed it or having done a detailed study. Anthes: That is frustrating for us of course. What we had come up with is we understand that the drainage and the retention has to be calculated and it has to meet city staff's approval before this project can be built. It is our understanding in comments made that there is an existing pond that was going to be widened, deepened and improved that in calculations was going to over retain what was expected to be generated from this site and therefore, actually make the runoff less than it currently is, is that true Mr. O'Neal? O'Neal: That is correct. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 19 Anthes: That is what we had to go on for our recommendation. The other question that we had discussed was the widening for Roberts Road. Staff was going to go out and see how far the city had actually improved that. Would staff be able to tell us is 19'2" an accurate width that that road has actually been widened by the city? Pate: It varies in different locations. I believe Mr. O'Neal measured in several different locations anywhere from 19' to 19' 10" in some locations. Basically, from Huntsville Road south to where the city limits sign is about 300' or so. Anthes: So we are talking about 2" or 10" of width that would be short of the 20'? Why would we be requiring the applicant to put in a 2" to 10" strip of pavement? It doesn't even seem possible to add a 2" strip of asphalt along a road. O'Neal: I believe I can clarify that. In some locations the road is at 15' wide. I believe that is at the point where the applicant is going to be building a street to city standards. A standard requirement is that the street accessing the site be a minimum 20' in width. Anthes: Ok, the initial statement was that they would widen this road from their property all the way to Hwy. 16 to 20'. What we were saying is perhaps it only needs to go to the city limits sign because the city has already taken car of most of it. O'Neal: That is the case. Warrick: That is not how it is worded but staff is comfortable with modifying that condition to read to the city limit line instead of to Hwy. 16. Anthes: Ok. The third item was about our recommendation to reduce the street cross section of Northpoint. Our feeling was the east/west street was actually the more heavily trafficked of those streets and that is already built to a 24' cross section where it connects to other properties and then Roberts Road is going to be a 20' overlay at this point. It was discussed where this road might end up and it was my understanding that this road would probably turn back and connect right back into Stonebridge Meadows and therefore, not be a through street. That was why we were in support of keeping it as a local street. Has staff changed their mind about that? Warrick: I don't think that there is a way for this to connect back into Stonebridge Meadows. Those are developed single family lots. There is not another stub out north of Eastpoint Drive that would allow for connection to the west. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 20 Clark: Are you thinking that it is going to connect to Hwy. 16 now? Warrick: It will very likely go either north to Hwy. 16 or north for a while and then turn east to connect to Roberts Road again. Anthes: We have eleven lots facing this now can you guess about how many more lots we might actually have facing the street if that happens? Warrick: It could easily be double that. But you also have all the other traffic that could access this through street if it does become a through street in the future. Meaning the traffic that comes through Stonebridge Meadows or that is coming from the other lots in this development that could access Northpoint Drive wherever it should end up. Anthes: Do you feel like staff is making the recommendation for the 28' street because we undersized the east/west connecter or that Roberts Road is undersized because it is in the county? Warrick: We are making that recommendation based on the numbers provided to us through our Master Street Plan. If the Planning Commission wants to rethink that to 24', that is certainly your decision. We have thresholds that are provided in the Master Street Plan with regard to the number of vehicle trips per day that certain street sections can provide for. Anthes: Does the subdivision require a covenant on this property prohibiting on street parking? Milholland: I don't know for certain that he has covenants. I'm sure that there will be because it is a nice neighborhood, he will require off street parking. Anthes: I would like on street parking to slow cars down but if you are going to have no on street parking and you have got a 24' width basically you've got two 12' lanes and the traffic moves very quickly so I guess it is up for debate. That's all I have. Thank you. Ostner: If the subdivision directly to the west is any indicator, when we toured there wasn't a single car on the street. The driveways are ample. They are single family homes. That is just my opinion. Shackelford: I served on Subdivision Committee and have looked at this once before. I would like to speak a little bit about my thoughts on the street width for Northpoint. One of two things I think will play out. Honestly, I think this will probably turn and tie back into Roberts Road. I don't know that it is going to go straight through to Hwy. 16. If it does go straight through to Hwy. 16 it is going to make a rather long straight neighborhood road. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 21 Which, as we have seen several times recently on these Phase H, III, and IV that have come in, a lot of neighborhoods are wishing that they didn't have the 28' wide section strictly because of the flow of traffic, how quickly it flows, and the safety for the kids and everybody else that lives in that neighborhood. I was in support of this at Subdivision Committee with the reduction to the 24' street instead of the 28' simply because if it ties back into Roberts Road then it doesn't need to be a major road or if it does go straight through to Hwy. 16 it is going to be a straight shot and probably a narrower road is going to be a safer situation so I am in favor of that. A lot of comments that we have heard tonight have a lot of merit to them. Obviously, storm water runoff is very sensitive in this area. I think the City of Fayetteville has done some good jobs in writing ordinances in which there simply can't be anymore storm water runoff based on development than there was prior to development. I have full confidence that the city staff and the engineering firm that has been hired here can manage and work that situation. The other comments, traffic is a concern. There is no question about that. I agree that we need to widen Hwy. 16 and put up stop lights. Unfortunately, that is not our call to make. That is a state highway and that is their decision when and how that happens. With all of that being said, I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 04-1263 with condition number one reading "The eastern extension of Eastpoint Drive shall be constructed to a minimum of 24' width including pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains and 4' sidewalk located on one side of the 40' right of way. Northpoint Street shall be constructed with a minimum of 24' width including pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains and a 4' sidewalk located on one side within a 40' right of way." The improvements to Roberts Road shall consist of 14' from centerline standard street improvements with 6' sidewalks located at the right of way line along the property boundary and widening of Roberts Road north of subject property to the city limits to comply with city improvements done from Hwy. 16 to this point. Ostner: I have a motion. My question for the motioner, I'm not sure if you meant to say this. You said storm drains and 4' sidewalks on one side. Shackelford: Yes. Ostner: We are not having 4' sidewalks on both sides in this case? Shackelford: Based on our ordinances on a 24' street width inside a 40' right of way the requirement is a sidewalk on one side. Ostner: I am going to second the motion. Anthes: Can you restate the motion? