Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 22, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 04-1336 (Lazenby Apartments R-PZD 03-04.00) Approved Consent ADM 04-1337 (Beacon Flats R-PZD 04-1159) Approved Consent VAC 04-1255: Vacation (MR. & MRS. HANKS, 293) Forwarded to City Council Consent VAC 04-1279: Vacation (PEARSON, 444) Forwarded to City Council Consent CUP 04-1215: (IHOP, 440) Approved Page 3 Audio for the first 40 minutes of this meeting is unavailable. Please refer to staff report/file for additional information and public comment regarding this item. LSD 04-1214: Large Scale Development (IHOP, 440) Approved Page 3 Audio for the first 40 minutes of this meeting is unavailable. Please refer to staff report/file Jar additional information and public comment regarding this item. PPL 04-1244: Preliminary Plat (BELCLAIRE ESTATES, 169) Approved Page 5 CUP 04-1286: Conditional Use (RUPPLE ROAD SCHOOLS, 477) Approved Page 11 LSD 04-1287: (RUPPLE ROAD SCHOOLS, 477) Approved Page 11 CUP 04-1281: Conditional Use (BARBER POOL HOUSE, 294) Approved Page 28 CUP 04-1282: Conditional Use (SUSAN ALGER, 256) Approved Page 31 LSP 04-1283: Lot Split (SUSAN ALGER, 256) Approved Page 31 CUP 04-1290: Conditional Use (SHACKELFORD, 558) Approved Page 35 ANX 04-1222: Annexation (DORIS ROBERTS, 608) Forwarded to City Council Page 37 RZN 04-1280: Rezoning (DORIS ROBERTS, 608) Forwarded to City Council Page 37 ADM 04-1305: Form Based Code/Downtown Master Plan No Action Page 42 ADM 04-1303: Amendment to Chapter 166.04: Required On -Site Improvements in the Planning Area Forwarded to City Council Page 42 ADM 04-1306: Amendment to Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance Review Committee Page 43 Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Christine Myres Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Dawn Warrick Brent O'Neal Gary Coover Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Jill Anthes James Graves STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 3 CUP 04-1215: (IHOP, 440): Submitted by Timothy Rich for property located at 3153 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is to approve more parking than allowed by code. LSD 04-1214: Large Scale Development (IHOP, 440): Submitted by Timothy Rich for property located at 3153 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.28 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 4,352 sq.ft. restaurant with 70 parking spaces proposed. Suzanne Morgan presented the staff report for both items. The property contains 1.28 acres and is currently vacant. The site is located south of Wedington Drive and west of I- 540, located with the Design Overlay District. The applicant is proposing a total of 70 parking spaces to serve customers, waiting patrons and employees. Shred parking with a multi -use site is not available in the immediate vicinity, and parking will not be available on Wedington Drive. The restaurant will have approximately 39 tables with a capacity of 156 seats. The parking required for this project is 44 spaces. The ordinance allows for a maximum number of parking spaces 30% above what is required. The maximum number of spaces permitted for the project is 58 parking spaces . Therefore, the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the additional 12 parking spaces. With regard to the Large Scale Development, the applicant is requesting approval of a 4,352 square foot IHOP restaurant and associated parking. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee level included compliance with commercial design standards with specific attention given to the southern elevation. Conditions of approval included Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Design Overlay District requirements. Staff finds that the proposed development generally meets the requirements as set forth in the Design Overlay District. Condition number two, Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the proposed elevations as presented comply with Commercial Design Standards. Another condition was a signed agreement between the private developer of the subject property and the property to the east, approved for development as a Rapido Rabbit Car Wash shall be provided prior to permitting either project. The agreement should detail which developer is responsible for each of the required improvements, being the drive, the water, the detention pond, which are to be shared by the projects. In the event that one of the projects does not proceed, the other developer will be responsible for the construction of al the required improvements. Commissioner Shackelford asked for public comment. There was no public comment on either item. Commissioner Vaught motioned to approve CUP 04-1215 subject to the condition of approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CPU 04-1215 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Clark motioned to approve LSD 04-1214 subject to all the conditions of approval, making specific findings in favor of compliance with the Design Overlay District requirements and for compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1214 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 5 PPL 04-1244: Preliminary Plat (BELCLAIRE ESTATES, 169): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at HWY 112. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 39.86 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision with 96 single family lots proposed. Audio for the first 40 minutes of this meeting is unavailable. Please refer to staff report/file for additional information and public comment regarding this item. Branson: That street to the south, there is also another 1/3 acre to the west and across the street to the south and to the west about 150' there is also another 1/3 acre area that is also a tree preservation area that would also be maintained by the P.O.A. If someone were to cut down a tree there would be fines or replacing trees and that sort of thing if that were to happen. I didn't mean to bring up all of this legal stuff with this deal. In looking at this, the areas that you are talking about with the no build and tree preservation area as well as the other 1/3 acre just down from it. It is our thought that we want a nice area. These are going to be areas that most subdivisions don't have, a greenspace that is large enough for people to congregate in certain areas. Thoughts of us putting a gazebo or something like that have occurred. They are going to be maintained by the P.O.A. to be mowed and kept clean and that sort of thing. There will be a neighborhood park, if you will, maintained by the P.O.A., not by the City of Fayetteville. That is our thoughts of doing that. I kind of tend to agree with Mr. Williams, if it is under 40 acres and under 100 lots then we should have a choice. Shackelford: With that, I have a question. Obviously, we saw several different concepts at Subdivision. There were several redraws to get this thing and there have been a lot of compromises made on both sides. What was the maximum lot count that was ever originally proposed for this prior to doing the no cut zone and the tree preservation? Branson: I think we started at 108. Shackelford: At one point we were over the 100 lot limit but due to concessions that were made with neighbors and adjoining land owners we dropped below that? Branson: Also in the size of the lots. In looking at that we decided with 2400 sq.ft. minimum homes we are probably not going to be able to get a nice home on that small of a lot. We had to go back and on our own, when we redrew it on our own, it actually dropped down to 98 or 99 and then adding the 50' it dropped down to about 96 buildable. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 6 Shackelford: The last question I have, we talked at Subdivision Committee about possibly two different locations for parkland dedication if that requirement was made at this level. Were there any more comments regarding which location was preferred between you and Parks Board and was there any agreement that was made? Scott: Shackelford: Trumbo: Scott: We did, the area to the north with the tree preservation area, the northwest area. We did ask Parks if we could put a couple of lots around that in conjunction with that tree preservation area. Their thoughts were that they didn't want a ditch running through a park. Wilson Park and Gulley and about every park in Fayetteville has a creek of some sort running through it so I don't understand that. The part that they are wanting is probably some of the best lots that we have. They are flat, they are right in the middle of the subdivision and we are trying to work as best as we can in this area. We are below the 40 and under 100 as well as we are bringing sewer '/2 mile to the subdivision. We are fixing the curve there. We are giving almost three acres of land for a no build, no cut zone. We are trying to do a lot here. We were trying to give them areas as well but we just couldn't see eye to eye on that particular property. Thank you. Commissioners, are there other questions? I would like to thank the developers for all the work that they have done. We asked you all to go back to the neighborhoods, you did. We appreciate that. It seems like they are happy with what has been done. My inclination on the dedication of parkland, I think you all have done enough. You are under the threshold. I would be in favor of approving this when it comes down to a vote without the parkland. I would be comfortable voting for money in lieu. Having said that, I've got a question about the 90° intersection that you all are going to be improving. Can you kind of describe how that is going to be? I met with Joe Shipman from the Highway Depaitment out there and we observed traffic for a couple of hours late afternoon, which is probably one of the worst times of the day, the morning is also. We felt like there were a couple of real problems there. Sight distance was one of them and it was caused by a lot of the brush and scrub trees and there is a house there that will also be removed. What causes the problem with the sight distance is westbound traffic on Hwy. 112 in certain conditions, weather or nightfall, really the way it sits now one