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 22 Shackelford: Approval as stated with the exception of Northpoint Road being 24' in width with 4' sidewalks and 40' right of way. The improvements on Roberts Road to be a minimum 24' pavement width extended to the city limits to comply with the improvements done by the City of Fayetteville to Hwy. 16 to that point. Anthes: Thank you. Ostner: Before we vote I would like to follow up on that when it comes time for our City Council to review the Master Street Plan I would hope that they would try to take these things into consideration. We keep coming back to these time after time whether a 28' section is really appropriate for a subdivision or whether a 24' might be more appropriate. Staff is doing their job following the Master Street Plan that I believe needs further review when that time comes. We have a motion and a second. Anthes: If I can add a comment to that plea, that they also review the sidewalk on one side of a street as part of that reduction. If we could trade 4' of asphalt in a street bed for an additional sidewalk on the other side of that street I think that would be a nice way to utilize what people are already expecting to spend and give more back to pedestrians. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion before we vote? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1263 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 23 PPL 04-1264: Preliminary Plat (MAPLE VALLEY S/D, 363): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 2809 MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.69 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 20 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1264, Maple Valley subdivision. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: The Planning Commission recently saw this property as well, with a rezoning from P-1, Institutional to RSF-4 under the name Brizelle. The property is located south of Mt. Comfort Road approximately 1/4 mile west of Deane Solomon. It is basically behind and beside the location of the Fayetteville Baptist Church. The church property is included as an out lot of this subdivision. It is all part of one or two pieces of property with this subdivision we are sort of cleaning up some property lines and this will be an out lot of that subdivision. The entire acreage consists of 7.71 acres, 5.67 of which, is being developed at this time. The request is for 19 single family lots with approximately 3.35 dwelling units per acre density. One additional lot is proposed for detention. Surrounding properties are single family homes and agricultural fields at this time. I believe most of the issues were worked out at Subdivision Committee level. One of the issues that did come up was about the dead end streets and turn arounds. I wanted to clarify a few things. The city operates under the 2000 International Fire Code and under that code it states that dead end streets must be provided with a turn around if over 150' in length. This turn around may be designed in three manners. A cul-de-sac, a hammer head, or a hammer head alternative, which is a Y shaped configuration. This applicant is not proposing to construct a full cul-de-sac, they are proposing to stub out to the property line to allow for future connectivity, which is something the city expresses a desire to do whenever possible. What they will do essentially, is construct a temporary cul-de-sac which will go away when this street is full constructed. There is an assessment for that portion that is not constructed to full standards that part that obviously can't go on forward to that western boundary, and that assessment is listed here in condition 5 as $3,975 for approximately 65'. Staff is recommending approval of this PPL 04-1264 with 12 conditions. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. There are improvements to Mt. Comfort Road in front of the church. To meet parkland dedication ordinance requirements the Parks and Recreation Board is recommending $10,545 for 19 single family lots be contributed. The existing driveway to the church will be too close to the new street. Therefore, it will be closed and be reconstructed off of this street which will make for a much safer connection here and better access management onto Mt. Comfort Road. Also, the developer shall contribute a total of $17,000 into the tree escrow account to meet tree preservation mitigation requirements. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 24 Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jorgensen: I'm Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates here on behalf of Tim Brizelle for this subdivision. Prior to this we have complied with all of the conditions of approval and recommendations and concerns. I think mostly we dealt with the turn around at the end but I think we have some clarity on that. If you have any further questions I will answer to my ability. Ostner: Would anyone from the public like to speak about this Preliminary Plat proposal? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I have one question about the radius of the temporary cul-de-sac and the one that is the permanent one. I see that they are still noted on the revised plan at 40' and we had some discussion about whether fire code required a larger diameter. Can we get verification from staff? O'Neal: In the UDC it states that a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum of a 50' radius at the right of way. Anthes: So you are satisfied with the way that these are designed? O'Neal: Yes. Vaught: On the temporary it is 35'. O'Neal:: Is that at the right of way or at the edge of pavement? Vaught: On a temporary cul-de-sac I don't know if there would be right of way outside of the temporary portion. Warrick: There is an access easement that provides that additional right of way until it is fully constructed. Vaught: Does that need to be noted on the plat? Warrick: We will ensure that it is. There is a temporary access easement noted, we will ensure that it is more visible on the Final Plat to make it very clear. The purpose of that is to allow for that to be used for access purposes until such time as the road is extended. Shackelford: We have had a lot of conversation about this. Can you give me a real brief summation of why we are seeing temporary cul-de-sacs verses stub outs and when that decision is made to go between the two? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 25 Warrick: Basically what we have here in a couple of the projects that we have been looking at this evening, there are situations where you have more than two adjacent lots that are served by streets that are dead ends currently but will become extended in future developments by our ordinances and by the International Fire Code. If you have a distance of more than 150' that did not have a means, at that point you need to provide a turn around and that is for emergency service vehicles. It is also for service vehicles such as Solid Waste. Those trucks don't have really enough room to maneuver in a dead end situation and it is not appropriate for them to have to back out any distance greater than 150'. Shackelford: I was just wondering what the cut off measurement was. Warrick: That is the cutoff. Typically, if you see more than two lots in a standard single family subdivision since they are required to have frontage of 70' that is what we usually look at as a threshold. Shackelford: What happens on Lot 16 as far as sidewalk requirements? Will that sidewalk not be required until this road is stubbed out or what will happen? Pate: It will stop as shown on the plat as mentioned in condition five, there is an assessment for that continuation. Basically, when the developer hooks on with that assessment it will be constructed by the developer at that time. Ostner: I have a question for staff. Mt. Comfort carries a lot of traffic and we hear about it a lot with other developments in this area. Have we ever asked a developer to address the traffic in this situation, have we ever asked a developer to address the traffic problem on Mt. Comfort in any fashion? Warrick: In this situation we are asking them to address it to some degree. They are dedicating 45' of right of way from centerline to ensure that that road can be extended in the future and they are installing sidewalks for pedestrian traffic. I think that if we were looking at more than 20 lots it might be something that would merit more improvements. They have very little frontage along that street. However, they are going to be providing quite a few vehicle trips per day that will impact Mt. Comfort Road but not anymore than the vehicle trips per day that are provided by residents in a subdivision of about 30 acres just to the west on the north side. They are making greater improvements, they are dedicating the right of way as well as making curb and gutter extended street improvements along their frontage. It is something that we do have to look at. We have to look at it on a case by case basis. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 26 Ostner: That development to the north is not necessarily widening, they are simply improving to curb and gutter standards. Pate: They are widening, 14' from centerline. Ostner: They are not installing a turn lane or anything significant like that? Warrick: No, but the city does have several Capital Improvement Projects. Two of those will improve intersections on Mt. Comfort Road at Salem as well as at Rupple. Those are funded projects that are being designed. They will provide turn lanes at those intersections. Ostner: That is exactly what I wanted to hear. I think those two turn lanes will alleviate a lot of problems. Thank you. MOTION: Clark: Trumbo: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: At Subdivision we discussed this subdivision a lot and our only concern was emergency vehicles and if a temporary cul-de-sac is sufficient then I will move that we approve PPL 04-1264 with conditions as stated including the interior streets to be constructed to 28' as written in the conditions. Second. Thank you. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1264 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 27 PPL 04-1271: Preliminary Plat (RIVER HILLS S/D, 569): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at HWY 16E, S OF THE DAVID LYLE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 6.91 acres. The request is to approve the development of residential subdivision with 16 lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1271 for River Hills subdivision. Pate: I think most of the issues with this plat were worked out as well at Subdivision Committee level. This property is just south of the David Lyle subdivision located on Hwy. 16. There were a couple of revisions from the last time that Subdivision Committee saw this. One was a request that the streets be decreased to 24' wide streets because they are not through streets in this situation. I believe that has occurred. In this case there will be 4' sidewalks on both sides of the street as recommended and shown on the plat from the developer. This property is subject to a Bill of Assurance when this property was annexed and rezoned into the City of Fayetteville. Recently that Bill of Assurance was amended. Previously it did not allow any residential structures on this property but it now allows single family structures only for other office type uses. The applicant is requesting a single family residential subdivision with 20 lots proposed. Two of the lots are proposed for detention, 16 lots are proposed for single family and then two of the lots are proposed for a daycare in this area. Those are the lots to the east. The total density for this project projected is 3.32 dwelling units per acre, which is allowable in the R -O zoning district under which this property is located. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with 10 conditions. The first being Planning Commission determination of street improvements. As I mentioned, we are looking at 24' wide streets within a 40' right of way with sidewalks on both sides as recommended and shown on the plat by the developer. Item two, the applicant shall mitigate the removal of 15,899 sq.ft. of tree canopy by providing a contribution of $10,750 into the tree fund. The subject property does front onto Hwy. 16. Therefore, 55' of right of way along Huntsville Road will be dedicated per our Master Street Plan allowing for the widening of Huntsville in the near future. I believe all of the other conditions are standard. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jorgensen: I'm Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates. I am here on behalf of Chuck Calloway with Gatorback LLC, River Hills subdivision. We have complied with all of the recommendations and conditions of approval, as well as there was a meeting this afternoon with Chuck Calloway and the president of the P.O.A. of the David Lyle subdivision and they have come to an agreement and they do have a written statement documented as to Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 28 the conditions that will take place. Beyond that, hopefully the plat will clearly show that we have met the requirements. If there is any other discussion I will be glad to answer any questions. Thanks. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Caldiero: I am Andy Caldiero and I am president of the David Lyle subdivision. Since Mr. Calloway's property is directly adjoining David Lyle's subdivision originally that property was actually considered Phase III of David Lyle. We are in agreement in all respects with everything that Mr. Calloway has proposed that Mr. Jorgensen has just spoken about. I did meet with Mr. Calloway this afternoon and he has agreed again, verbally, and has given me the documents that he plans to put into effect once this has been approved. Again, I'm only here to put it on record that we need those documents to be approved as far as David Lyle is concerned. In order to get to our subdivision, this new subdivision, River Hills, abuts onto Colonial Drive and Falcon Drive, which is the entrance to our subdivision. It has a direct impact on us as well as himself. As long as he continues to agree, and we have both worked with this because we are very much in favor of the development of this subdivision as per what they have shown us. We have absolutely no objections to it provided that what we have presented to Mr. Calloway are met. We met with the Subdivision Committee two weeks ago and have voiced our opinion there as well. I'm just here to get it on record. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak about this Preliminary Plat from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Anthes: In case anybody is wondering what those statements were referring to, I have notes here that says that assurances were made at the request of the David Lyle subdivision residents that only single family homes will be constructed on these sites, that the covenants would mirror or exceed those of the David Lyle subdivision, that there would be coordination of signage between the two groups, that there would be a buffer between the property lines and Hwy. 16 of some landscape sorts and that there would be an opportunity of P.O.A.s to emerge. Since the applicant has apparently offered those conditions to that neighborhood I would like to inquire how you worked out the fourth question which was the question between the property lines and Hwy. 16. Caldiero: In previous conversations with Mr. Calloway he explained to us what he is planning to do along Hwy. 16 to front River Hills to make it presentable to all traffic that is driving by and we are in agreement with his plan. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 29 Anthes: Perhaps Mr. Jorgensen can tell us what that plan is. Jorgensen: Part of my conversation was to coordinate their meeting. Beyond that, I wasn't present to know what the extensive plan was so beyond that I can't answer that. Caldiero: It is just going to be columns spaced apart with rails between the columns. The columns will be a brick type, it will give it a nice front and there will be additional shrubbery to make it aesthetically pleasing. Clark: Congratulations that the P.O.A. got together with Mr. Calloway. I think that is great. That is something that we encouraged and it sounds like it was productive. That is very heartening to hear that our suggestions are kind of followed. Secondly, traffic on Hwy. 16, please somebody from the state be listening. Traffic on Hwy. 16 is horrific as it is right now, adding these new developments is going to make it even worse and if you think this is bad we've got more annexations coming at the next meeting. Traffic is going to be worse and I would encourage all of the folks who live out there, don't talk to us, it is a state highway. The state has got to get active because we are going to be compounding a dangerous situation. I travel Hwy. 16 everyday and I know. MOTION: Shackelford: It looks like everything that we addressed with Subdivision Committee has been met. I will remind this committee that a lot of what has been discussed in regards to this Preliminary Plat and the existing neighborhood will be addressed in the form of covenants which are typically reviewed at the time of Final Plat and not Preliminary Plat. I appreciate you getting that on record but we will be reviewing those at the time of Final Plat approval. With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 04-1271. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Before I call the vote, I have a question. Is the land to the west of this development developed and if not, why was there not an opportunity for a temporary stub out. Warrick: It is developed. There is at least one, if not two, single family homes on that adjacent property. Ostner: Great, that answered my question. Is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 30 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1271 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 31 LSD 04-1266: Large Scale Development (KEATING-TOWNSHIP BLDG., 290): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at TOWNSHIP STREET, W OF COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 17,552 s.f. professional office building with 57 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSD 04-1266, Commissioner Clark is recusing from this. Pate: The subject property for this Large Scale Development is located on Township west of College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately one and a half acres. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 17,552 sq.ft. professional office building on the property with 57 parking spaces. Access is proposed to be from one new curb cut onto Township along with a connection to an existing cross access stub from the west. Surrounding properties are all C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and developed. Actually, this is one of the few remaining vacant lots on Township in this location between Gregg and College. To the north is the New School property. To the south is the strip commercial center and office. To the east is an automobile dealership and to the west is a motorcycle store and a paint store along with other commercial ventures. Right of way dedication is required in the amount of 45' from centerline along Township as this is a minor arterial. The City of Fayetteville is planning to widen Township in the near future in this location. Therefore, instead of making improvements and tearing them out in the near future, staff is recommending an assessment for the required street improvements for this development including street, sidewalk and storm drains due prior to issuance of a building permit. This is one of the topics that could not allow this item to be approved at the Subdivision Committee level. On the last page of this staff report there is a memo from our staff engineers regarding the assessment. At the time of Subdivision Committee the amount was much higher than this and the applicant requested to meet with staff engineers and to work out a better cost estimate. They presented a cost estimate, which is also included in your staff report, and got together and tried to agree on a number. Staff is recommending approval at the Planning Commission level with 12 conditions of approval. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Basically, the amount of street improvements would be taken care of with an assessment which would then be put into street improvements in this area. That amount is $35,000. Planning Commission determination and approval of commercial design standards. Subdivision Committee did find in favor of the commercial design standards for this project. It is a well articulated structure. Six 2" caliper mitigation trees shall be planted on site to meet tree preservation mitigation requirements and those are Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 32 Ostner: Hafemann: Ostner: Ingman: Ostner: O'Neal: Ostner: MOTION: Shackelford: being coordinated with the Landscape Administrator, which is myself. I believe all other conditions are self explanatory. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. I'm Garett Hafemann from Jorgensen & Associates here on behalf of Bill Keating and Keating Enterprises. We had quite a bit of discussion about this at Subdivision Committee and I really would've hoped that we could've cleared them up and agreed with everything but we are happy with the assessment now that we have been able to work with staff and will be happy to answer any other questions you may have for us tonight. At this point I will open it up to the public. My name is Ron Ingman, I'm with O'Reilly Auto Parts which would be the property just south of the development. We are very glad to see somebody come in on the hillside there because we have looked at that for a long time and it has been a hillside of brush. Our concerns are the traffic flow. We recently had one of our customers killed in our driveway this year. Cars pulling in and out on Township is hectic. If anything can be done to at least stagger the driveway entrances or whatever we can do to make it as safe as we possibly can. Is there a plan to widen Township? Are we going to do three lane or four lane or just widening it? What is the plan at this point? Mainly our concern is we need it as safe as we possibly can because the retailers down Township do suffer because of the traffic there. A lot of it is simply because they can't get in and out up and down the street there. Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. My first question is for staff. The project that the city is undertaking, what is the street section there? It is a three lane. That should make a huge improvement if it has a dedicated turn lane down the center. The two things that we discussed at Subdivision Committee was obviously the improvements and the assessment, we were all somewhat curious about the $68,750 assessment but it looks like the math has been redone and the new number is $35,000 which seems more in line with what we Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 33 have done in the past. The other specific finding was commercial design standards. I find very much in favor of commercial design standards on this project. It is a real unique project. If I remember correctly there is a courtyard in the middle of this property and it is going to be a real nice addition to this part of town. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1266 subject to all conditions of approval with the specific finding of fact that it does meet commercial design standards and the determination of street improvements in the amount of $35,000. Myers: Second. Ostner: Condition of approval number four talks about the front landscape area shall maintain a minimum of 15' of greenspace from the existing 50' from centerline right of way line. Our conditions go on to state that actually only a 45' right of way is required by the Master Street Plan. Pate: The Master Street Plan requires 45' from centerline, which is what they showed on the plats and I believe they still show on the plats. Our GIS Division found a dedication in excess of that from a long time ago so there is actually more dedicated right of way here than necessary. However, there is still a 15' wide greenspace, which they are showing on the plat, we just want to ensure that that requirement is maintained. Ostner: My point where I was going is they are having to setback their greenspace 5' more. Warrick: They are setting back 15' from their existing property line which is what the ordinance requires. Their existing property line indicates an excess of 5' of right of way that the city already obtained. Ostner: Ok. Are there further comments? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1266 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Clark abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 34 R-PZD 04-1154: Planned Zoning District (CLIFFSIDE, 526): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at THE EAST SIDE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD, SOUTH OF THE CLIFFS APARTMENTS. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 26.30 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property with approximately 48 two-family and 15 single-family lots proposed. Ostner: Our next item is R-PZD 04-1154 for Cliffside. Warrick: This property is located on the east side of Happy Hollow Road south of the Cliffs Apartments P.U.D. and north of Happy Hollow school. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 26 acres. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision zoned a unique R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of the site is for a residential development consisting of 111 residential dwelling units, 15 of which are single family detached and 48 two family attached town homes. The site is currently vacant. The floodway crosses the subject property from the north to the south. In addition, a rather large 75' easement runs east and west along the north portion of this property as you can see from Crossover with the power lines that go through there. The total proposed dwelling units on this 26 acre site is 111. Therefore, the proposed density is 4.25 dwelling units per acre, which is slightly above what is allowed with the current density of four units per acre. Of course, that RSF-4 zoning district requires 70' lots of 8,000 sq.ft. in area and this proposal is a drastic change from that. They are using quite a unique mixing of attached town home style lots and single family homes as well. As I mentioned, this site is located in east Fayetteville south of the Cliffs apartments, north of Happy Hollow elementary school. As part of the parks review and staff's review of this project we are recommending, and the applicant is showing on the plat, a trail connection through the proposed tree preservation area along the creek both from the school up to the Cliffs apartments, which will provide a needed pedestrian connection between those two. Access is proposed to the east and south. To the north there is none. The initial submittal had two stub outs to the north but it was discovered that those are tree preservation easements for the Cliffs apartments. Therefore, these tree preservation easements that run along the creek will actually be extending that riparian corridor. There is one connection to be constructed extending through the existing Ray Avenue. This took quite a bit of coordination between the school and the developer. As I mentioned, the initial submittal came in there was no stub out to the south because of the school property there and no real intent to be developed. Staff recommended that the applicant go back and talk to the school district and see if potentially some of the traffic could be alleviated from going south and potentially finding a better way for a better disbursement of traffic. They did meet with the school district and I believe the school district voted on allowing Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 35 this connection and dedication of right of way so a street connection will be provided to the south. We are happy that those two property owners could work that out which provides the city with connectivity and both of these property owners with a mutual benefit. As I mentioned, to the east there is a stub out proposed for future connectivity and there is one existing connection to Happy Hollow Road to the west, which is a collector street. Happy Hollow Road is a newly constructed street west of the subject property. The developer of Cliffside is dedicating 35' from centerline as required. I have already mentioned coordination and there is quite a bit of coordination on this project. Both with the staff and adjacent property owners. The site is heavily canopied. It has 88% existing canopy on this property. We had to work quite a bit to try to find the best way to preserve as much canopy as possible and identifying those areas most important and most significant based on our tree preservation ordinance. As Landscape Administrator, I am recommending approval of the tree preservation plan and I believe that we have worked out a great solution. 