could conceivably not realize that that is a turn in 112 and not a straight shot. What we felt like we would do is bring Howard Nickell in and sort of a radial turning right towards the center of that curve which will be the center of the circle, instead of it coming off as a tangent where people can just shoot across there. This way we can sign it also so as you are going westbound you can see definite signage that shows you that this thing curves this way and Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 7 with this straight shot through there it is really only one or two of the arrows that point to the north. We felt like that would help a lot. The other is cleaning up the brush, the visual, sight distance there. Clark: When are we going to see neighborhood covenants? Warrick: Typically you will see those, if they are being offered, at the time of Final Plat. What we have right now with this development that is solid is the Bill of Assurance that was offered at the time of rezoning which did limit the development to 99 lots maximum as well as some other criteria with regard to the types of building materials and different things like that. That is what we have at this point in time. Covenants are not enforced by the city and not required unless it is a PZD. However, in this particular case because there have been obligations stated by the developer with regard to that Bill of Assurance and some of these preservation areas, we will see covenants in their final form at the time of Final Plat. Clark: I asked that question simply because of the question from the neighbor. I have to commend, as I have joined this commission I have heard some of the veterans say we have seen lots of different manifestations of the same project. This is mine. My first meeting we saw it was the Leigh Taylor when it all started with 108 units. The neighbors were going crazy. It raised a lot of concerns and the developer went back, worked very diligently with the neighbors and I've seen four and five generations of this now. I think you've got it as best as I have seen in terms of compromise with neighbors with the preservation area looks beautiful. The way everything is laid out looks beautiful. When we get the covenants everybody will be semantically happy in terms of who is going to take care and do what. I think this is a role model of how neighbors and developers can get along. In terms of the parkland dedication I have to disagree respectively with parkland. I don't think with as much as this development has already given up that we can ask them to give up anymore. I am going to support the Preliminary Plat but I am not going to support the parkland dedication. I will support money in lieu of, however. I thank the neighbors for working as well with the developers because you guys really made an effort to get together, which was great. Vaught: Staff, on connectivity, I know there has been a lot of discussion about connectivity to Woodside Drive. That is still something that worries me. I would like to see a connection there. I know a lot of people around would not. What was the thinking in taking that out? Warrick: There is an intervening piece of property that prohibits it. There is not a true stub out to property line that would allow for that connection. We did not feel that it was really something that the developer could achieve. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 8 Vaught: I concur on the parks land. I look at the law pretty literally and my interpretation, I agree with Mr. Williams on the level. It is something that at our level we are charged to apply the law as written and that is the way I interpret it. Parkland is definitely something that they can take a level higher and let the City Council deal with. Williams: If I could say actually, the interpretation is charged by ordinance with the City Planner so we must accept her interpretation of that. It has changed in reviewing this again, it has changed from when I was on the Council and we were told that whatever the developer wanted the developer got to do. That is not the way the Code is written now. It is your decision, you can make your decision either way listening to both sides. Vaught: In addition to that, I feel that there is a de facto park with this greenspace that is just under an acre and a half being preserved. I do believe it would be putting more of a burden on this developer who has already tried to work with the residents and the people in this area to provide something that they desired. That was greenspace, not necessarily a park. Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? I guess I will have to echo a lot of the comments that have been made here. I too have seen this project at Subdivision Committee and at several different levels. I think that there has been a tremendous amount of compromise that has been done I think that the developer has gone the extra mile to make this thing palatable to the adjoining property owners. I am going to support the opportunity to do money in lieu of specific parkland dedication for a lot of the comments that are made here. Although the City Attorney is now saying that we have the opportunity to hear this I still believe that the ordinance as it specifically states, that that carries a lot of weight in my decision. I think that they have gone a long ways. They are not asking to get away from not doing anything for parkland, but just for the specific opportunity to pay money in lieu instead of donating additional property. I commend everybody that has been involved with this that have worked so hard from staff all the way through to everybody. It is a good project. Commissioners, are there any other questions, comments or motions? Allen: I am apparently going to be the lone ranger here. I think it has been a very difficult site to develop and I appreciate the work that you've done with the neighbors. To make this work I think you have one more hump and that is the dedication of parkland. Depending upon the motion, apparently it is going to go the opposite way. I would vote against it. Williams: I would suggest that somebody make a motion concerning condition number two whether it be parkland or money in lieu. That would be the proper motion first and then after that has been resolved then the plat would be before you. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 9 Allen: I move for approval of PPL 04-1244 subject to the 14 conditions of approval, that would be also including condition number two, the dedication of parkland. Shackelford: I believe what our city attorney is asking us to do is have a motion for a specific finding of fact to either require dedication of parkland or to allow money in lieu. Allen: I would like to move that we require a dedication of parkland for this Preliminary Plat. Shackelford: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen that will require a dedication of parkland for the Preliminary Plat for Belclaire Estates. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Shackelford: I have a second by Commissioner Myres. Are there any other questions or comments? Vaught: Should I make a motion to amend the motion or do we vote it down and then it will go de facto to the other side? Williams: That would be the better way to do it. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second on the floor regarding the parkland dedication of the Preliminary Plat for Belclaire Estates. The motion requires that the developer dedicate land for a specific neighborhood park per the park board recommendation. Renee, if you would call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to require parkland dedication with the Preliminary Plat failed by a vote of 1-5 with Commissioners Myres, Clark, Trumbo, Shackelford and Vaught voting no. Thomas: The motion fails. Trumbo: I will make a motion that we Planning Commission's decision is to accept money in lieu of parkland dedication. Shackelford: I have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo regarding the ability for the developer or applicant to pay money in lieu instead of a specific contribution of property. Do I have a second? Clark: I will second. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 10 Shackelford: Are there any other questions or comments regarding this action? If not, Renee, would you please call the vote? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to accept money in lieu of parks land was approved by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Shackelford: We now have in front of us the request to approve PPL 04-1244 for Belclaire Estates which includes as a condition of approval number two, stating that the developer has the opportunity for contribution of money in lieu of dedication to meet parkland requirements. Is that acceptable to the City Attorney? Ok, so that is clear. Are there any motions? MOTION: Vaught: I will make a motion to approve PPL 04-1244 with the stated conditions of approval with the specific finding on number two as we have agreed and with a specific finding that connectivity is appropriate. Clark: Second. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second by Commissioner Clark to approve this Preliminary Plat with all conditions as stated. Are there any other questions or comments? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1244 was approved by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Shackelford: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 11 CUP 04-1286: Conditional Use (RUPPLE ROAD SCHOOLS, 477): Submitted by WES BURGESS/KURTIS JONES CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES/RUSSELLVILLE for property located at AT THE SW CORNER OF THE FUTURE RUPPLE/PERSOMMON INTERSECTION. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 23.57 acres. The request is to approve the development of an elementary/middle school in an R -A, Residential Agricultural zoning district. LSD 04-1287: Large Scale Development (RUPPLE ROAD SCHOOLS, 477): Submitted by WES BURGESS/KURTIS JONES CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES/RUSSELLVILLE for property located at THE SW CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF RUPPLE ROAD AND PERSIMMON. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 23.57 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 143,700 s.f. single story school building with 210 parking spaces proposed. Shackelford: Morgan: Shackelford: The next item on the agenda is CUP 04-1286 for Rupple Road Schools. The subject property is 23.57 acres. It is located south of the future extension of Persimmon Street and east of the future Rupple Road just kitty corner from the existing Boys and Girls Club. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and an administrative lot split was recently approved to subdivide the subject property from the 80 acre parent tract annexed into the city in August, 2004. The applicant is requesting approval for the development of a 143,700 sq.ft. structure for an elementary and middle school with grades K-7 to serve approximately 1,000 students. The development will be supported with approximately 210 parking spaces, 26 bike racks and associated sports fields and playground areas. The proposed use is not permissible within the R -A zoning district without a Conditional Use approval. Therefore, the applicant has submitted this request for a Conditional Use permit to you. Staff has evaluated this request and finds that granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. Additionally, the surrounding properties are being developed for residential use and the addition of a school in this area will be able to serve and be supported by the future population of the surrounding areas. Additionally, the addition of a school in this location will compliment the existing Boys and Girls Club to the northeast of the subject property. Suzanne, if you would give the staff report of the Large Scale Development also. Morgan: The proposed development has one access onto Persimmon Street and three accesses onto Rupple Road. Pedestrian access will be provided by Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 12 Shackelford: Jones: way of construction within the rights of way as well as on site sidewalks. The applicant, in regards to signage, is allowed one monument sign and two wall signs with a display area not to exceed 16 sq.ft. in accordance with the sign ordinance. In regard to the actual Large Scale Development, many of the things I have covered regarding the development. Additionally, I would like to mention that this subject property is adjacent to two Master Street Plan streets. Rupple Road is a minor arterial and Persimmon is a collector. At this time Persimmon Street to the north of the subject property is being constructed by private developers to the west of 46th Street. The completion of the street will provide access from the intersection of Rupple Road north to Wellington Drive. Fayetteville School District is responsible for one half the construction of Rupple Road for the length of the subject property. Staff has met with all parties involved including the school and all developers and property owners surrounding this intersection to coordinate the required improvements. Staff does recommend construction of the entire width of Rupple Road to the first entrance of the school, which would provide the necessary infrastructure to support the school. The Street Committee has also considered and recommended approval of a cost share for construction of Rupple Road with four lanes. This proposal would need to be considered by the City Council after Planning Commission approval of the Large Scale Development. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development, as well as the associated Conditional Use to allow this use in a R -A zoning district. There are 19 conditions of approval listed in your staff report and there is an additional condition that staff recommends. We were given a traffic study done by Peters & Associates and calls for recommendations at the intersection of Persimmon and Rupple, which they recommend a future traffic signal at this location. Staff recommends that the developer shall be assessed $11,520 as payment for materials and future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Rupple and Persimmon prior to issuance of a building permit. We request that you add that as a condition of approval. In considering these 20 conditions, Planning Commission determination is needed for commercial design standards. Staff does find that the elevations presented do meet the requirements of the commercial design standards as well as Planning Commission determination and approval of a Conditional Use to allow this use in the R -A zoning district. If you have any additional questions regarding the conditions of approval I can address those. Is the applicant here this evening? Kirk Jones with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I believe the architect and a representative of the school district is also here with me this evening. We have looked at the conditions of approval and I believe that the school has signed those. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 13 Shackelford: You heard the 20th item this evening? Jones: Gray: That is the first time I have heard that. I'm not sure if the school was aware of that. We discussed that with Tim prior to the meeting and we agree. Shackelford: Thank you. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make this evening? Jones: I don't have any additional comments over and above what the city has stated. I would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission has. Shackelford: As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we are somewhat shorthanded, this is a Conditional Use that would require five affirmative votes. With that being said, I am going to ask if there is any public comment regarding either the Conditional Use for Rupple Road school or the adjoining Large Scale Development. If you would like to address this, this is your opportunity. Ralston: My name is Linda Ralston, I live in Ward 3. I came before you back in the summer time when this parcel of land was 80 acres and was being presented to you to be annexed into the city and recommended to be zoned RSF-4 I think the Planning Commission was made aware that there was indeed a school that would be located on this property. That is the reason why I guess it has taken a little time to get back. I have been concerned, I drove out to that location in the past week or so and the nice signs with bigger letters are very nice. The connectivity has probably been a major topic as you all have been talking about the roads and stuff. I know before it was stated that it would be development driven and I know that that doesn't necessarily mean that it will time out to match with the school. My understanding is that the school is still expected to be completed for opening in August, 2006. This was when the plan allowed several more months for it to be constructed. Apparently, that is still possible to be open in August, 2006 which allows us just over a year and a half. I still feel, as I drove back there, of course, you all know Rupple Road is the two lane that travels south off of Wedington. As I looked over we have Fire Station #7 being completed and just for a moment I imagined it was the time that children are out of school and traffic gets lined in. Holt is a great example of that, which is more like on the end of a cul-de-sac. I know there is a thru street through a neighborhood now but it is an incredible place to go before and after school. I imagined it was either before school or after school and a fire truck needs to be sent out. I hesitated that it would be the smoothest transition there with a truck coming out and parents bumper to bumper back there. I felt all along that I am not opposed to a new school. I am very concerned about this particular Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 14 location. I know it is close to the Boys and Girls Club. However, some of the children that live in the far side of the attendance zone, which is five miles away, some of their parents don't even have cars. If the children were able to go to the Boys and Girls Club their family would have no means to come and pick them up. I know that has been seen as an advantage and it seems very complimentary though I still have some concerns. One thing I'm not sure if it has been discussed, is the environmentally sensitive area that the school is getting ready to be placed on. The 20 plus acres, roughly % of them are listed as floodplain. I believe that is Owl Creek. I don't know if there are any other special guidelines. I know there was some conversation about the entrance from Persimmon having to actually cross part of the creek. I am concerned if there are any other conditional guidelines that come into play when you get into that realm. I attended the last school board meeting. I know the square footage is listed as 143.5 on your sheet, it was discussed with the plans that there was approximately another 8,000 sq.ft. to be added to the school. So I don't know if that brings it up to 150,000 or, if indeed, your current number is reflective of the extra square footage. I know we have to be careful with those fractions of those acres and different things. I had a friend drive from the old Jefferson School, which this school I believe is intended to replace, after school time without school traffic out there took some time and I really only see that Rupple Road has got to go all the way through. A lot of these families are going to travel out 66 Street and it would be easier to travel up and go north on Rupple Road instead of going all the way up Wedington and Wedington, as you may know, is already bogged down. I am very concerned about the safety and the traffic issues, as I'm sure you all are too. Ramira: My name is Michelle Ramira. I'm a second grade teacher at Jefferson. I just wanted to let you know that many of us are in great support of the new facilities and are very excited about it and are ready to move our kids into a wonderful, new building with wonderful new access to the Boys and Girls Club across the street and the programs that could be provided for after school there. It is just a safe environment. I actually look forward to the Fire Department being down the road because we can walk the kids down to go see the firemen. We are excited about where the new building