25% is the minimum requirement and the developer is showing 38%, which is commendable. As I mentioned, the Parks and Recreation Board did review this project and is recommending money in lieu in the amount of $61,605 as well as the recommendation for that trail connection. This project has been before the Subdivision Committee at least twice. I am sure you have minutes from those meetings as well as some of the public comment that has been received on this project which has not been much. We have received a few items of public comment. A draft of protective covenants are within your staff report as well as those findings associated with all PZDs. As I mentioned, emphasis on tree preservation has been placed with the development proposal and the density which is proposed, while slightly higher than the current underlying density does create a transition from the higher density multi- family residential development to the north. That is where they are placing a lot of their two family homes. The school to the south and there are surrounding single family dwelling units. The tree preservation areas as shown will also act as common areas for this neighborhood and for those traveling along this trail. Staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of R- PZD 04-1154 with 23 conditions. I will go over a couple of those. Planning Commission determination of residential lot access management. Having seen recently in another PZD with smaller lots, staff feels that it is appropriate to establish an access management policy on these streets. You have 30' wide lots, if you have a standard 24' wide driveway you would pretty much have driveways the entire street which is not sound practice. We recommended, as we have in the past, if you have a shared driveway it be allowed at 24' and if you have individual driveways those be allowed at a maximum of 12' at the right of way. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements. I believe we have worked most of these out in this case. The developer will be Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 36 improving Happy Hollow Road from centerline as well as extending Ray Avenue to the south and some additional improvements along Ray Avenue. Additionally, parallel on street parking will be allowed on that street to allow for program types of parking for the school when they have after school programs and things of that nature to allow for excess parking in that area. As mentioned, $61,605 for parks fees. Other conditions address the pedestrian connections both to the north and to the south which details are still being worked out. We feel comfortable at this level to recommend that this go forward to the City Council. Final covenants of course, always have to come through with a R-PZD, which is a Preliminary Plat/Final Plat type of development. We will see those final covenants at the time of Final Plat. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Scott: Good evening. My name is Art Scott, I am with Project Design Consultants, we are the engineers on the project. This is Seth Cathca with SBC Investments, the developer. We are asking for your approval on this zoning change tonight to R-PZD and if you have any questions we will answer them for you. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about this PZD? Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Erf: Good evening, my name is Jeff Erf. I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road. A couple of concerns, first of all, do you realize that Cliffside is also the name of a street in the Hyland Park subdivision? I just throw that out to you because it could potentially cause some confusion for people. The main reason I'm here, I have got some concerns about the connection of Ray Street from Happy Hollow school up north into this development. I am not sure how well this has been thought out. My son went to Happy Hollow for six years and I'm quite familiar with the traffic flow that goes back through there and in the mornings it is backed up and in the afternoons it is backed up with people getting there early and waiting. I am concerned that creating an extra point of access to that road is going to create some confusion and chaos and I guess one of my questions is will they be putting in sidewalks on the old part of Ray Street that runs adjacent to the school? As I recall, there are no sidewalks there now. Ostner: Those would be offsite sidewalks. Erf: If there aren't sidewalks there should be sidewalks so that once they reach Ray Street they can stay on sidewalks. That is my main concern. I hope somebody has looked at this in detail and really given it some thought. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 37 Also, there is a city park that is right next to the gymnasium. I was wondering what was happening with that. It almost looks to me like Ray Street extension goes right through there. That is an issue because if they are removing a city park then don't they need to replace the city park, not just money in lieu of. They are potentially going through an existing city park and so that ought to be part of the discussion of money in lieu. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Erf. Would anyone else from the public like to speak to this issue of Cliffside PZD? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Warrick: I can address some of the questions that Mr. Erf brought up. With regard to the name of the subdivision, our 911 Coordinator has reviewed that and will continue to review that. If there are any conflicts we will be made aware of it and we will also make the developer aware of it so that they can choose a different name. Typically, if there are two streets that are named the same we can absolutely not allow for that for 911 purposes but I don't believe that there is conflict in a subdivision name and a street in another part of town having that name. The connection to Ray Avenue, this project was originally submitted back in July and staff has been working with the developer and the school district representatives since that time to understand the implications of making that connection and how it would affect the traffic flow for the city as well as for the students and the parents and the employees at Happy Hollow school. We had meetings with the school principal, with representatives from the superintendents office, with staff, with the developer in the very beginning to try to get our minds around how this would affect all of the concerned parties. The school principal presented the proposal to her staff as well as to her parent groups and it was also presented by the developer at the very first open house of the school semester. The school board voted on this, I believe that they heard it at least one of their school board meetings. They did vote in favor of selling the necessary property to the developers to make this street connection. Ultimately, they decided that it was in the best interest of the school as well as the city to make the connection. We appreciate that fact because we do feel that this is an appropriate connection. The connection is not going through city parkland. That property is owned by the school district and there used to be a more developed trail system through the woods at the north end of the school. It is not quite as developed as it used to be but the walking trail that this developer will be building will be able to connect to the trail system that is left on the north side of Happy Hollow school. I hope that addresses those concerns. With regard to sidewalks on Ray Avenue, the amount of property that is being dedicated for right of way is sufficient to provide sidewalks. I would need the applicant to confirm that they are making the improvements to include sidewalks. Their improvement will go south to Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 38 about 4th Street, which is the intersecting entrance drive to Happy Hollow school. Ostner: Thank you. Clark: Along that same line, isn't a traffic light scheduled for Happy Hollow? street just south of the main Warrick: The intersection of Happy Hollow and Huntsville is definitely being reconfigured and improved. That is a CIP Project that I want to say is projected for very soon. I think it is under design at this point. Clark: That is a horribly congested area during school days and I would think that if you had a light coming out of this subdivision you would go to the light instead of Ray Avenue during pick up and drop off times for school kids. Dawn, didn't you indicate to us earlier that that is eminent. It is not years away, it is soon. Warrick: Our Engineering Design Services Division is designing that intersection right now. I can't promise that that will be signalized but it will be an improved intersection and the flow of traffic will be changed. Ostner: How exactly will it be? Warrick: I can invite the Engineering Design Services Division to come and talk to you. I know that the main flow of traffic will be redirected onto Happy Hollow south as opposed to Huntsville being the primary. That is my understanding but it is being designed and it has to go through several approval processes as well as the Street Committee. I don't want to promise any specific type of configuration. Shackelford: Mr. Scott, would you enlighten us on your plans for sidewalks along Ray Avenue? Scott: We intend to extend sidewalks down Ray Avenue, we are hoping on one side, the side where we have parallel parking, on the east side, from the south edge of our property to where it intersects the existing pavement so that all of the children from this subdivision can walk down that sidewalk and access the school so they can walk back and forth to school. Shackelford: Will that be a 4' or a 6' wide sidewalk? Scott: I believe we intended 4'. It is a 50right of way. Vaught: The proposed walking trail, is this going to be dedicated to the city for parkland or is it going to be maintained by the P.O.A.? Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 39 Pate: It will be maintained by the P.O.A. within a tree preservation common area easement. Ostner: I have a few questions for staff on the same notes. On page 7.44, Article VI in their covenants, they have offered all roadways within Cliffside are private access easements for vehicular traffic only for the use of owners of lots in Cliffside. Warrick: We are going to ask the developer to address that. Ostner: If you could please address that, that doesn't seem to be appropriate. Cathca: That was a mistake. That was off of our template covenants that we have used in our other subdivisions. I apologize. Ostner: I'm also hoping on 7.47, Common Use Areas, any common areas may be used by all residents of Cliffside and their guests. I'm hoping that is also an error. Cathca: Once again, an error. I apologize. Ostner: Terrific. Those were concerns of mine. The third issue I have is this trail that is connecting to the north that is intended for pedestrian flow, we have had instances of those trails getting fenced. Unintentionally, but a property owner here, a property owner there and two board fences 10' apart with a trail in between doesn't make a good system. Can the developer address that? Warrick: I don't think that that would even be an option for this development. There is only one location that this trail goes between two lots. In other areas it runs adjacent to lots and greenspace or preservation area or completely through preserved areas. Ostner: Ok. There is a note on the plat that talks about frontage access. It says lots 12 and 15 will have access for Happy Hollow. That didn't add up because those lots are somewhere else. It also says Lots 13 and 14 will face street one and they are nowhere near street one. I'm hoping this was a typo again. Scott: Yes, they got renumbered. The intention is that the access on Happy Hollow, that we have some of those homes appear to access and maybe have a driveway in the back, but face Happy Hollow so that it gives more of a neighborhood look and not a walled community through there so we agreed to do that on some of those lots there. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 40 Ostner: You are looking at lots 20 through 26 and you are saying that a few of those will face Happy Hollow? Scott: Yes Sir. Particularly the ones along the entrance street there. Lots 23 and 24. Ostner: That's good. That was going to be my next complaint that there were no eyes on the street. That is ok. Pate: Condition number three also addresses that discrepancy on the plat, that those notes be revised to reflect those comments that you just made. Ostner: I believe those are all of my comments. Clark: Pate: On the plat we have got tree preservation and tree preservation/common area. What percentage is strictly tree preservation and what percentage is common area? As of this moment I can't answer that. There are specific lots designated on your plats and shown as preserved for tree preservation and common space. When this project, should it be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, comes back through for a Final Plat those lots will be restricted from certain development rights and we will be required to sign off on that Final Plat limiting certain activities on those specific lots. A developer or a home owner, as with any residential subdivision, always has the right to move into the lot and position their home so that they can actually build a home on that site. The developer is meeting that requirement by stating the required tree preservation amount along with the exclusion of a building envelope within that lot. Basically, the lots that are preserved, lots 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118 are all tree preservation lots and will remain as such permanently. Clark: Maybe I should ask the developer, what are you planning to do different in the /common area lots? Scott: The common area there runs along natural drainage courses and we wanted to leave those as a natural corridor. As Jeremy said, those will be an area where no development will take place. We did cut the trail out of that. The trail is not counted as tree preservation area, that has been removed. We took approximately 50% out of the lots for buildings. Clark: I've looked at the tree list that Jeremy provided us and you are saving some very large, significant trees and a whole bunch of them, and you are to be commended for that. I was just wondering because the common areas is a different designation within a PZD, what uniqueness for the Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 41 Pate: Clark: Scott: residents was going to be to set it apart from a tree preservation area and make it a common area. Maybe I'm just playing a semantical game. I believe on the ground as this is developed all of the tree preservation areas that you see permanently will be common areas. It will be more of a woodland type environment. I've got one on 112 that is just a tree preservation area but then I've got others that have /common area so I was wondering if you had planned on something remarkably special. I'm glad you are saving it. It is a great idea and there are some large trees there. Lot 112 is a lot smaller of an area than 114 or 115. It wouldn't really function well as a common area for activities or anything like those other areas would for hiking and so forth. Clark: Thank you. MOTION: Shackelford: As staff made comments earlier, we have seen this a couple of times at Subdivision Committee. This is a project that has a lot of eyes on it, in particular, with regard to the extension of Ray Avenue. I personally think that that extension has been well thought through by both the school board and city staff along with all sorts of people who were involved with this project. I think it adds a lot to this project and I am in favor of that as well. Overall, this is a great development in my mind. We have talked about in the City of Fayetteville we need a supply of more affordable housing. I think this serves that need and I like it's close proximity to an elementary school. I will make a motion that we forward with a recommendation for approval R-PZD 04-1154 to the City Council with the conditions of approval as stated with specific determinations on number two, that due to the smaller width, that these lots be allowed to have shared driveways, specific finding on number four, a determination of off street improvements to concur with staff's recommendation of a 28' street with curb, gutter, storm sewer for the Ray Avenue extension. The improvements to dissipate a portion of Ray Avenue north of 4th Street to be coordinated with the Engineering Division as stated. Basically, subject to all conditions of approval and staff's comments. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there further comment? Could you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 04-1154 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 42 Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 43 ADM 04-1304• Administrative Item (ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM/TERMINELLA): Submitted by TOM TERMINELLA for property located at THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE AVENUE AND SPRING STREET. The request is to amend the parking requirements for the Terminella Building. Ostner: The last item on our agenda is ADM 04-1121 for the Terminella Building. Warrick: This request is concerning property located at 123 N. College Avenue. Those of you who have been out there lately have noticed that it is a big pit. The structure that had previously been there was recently removed for a new development of an office building which is proposed to be constructed eminently. The applicant proposes to build a 20,226 sq.ft. structure two story building in this location. They did obtain variances to set the structure closer to the public rights of way along Spring Street and College Avenue in order to bring the building more to a pedestrian scale to provide an appropriate streetscape and to more closely match the city's desire for our downtown as demonstrated in our Downtown Master Plan. The applicant, in order to create the development that they desire, is asking for Planning Commission to grant a parking waiver to allow two on street parking spaces that they will be constructing on Spring Street to be counted towards their requirement of on site parking spaces. This development requires a minimum of 15 on site parking spaces and that is because they are credited for the removal of the previous structure. Our ordinances do allow for an incentive for downtown redevelopment through a reduction in parking requirements and by doing that what the ordinance allows is that the footprint of the previous structure that has been removed based on the use that had been established there is credited towards the parking requirement for the new development and therefore, this project at the minimum, is required to provide 15 on site spaces. Like I said, they are proposing to install 13 on site spaces with access off of Spring Street through an alley at the rear of the structure. They are asking the Planning Commission to approve this waiver to allow for the two on street parking spaces on Spring to count towards that 15 total. That is the request. Ostner: This is an administrative item so we don't really need to hear from the applicant but I believe the owner is here if you have any comments that you would like to make. Commissioners? I will call for the public. If anyone from the public would like to speak to this Administrative item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Vaught: Are these going to be metered spaces or are they just going to be on street spaces? Warrick: They will very likely not be metered initially. They will be managed by the city because they will be part of the public infrastructure and within Planning Commission November 8, 2004 Page 44 the public right of way. These two spaces would be fairly removed from any other metered spaces initially. Eventually that could be the case but I think that they will be free parking for at least the time being. Vaught: I'm excited about this and I'm glad to see this area of town getting this kind of attention. I want to thank the owner for working with the city to get the variances to try to come in line with the Downtown Master Plan, which hopefully we will have implemented soon. Anthes: I'm just referencing the graphic on page 8.5, it appears to look like all of the curb cuts to College Avenue are being closed as part of this project, is that true? Warrick: That is correct. They will be providing curb and gutter and sidewalk along both street frontages, Spring and College. MOTION: Anthes: That is great! With that answer being positive, I would like to move for approval of ADM 04-1104. Trumbo: 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 ADM 04-1104 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:37 p.m.