is going to be. Whenever I hear the students talk about the new school that is the first thing they say. "Is it across from the Boys and Girls Club?" They are really excited about that. I wanted to mention that. Just that we have a great need for a new facility. If you have been to Jefferson it is time. It is time for us to have a new building. We have grown out of the building that we are in and we need a more healthy environment, an environment that is more conducive to allowing people with disabilities. I don't know if you have been there but there are several levels to it and if a child is in a wheelchair it makes it very difficult for them to be able to get around in there. That is just the time that it was built in. It wasn't made Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 15 accessible very well for handicapped students and teachers as well. I know a lot of people have a sentimental attachment to the old building and so do a lot of us but we have to realize that we are here to do what is best for the kids and not to hold onto things that might not be the best for them because it is best for us. That's all I have. Thank you. McGuire Bowman: I'm Dr. Kathy McGuire Bowman of Fayetteville Hopes. I'm a resident of Ward 3. The position of Fayetteville Hopes has always been that we want more communication between citizens, parents, the school board and the city council and the planning commission. I would like us to envision what this decision might have been like if we would've all known before the decision was made to take the neighborhood school out of Jefferson's south side neighborhood and put it west of I-540. If you would have been able to include that in your overall planning for the city. The decision was made a year ago February in a special session of the school board. There may have been some insiders who knew that was going to happen but for all of us who had been falling it, it was completely, absolutely, and utterly out of the blue. No parents, students, community members, neighborhood members were in any way involved. Decision making resources were, Chamber of Commerce, bankers, administrators. We are looking for a change in that in the overall planning. I think the Planning Commission has done a great job, just a few meetings I've been in. It is a daunting task and I have complete appreciation and I know that tonight you will make the best decision about what is best for the Westside neighborhood and what it can handle. I do think it is questionable whether 1,100 student facility is the best and safest way to serve the students or the neighborhood. I think you are going to have tremendous traffic problems but I think you can figure all that out. My concern is in the decision making process. I came here several months ago to try to bridge that and to let you know that HELLO! This 80 acres coming up is going to have a school on it. I don't think it should've been me, a parent advocate, who would've been the one to bring that up. Again, the overall planning for the City of Fayetteville can only be done with great cooperation between the school district, the school board, the city council, the planning commission, the neighbors and the neighborhoods. I think the resolution of the city council in support of neighborhood schools was a great step in that direction. That was really saying hello folks, we need to get together. Already I have heard that the school board is setting aside 53 million dollars to build a new high school and the target is 2012. Perhaps the Planning Commission, like me, might wonder what they have in mind. Is this to be one high school to replace the existing high school? I won't spend a lot of time because that is not the topic. But this is another instance of this. It is like HELLO! I have to tell you that the school district people kind of gloat and laugh when we don't know the answers, the parent and citizen advocates. When we go to a meeting and we say are you thinking of one high school or two high schools? They kind of laugh Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 16 at us like we are silly people who don't know. This is not the way it should be. Whatever you can do, whatever pressure you can apply and whatever way you can interact with the other city council counterparts, please do. We of Fayetteville Hopes will continue trying to get the special sessions and retreats of the school board on the government channel so that citizens can know what is going on, to get citizens to participate at school board meetings and in school board elections. We will hope that there will be a charter school in the Jefferson neighborhood. We are concerned about the use of the T.I.F. District at the displacement of the working class neighbors there and are concerned about affordable housing in Fayetteville. That is all part of the same package. I know you will make a good decision about what is best for the west side neighborhood tonight. Thank you for your efforts. Shackelford: Is there anybody else that would like to address us regarding the Conditional Use or Large Scale Development? Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan. I'm one of the developers out in that area. This piece of property does not belong to me although I did present it for the owners to you for rezoning and annexation. A couple of issues were about traffic. I live out in Ward 4 now so I go to town around 7:30 each morning. All of our traffic congestion is going into town but coming back toward us it's not so I feel like the school has a situation where there won't be that kind of traffic coming towards us down Wedington right now. They have plenty of room. There are not that many people going west in the morning, everybody is going in. Another issue was brought up about capacity out there for sewer and stuff. They will be using the sewer capacity in the daytime where the homes that are coming in out there won't be using it basically except in the evenings and stuff. This is sort of the best of both worlds to be able to use it. We would like to see the school go in out there. We do think there is a need out there. We just ask that you vote for it. Shackelford: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to make a comment regarding either the Conditional Use or the adjoining Large Scale Development for the proposed school? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments. Trumbo: At our agenda meeting Jeremy explained the time line for the connectivity of the roadway. Would you mind doing that just briefly so neighbors know what is going on? Pate: In your packets on page 11.12 there is a synopsis presented by the applicants tonight regarding timing of streets to be constructed in this area. Obviously, the traffic concerns are a major issue with this development. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 17 Trumbo: Shackelford: Warrick: Conklin: At this time, as you know, Rupple Road is constructed south of Wedington Drive within the past six months a new signal was installed at the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington Drive allowing for a controlled access point at that location. Additionally, this Commission and City Council has approved projects north and west of the school property here. One is the Rupple Row PZD which abuts Rupple Road and Persimmon Street. The other is Cross Keys PZD which abuts 46th Street and Persimmon Street. Both of those were required to improve Persimmon Street, which is a collector on the Master Street Plan. If you go out there right now those roads are currently under construction. You will note that it says Spring 2006. In my opinion those streets will be there long before Spring 2006 based on their construction at this time. If you note east of Rupple Road, Persimmon Street on the Master Street Plan is a collector, it does connect all the way out to Shiloh Drive, which obviously is a collector going one way south. Persimmon Street fronts existing development to the north and then the Marinoni farm area to the south. The developer and owner of that property has been in constant contact with the property owners and meetings with city staff regarding street improvements in this area. That developer and owner is part of the agreement between the school district at this time construct the portion of Rupple Road that you see in the conditions of approval. As for Rupple Road south of Persimmon Street, we are looking at with this development as your conditions of approval state on number three, Rupple Road shall be extended south to Persimmon Street to a minimum of the first entrance accessing the subject property based on a 50/50 cost share. That is the nearby adjacent street improvements that the city has knowledge of at this time. Thank you Jeremy. Jeremy, if I could follow up on that. The question that I had regarding the street committee's recommendation for a cost share with the City of Fayetteville to make Rupple a four lane highway. Obviously, the specific date of that conversation is not known at this time and we can't take it into consideration regarding this decision. Can you give us any in sight as to probability, timing or anything at all on that improvement? Tim has been very involved in all the conversations between the key players. The Planning Commission can certainly make a recommendation to the City Council with regard to your desires on cost share possibilities and it will be taken forward with your recommendation if that is what you choose to do. To answer your question, city staff, engineering, along with the school district, Mr. Terminella and his consultants, Mr. Nock and his consultants, have been meeting the last month and a half to coordinate improvements. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 18 The street committee did hear this item. The City Council has asked me to bring forward to them where we have opportunities to widen our streets in areas that are growing fairly rapidly to make those streets four lane. The street committee did act on that and did recommend a cost share to the City Council to improve that portion of Rupple Road from Persimmon south all the way to the southern boundary line of the school district site to make that a four lane road with a fifth lane turn lane at Rupple and Persimmon. With regard to City Council action on this, Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates is designing the intersection piece to be developed by Mr. Nock's development. As soon as he engineers that and has those numbers and they are available we will be bringing that forward next year to the City Council. We are somewhat fortunate, I feel, that the school district and Mr. Terminella are using the same engineering firm for the southern portion so the designers will be able to design that road and work together to make sure it all lines up and is at the right elevation. As this goes forward and that portion of Rupple Road is designed that will go forward next year also. We have accomplished a lot in the last month and a half with all three developers including the City of Fayetteville to plan the intersection elevation, alignment, future right of way dedications, and all four parties are in agreement right now. We will need to take that to the City Council for approval. Shackelford: Thank you. Vaught: Conklin: Vaught: Shackelford: Is that from Persimmon Road south or from Wedington Road south? Persimmon south, Wedington down to Persimmon would be a city project. When that subdivision was platted for Hayden Mcllroy as part of the Boys and Girls Club, an agreement was reached where $100,000 was given to the city and if it was ever four land in the future within six years there would be additional money given. That portion would become a city project and additional funding would have to be identified. The City Council is very aware of the need for Rupple Road to become a major arterial north/south road on that side of town. Additional funding is going to be the main issue of how we pay for it. Thank you. For those of you who weren't able to attend Subdivision Committee, that was a conversation that we had at that point, was connectivity. I very much appreciate the information regarding timing for the extension of Persimmon Street both to the east and west. Obviously, I'm only one vote of this Commission but for the record, I think the ability to cost share to get a four lane out of Rupple Road is a good thing. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 19 Clark: With all the developments that we have approved around the Boys and Girls Club what would the maximum density be if we added all the houses that they have approved? A guesstimate would do. Warrick: You are considering full build out at maximum densities allowable? Clark: Sure. While you are calculating, we have traffic studies and we have sewer capacity studies before us with some degree of explanation, but my question is do these studies assume this development or not or are they calculating the current usage levels right now? Conklin- Your question is in the traffic study are they calculating the current volumes? Clark: They didn't do any projections? Conklin: They did do traffic counts on the roadways and then they also looked at build out in that traffic study for ultimate build out. It definitely needs to be a four lane road at build out. It needs to be a signalized intersection at build out. There is no denying that. From looking at the numbers we will have between 14,000 and 16,000 potential vehicles going north/south on that arterial road. It will become a major road. Warrick: My best guess is somewhere in the range of 550 units. That is a rough guesstimate. Clark: The sewage capacity study assumes that density or does it assume current density? Warrick: Some of those units were included in the study and provided for within the capacity that is noted. Some of them were not. It depended on the time frame when we started, the numbers that we provided the consultant included a couple of those subdivisions, but not all of them. Clark: Warrick: When I'm looking at the sewage capacity study I really don't know what type of density we are looking at currently or what it's based on? I believe that the Persimmon Place subdivision was included in the capacity analysis that was done by the consultant. That was 40 acres with a maximum of probably 125 or 130 units. The Rupple Row and Cross Keys developments were not. That would be the remainder of that about 500. Still, several tens of units that have been approved but were not included in the numbers given to consultants that was a time frame through something like mid spring 2003 when we provided those numbers of approved developments for RJN to complete their study. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 20 Clark: That was my question in Subdivision. That was my question tonight is sewer capacity study, traffic studies bother me because you are talking about an inordinate amount of density in the area that we haven't even seen yet. These are all just approved subdivisions. We are going to see them. I have no doubt that we are going to need a school there. I'm still struggling with the size of the school quite honestly. I am going to listen to everybody else and see where I want to go. I did not think that it assumed all that we have approved. Vaught: I think what I would like to do is talk about the Conditional Use first, whether or not we feel like it is an appropriate area for a school. A number of these comments go to the Large Scale Development. On that, I would like to state that I do feel that this is a great place for a school. That says nothing against what else the school board is doing. This is an area where we are approving higher density. A lot of these neighborhoods are within walking distance of this new school as well as the proximity to the Boys and Girls Club. I think this is an area that greatly needs a school because there are no schools incredibly close to this area currently. On that, I do believe this is a great location for a school and do concur with the idea of a Conditional Use for this location. I will make a motion for approval of CUP 04-1286. Shackelford: We have a motion by Commissioner Vaught to approve the Conditional Use that will allow the use unit on this property that has been requested. Is there a second? Trumbo: I will second. Shackelford: There is a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Are there any other questions or comments regarding specifically the Conditional Use that has been requested by the applicant? Allen: This doesn't preclude the questions that Commissioner Clark asked? Vaught: Not at all. Those go with the Large Scale Development side of the development. Clark: I'm not so sure about that. I am looking at a Conditional Use for this specific project which is a school for 1100 kids. I'm not sure that the Conditional Use for that number of kids is appropriate. A neighborhood school, yes Sir, I agree with 100%. Vaught: That is not what the Conditional Use is for. The Conditional Use is for a location of a school. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 21 Shackelford: Specifically, this request is to approve the development of an elementary/middle school in a R -A zoned district. Vaught: It is for the use of a school but it is also contingent on the Large Scale, which we are about to hear. Clark: Unless the Conditional Use is voted down. Vaught: Then you kill the whole thing. Trumbo: Before we vote, could we have somebody speak for the sewer capacity from staff, so we can get a feel for what's going on? O'Neal: This area is presently served by the Owl Creek lift station which pumps up to the Hamestring lift station and then on. As you know, this area just south and west, is the new wastewater treatment plant, that will be online I've heard in about early spring 2006 by the time that this information has. When that comes online there will be, from my understanding, another lift station just adjacent to the treatment plant which will remove any capacity issues from this development from the Owl Creek lift station. Instead of all of this going to Owl Creek up to Hamestring and then gravity flow back to the wastewater treatment plant it will be basically a small lift station that takes this whole development area directly to the wastewater treatment plant. Trumbo: Is it your opinion that the capacity, that we could put this school in and still service? O'Neal: It is my understanding that the treatment plant will be online actually before the school will be. Trumbo: Thank you. Allen: I just wanted a clarification before we voted on this. Are we voting on a Conditional Use to allow a school to be built there or to allow this school to be built there? Shackelford: The specific request is to approve the ability to build a school on this property that is zoned R -A. I will defer to the City Attorney. Williams: I would defer to the proposal that is in your packet. The applicant is requesting approval for development of a 143,700 sq.ft. structure for an elementary and middle school serving approximately 1,000 students. That is the Conditional Use that is before you. It is a large school, you know that, and that is what they are asking for. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 22 Shackelford: I guess that's right. If you look at the specific conditions of approval, condition number one states that the accompanying Large Scale Development plan must be approved. If that Large Scale isn't approved then the Conditional Use would go away with the Large Scale. That condition number one ties the two together. Vaught: To me the main question here, and we see these often with Conditional Uses being tied to a development, is whether or not a school is appropriate for this area. I think this is an area that desperately needs a school I think that the development of a school in this area would help alleviate traffic going to schools on the west side of town and would aid in that. This area is rapidly developing with high density. My hope would be that many of the children attending the school are within a short distance, especially with the dense development directly north of this site and the proximity of the Boys and Girls Club. To me it is an ideal location for a school. The idea of the size and some of the specifics I feel like we will get to on the next question. If we vote that down this goes away but as for this being an appropriate location for a school, I do think it is the right location for a school. Williams: I just want to call your attention to the packet and the findings that were proposed by the Planning Department. As you are aware for a Conditional Use you make written findings. They have been proposed to you by the Planning Department. If you disagree with one of these findings and therefore, if you are going to vote against this Conditional Use you would need to express which finding you disagree with so that the Conditional Use would fail because it does not comply with the findings as proposed by the Planning Department. Anyone that wants to vote against that please identify which findings that you disagree with. Anyone that is in favor of the Conditional Use you would need to in fact, endorse all the findings that the Planning Department bas presented to you on 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5. Shackelford: We have a motion and a second to approve CUP 04-1286. Are there any other questions or comments regarding this motion? Seeing none, I am going to call for the vote. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1286 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Shackelford: Let's talk specifically about the Large Scale Development. There are 20 conditions of approval for the approval of this Large Scale Development. The 20th would be the developer shall be assessed $11,520 as a payment for materials and future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 23 Rupple Road and Persimmon Street prior to issuance of a building permit. As Planning Commission, we have specific findings of fact regarding commercial design standards that we have to make. There are obviously, elevations here. I believe that is the only finding of fact that we have to make. We have taken public comment regarding this Large Scale Development so I will open it up to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. McGuire -Bowman: I have a point of order. Shackelford: We have already taken public comment on this item. Williams: Points of order can be taken by Commissioners but not by the public. Shackelford: Are there questions or comments regarding the Large Scale Development? Myres: I have read this thing several times and one of my concerns has to do with the fact that this property is in a floodplain. I don't know that that has been addressed, the impact that it would have on the land that it is being built on. The impact of the possibility that the land is going to flood is going to have on the school. Obviously, nobody is going to put this kind of money into a structure that they think is going to be under water every 50 years. It is an environmental concern that I don't see addressed anywhere. Maybe this is not the time or the level at which that would be thought about. Warrick: The city does have regulations with regard to development within the floodplain. I think it would be appropriate for the developer's engineer to address how they came about this design based on the site conditions that are present on the property. There is a very small portion of this structure that is impacted by the 100 -year floodplain. Jones: There is floodplain on the property. The intent is to stay out of the floodplain as much as possible. The city's requirement is that the finished floor be elevated a minimum of 2' above the floodplain, which we are doing. There was also a wetland delineation done on the property and we are avoiding the wetland areas on the property. There was a comment earlier made about a crossing over Owl Creek with a drive connecting to Persimmon. We have designed that so that there will be no impact to the water surface elevation up stream of the proposed structure. In essence, what we are doing, and we are avoiding the floodway completely. This project will have a minimum impact on the floodplain in that area. In fact, it should have zero impact on the floodplain. Myres: Is there any formal agreement to maintain that wetland area? Is it appropriate in a case like this? Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 24 Warrick: Wetlands are typically self maintained. In fact, that is how many of them are formed by leaving those properties to their own devices with regard to the water filtering through the properties and through the plants and different vegetation and hydric soils that are present. Typically, leaving wetlands alone is truly the best way to maintain them and to allow them to serve their purpose. Myres: Even if the school grows in the future, which it probably will, there is a way to prevent damaging them? Warrick: Additions or modifications to any structure, especially one of this size, would go through a Planning review. If it were less than 10,000 sq.ft. of an addition it would be a staff level review. It would require Planning as well as Engineering to sign off. Floodplain development permits would be necessary if they were impacting the floodplain at all. Federal regulations trump anything that the city can impose with regard to providing stormwater and wetland protection. Myres: I'm assuming good faith on everybody's part in this. I can see that as the city grows that there might be a need for the school to grow as well and you have a limited amount of land on which to build already. Thank you very much. Gray: I'm Michael Gray, Associate Superintendent with the school district, we do not have the intent to expand this school facility physically. We agree with your concerns that we have about maxxed out traffic wise and this is the size of school that we want. I know there is concern. We don't have another elementary or middle school this size in Fayetteville. All of the other larger school districts in Northwest Arkansas, that is the common numbers. When you do that of course, you get the economies of scale. The large numbers can help you be more efficient. The numbers came out of trying to be economically efficient and good stewards of the tax payers money. We have several elementary schools right now that are 300 to 400 student capacity and with that number we are not able to financially cost per student is just more. That is the main reason. It has been successful in several other school districts and we don't have any concern that we would have a problem educating students. We will build small communities within this larger facility. Shackelford: Regarding the overall size, we are talking about putting an elementary school and a middle school in the same building, how would this compare in size to the most recent elementary school, middle school campuses that have been built both on the east and west side if those two buildings were added together square footage wise? Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 25 Gray: The elementary side, we are going to have joint use of the office and the main entrance area, the media center and the cafeteria, which will have one kitchen that serves that cafeteria. We are separating with a movable petition that will allow us to separate the elementary and the middle school so we can be serving at the same time and not have to worry about inappropriate interactions. Shackelford: My question was if you add the most recent elementary school and middle school that have been built, those two buildings added together, what square footage are those compared to this? Gray: Our most recent schools are middle schools and those were built at a capacity of about 650. We can stretch those and we had more than 700 students at McNair two years ago but we prefer 650. Our most recent elementary schools were designed for about 540. We have a little over 600 students right now at Vandergriff school. We will handle about 624 elementary students maximum and 448 middle school students at one time. Shackelford: Are there any other questions or comments for the applicant? Clark: What percentage of the population for this new school is going to come from the immediate area? What percentage of the elementary population is going to reflect the Jefferson school transfer? Gray: I'm not sure. I do have somebody here that does our demographics. Guadanini: My name is Robert Guadanini, I do their GIS Planning and demographics. You wanted to know what percentage of the populations? Clark: I'm perplexed. Mr. Gray just said that he had no intention of this school every expanding yet we are talking about adding 500 some odd new units to that area immediately. What I'm concerned about is the impact of that growth and the number of students we are going to be bussing in from Jefferson School. What will the Jefferson kids represent? Guadanini: Right now residing in that area, that school is right now in the location of the current Jefferson zone. It is really difficult to tell because of the way the demographics are. It could take up to 300 to 340. The school is designed for that location to compensate for all the housing that is going in on the west side. Does that answer your question? Clark: No. What percentage will the Jefferson kids represent? Guadanini: I would say easily 90%. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 26 Clark: So you are planning for 10% of the population to come from the new developments that are going to surround the school? Guadanini: No. The elementary portion is 600, there are only about 330 students at Jefferson right now. Clark: So 50%. Guadanini: It is only going to leave about 300 seats for growth in that area. Clark: So we have 50% of the student population to come from that immediate area that is going to have 550 units or so? Guadanini: Yes. Shackelford: Trumbo: Vaught: Shackelford: Are there questions, comments or motions? After reading the conditions of approval, it seems the only one that really asks for a finding is does this meet commercial design standards and in my opinion, it does. Having said that, I would like to make a motion to approve LSD 04-1287 with a specific finding in favor of commercial design standards and all other conditions. I will second that. I would like to make a comment speaking to a few of the public concerns. Our role in this is to review the proposal before us. That is what we try to do and hold those to the laws that we have. As for the planning of schools and the way those districts line out, they are not something that we have control over and they are not really something that we can consider in our ordinances set before us. School board is an elected position. I would encourage you guys if you don't like the way the board is acting to get involved, possibly run yourselves and change the make up of the school board. That is something that is in your control and I would like to encourage you guys to do that. Like I said, we are looking at the specific proposal before us and whether or not it falls under the ordinances that we have. Unfortunately, in our roles we don't look at the 50 year plan of the school board when we are approving a certain school. It is just not something that is in our charge. I appreciate that. I am not the normal chairman here and I may have very likely let this bird walk away a little bit from where we should have been but you make a very good point. We are charged by the City Council to review projects and apply our codes and our ordinances to those projects. We are not, nor do we need to be, involved in school planning, district selections, any of that. That is what the school board is for. For the time and energy that I've let this get off track I do apologize. Also, I probably did not direct conversation enough towards commercial design standards. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 27 That is a specific finding of fact. Commissioner Trumbo did address that in his motion. Are there any concerns regarding commercial design standards from any of the other Commissioners? Vaught: I would also like to affirm with the motion the recommendation of the 50% cost share recommending that forward to the City Council. Trumbo: Yes. Shackelford: Any of the other twenty items regarding specific conditions of approval that any Planning Commissioners would like to discuss prior to me calling for the vote? Allen: I would just like to make a comment that I will vote for this project because it meets our planning rules and regulations and that there is now a need for that school in that area, just as I believe there is still a need for the school where Jefferson now exists. I wish to state that it is troublesome to me to observe what I believe to be a lack of candor as this whole area has developed. Shackelford: Are there any other comments before I call for the vote? Seeing none, Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1287 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 28 CUP 04-1281: Conditional Use (BARBER POOL HOUSE, 294): Submitted by AARON BIRDSONG for property located at 3122 E TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 3.19 acres. The request is to approve a detached second dwelling (a pool/guest house) on the subject property. Shackelford: Morgan: The next item on our agenda is a Conditional Use, CUP 04-1281 for the Barber pool house. The subject property is a 3.19 acre tract located north of Township Road east of Crossover Road. It is lot 45 of the Candlewood subdivision. This property is currently zoned RSF-4. There is a single family home being constructed on this property currently. When they applied for their permit for the single family home they had also requested that an associated pool house or guest house would accompany that permit. However, because it is the inclusion of a kitchen area, a laundry, a sleeping area was included in that proposed structure staff could not approve it without a Conditional Use for a detached second dwelling unit, which is before you today. The applicant is requesting a 1,400 sq.ft. pool house or guest house. Of that, there is 1,292 sq.ft. of heated space and 708 sq.ft. balcony. The surrounding uses are either vacant P-1, Institutional property or single family homes with RSF-4 zoning districts. The applicant has written a request for the approval of this Conditional Use. Staff is recommending approval based on the findings found within your staff report. We have made specific findings specifically addressing the Conditional Use as well as findings with regard to appropriateness of a detached second family dwelling unit on this property. Staff finds that granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest, that sufficient parking is proposed on this tract to accommodate not only the main house but also the additional dwelling unit. One item that the findings address with regard to these Conditional Uses for second detached dwelling units is that they are architecturally compatible with the main structure. Elevations have been submitted to the Planning Division and with the conditions of approval we have requested that the elevations be proposed to the Planning Division prior to permit of this structure so that we can ensure that it is in keeping with the main structure. Additionally, the total area floor space for a detached dwelling unit is to not exceed 1,200 sq.ft. As I stated, they are requesting 1,292 sq.ft. heated space with an additional balcony area for a total of 1,400 sq.ft. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use with six conditions. The first states that the Planning Commission shall determine a waiver request for total floor area greater than the 1,200 sq.ft. allowed. I will entertain any questions that you may have. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Is the applicant here this evening? If so, if you would please introduce yourself. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 29 Cathca: Shackelford: Warrick: Shackelford: Clark: I'm Seth Cathca of the Barber Group representing the owners, Aaron Birdsong who will be building the pool house. We don't have any additional comments but will entertain any questions. At this time I will open it up for public comment regarding the Conditional Use for the Barber Pool House. Is there anyone who would like to address the Planning Commission regarding this request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments regarding this request. Staff, if you could, obviously, we are talking about an additional structure on three acres of property that is zoned RSF-4. Can you explain to us briefly why this Conditional Use is required and it couldn't just be built as a use by right with that zoning? There are some situations where a second principal structure that is a use permitted in a district would be allowed without going through this Conditional Use process. The criteria for doing that would mean that the structures could be set on the property so that they each had their own necessary amount of frontage, setback, and square footage so that in the future if the owner wished they could be divided out and have independent legal lots of record. When that is not possible, in this case, one structure is basically behind the other, and you really don't have the opportunity to provide a second lot of record. When that is the situation we look at a Conditional Use for a second dwelling unit. That is why we are seeing this as a Conditional Use. This is a lot that has quite a bit of land area but a narrow frontage and it is oddly configured because of some adjacent floodplain. Commissioners, are there questions, comments or motions? This is going to be a heck of a pool house. I see no reason based on staff's findings that we should object to it. I will make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1281 with conditions as stated. Shackelford: With a specific finding in favor of the waiver to allow over 1,200 sq.ft.? Clark: Myres: Shackelford: Yes. I will second. There is a motion and a second. Are there any questions or comments regarding the motion on the floor? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1281 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 30 Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 31 CUP 04-1282: Conditional Use (SUSAN ALGER, 256): Submitted by TOM WEBB for property located at ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.13 acres. The request is to approve a 2.635 acre tandem lot on the subject property. LSP 04-1283: Lot Split (SUSAN ALGER, 256): Submitted by TOM WEBB for property located at ROM ORCHARD RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.13 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 7.495 and 2.635 acres. Shackelford: Next we have CUP 04-1282 and an accompanying Lot Split as well. If we could have staff comments please. Pate: The two items before you are currently a Conditional Use and a Lot Split. The Conditional Use is a request to create a tandem lot. As you will note on your maps on page 13.12, the majority of this property is located within our Planning Area in the county. Zoning does not apply to this area. However, the portion of the lot that the applicant is requesting to split out is within the city limits and is zoned R -A. Therefore, we are seeing a Conditional Use request because this particular lot does not have any frontage. The property is located on Rom Orchard Road and contains approximately 10.13 acres. The applicant s requesting to split the lot into two tracts of 2.6 and 7.5 acres. The property is situated such that there is a large pond. You can see that on page 13.13. Really, the only way to subdivide this piece of property and still be able to build on it and access it would be in it's current configuration. Otherwise, you would have to split the pond to gain the necessary frontage. Based on that situation, staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split and the Conditional Use. You will note item 13, the Conditional use, does have several findings that are required to be made by the Planning Commission. Staff has made those findings for you and those are reflected in the conditions of approval. I would like to expand on item five. On page 13.5 you will notice there is a requirement, that says before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a dwelling located on a tandem lot the property owner shall either construct a turn around for sanitation vehicles or construct a masonry garbage can holder with screening for each garbage can to be used. This type of garbage can holder is not conducive to the city's solid waste collector. They have requested that this option not be allowed. It tears up those masonry holders. Essentially, as any resident in the City of Fayetteville or anyone served by the Solid Waste Division, the cart will be wheeled out to the frontage on the trash collection day and then wheeled back to their home. With that, staff is recommending approval of both the Conditional Use and Lot Split. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 32 Shackelford: Thank you. At this point I am going to open it up to public comment. If anybody would like to address either the Conditional Use Permit or the adjoining Lot Split please address us at this time. Gaston: My name is Colleen Gaston, I live on Rom Orchard Road. I would just like for the record, to mention that this subject property, both tracts, are subject to a conservation easement held by Ozark Regional Land Trust. Among other things the conservation easement restricts development of these lots including limiting, the total tract divided is proposed to two houses. Now my understanding is that one house is being allowed on the tandem lot that would mean that the remaining almost eight acres could only be developed in the future for one lot. I have a copy of part of the conservation easement that I would like to leave to be made part of the record. The actual conservation easement itself was filed in 1997. I don't have a copy of that although it is at the Washington County Courthouse, starts at page 98001254. What I do have is the declaration of approval of subdivision and lot line adjustment of the protected property. That specifies the number of houses on each tract and I would like that made part of the record. If you would like, I can also get a copy of the conservation easement from the courthouse and later bring it to the city. Unfortunately, I don't have that with me right now. Shackelford: Thompson: Shackelford: Warrick: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to address this Conditional Use Permit or the adjoining Lot Split request? My name is Mary Thompson, I'm an adjacent land owner. My concern is that the drainage from the construction not flow down onto my land. I would like to know if there will be a grading or drainage permit be required for the construction of the access drive. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address us regarding these two items? If not, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Drainage and construction would be considered at the time that a request for a development were to go on this is that correct staff? We have been conferencing a little bit on that. The majority of this tract of land is not within the city limits of Fayetteville. Depending on where the structure (single family home) would be built, we may or may not have any control over that depending on the location that they choose to construct the home. The city would review it for compliance with zoning regulations therefore, setting the required setbacks. However, single family homes do not require grading permits or erosion control measures unless it is on a significant slope or meets other criteria such as being within the floodplain. Very likely, this would not require extra measures and it may not even require a building permit depending on where they choose to locate a structure. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 33 Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? We have one of these unique pieces of property that is both within and without our jurisdiction so we have limited control at this point. Pate: MOTION: I would mention that staff is aware of the conservation easement on the property just so you do know and it is my belief that we have a full copy of that conservation easement in our office. I can do a little digging if you would like to have a copy of that. Trumbo: I would like to make a motion to approve CUP 04-1282 with the nine conditions as stated. Myres: Second. Shackelford: I have a motion and a second, are there any other questions? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1282 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Shackelford: The adjoining item is LSP 04-1283. The only condition other than standard conditions of approval is Washington County Planning approval shall be obtained prior to recordation, which is standard for these in our growth area. Are there any questions or comments regarding LSP 04- 1283? Vaught: I have one question for staff. How does this affect the conservation easement, or does it at all? Pate: Based on the information provided here, the conservation easement limits two single family dwelling units on this entire property wherever that is located is really up to those developers. This is the applicant's representative. Webb: My name is Tom Webb, I'm with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates Consulting Engineers. We represent Ms. Alger. I would like to discuss the two issues that have been raised about drainage and the conservation easement. First, as to drainage, we have done topographic surveys in the area. Ms. Thompson's property is above the pond and above the driveway. It would be very difficult for us to turn any water on her and we certainly won't when the driveway is constructed. We wish to assure Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 34 Shackelford: MOTION: Clark: Myres: Shackelford: Roll Call: Thomas: you that we have looked at that and it shouldn't be a problem. As to the conservation easement, we have worked with Ozark Regional Land Trust in doing the boundary surveys in the affected area. I have spoken, as a a matter of fact, I had the pleasure of working with Ms. Gaston on setting up the easements and the covenants. We have been working with the Land Trust on this particular item. I talked with Greg Galbreth who is the executive director. Earlier this week we forwarded all materials to them. They have reviewed them, have no problem with them, we are working with Ms. Alger on the sale of the remaining piece and it will have one dwelling as provided. Thank you very much. Thanks to Mr. Webb's enlightening comments, I will much more enthusiastically move that we approve LSP 04-1283 with the conditions stated. Second. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Are there any questions regarding the motion? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-1283 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 35 CUP 04-1290: Conditional Use (SHACKELFORD, 558): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 2921 OLD FARMINGTON ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to renew the expired CUP 03-16.00: a request for a two family unit in a single family zoning district. Shackelford: The next thing on our agenda is CUP 04-1290 for Shackelford. For the record, no relation to myself so I will be voting on this item. Pate: This Conditional Use request was originally approved for the subject property in July, 2003. This request has since expired and the owner of the property has changed. The original request was for two duplexes for a total of four units on the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4. The request before you tonight is to go with the Planning Commission's original approval for only one two family unit on this property and the request, as you note in the staff report, is to allow the construction of a single story duplex on tract B, which was the lot split tract you saw at that time. The findings that are most applicable to this project include general compatibility with adjacent properties and other property within this district. As with all Conditional Use requests, this area is largely developed with single family homes. Development of one two family unit in this location is generally compatible with surrounding properties and other properties in the district. As noted in our General Plan 2020 a mix of different types of residential properties within a neighborhood is desirable. The Planning Commission is empowered to grant this Conditional Use. Staff has included conditions of approval and for the most part they are the same conditions of approval as approved in July of last year. There are five conditions and I don't believe there is anything else that I need to go over unless you have questions. Shackelford: Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Milholland: Shackelford: Warrick: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering. I think he read the conditions of staff approval for renewal of this Conditional Use. We did sign the conditions today. At this point I will open it up to public comment if anybody would like to address the request for CUP 04-1290. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments. I would just like to add that in 2003 when we heard this item originally there was some concern from the neighborhood and we have heard from at least one neighbor. They have obviously, not come to speak with you this evening. However, there have been some concerns voiced with regard to traffic. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 36 Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Motions? Allen: I wondered if Mr. Milholland had visited with those neighbors and addressed any of their concerns. Milholland: I met the lady that owns the house on the site next to it. She said that she didn't have any concern with it. Not recently, this was some time back. The ones across the street, the man over there, there is a metal building where they had trucks. The other side is the cemetery. On the back side there is an old subdivision that is owned by Mike Price, all the houses are rentals. That is the only neighbor I know of that owns the land. Shackelford: This is my understanding, a request for an extension of a Conditional Use that was approved in July of last year. Pate: Just to clarify, it is not technically an extension. It expired so it is an entirely new Conditional Use request. Shackelford: Thank you. It is in essence, the same request that was approved by this board last year? Warrick: That is correct. MOTION: Clark: Since there are no neighbors present to talk about their concerns with traffic I am going to assume that Mr. Milholland has discussed it and everything is in approval by the neighbors. I will move that we approve CUP 04-1290 with the conditions as stated. Myres: Second. Shackelford: There is a motion and a second. Are there any other questions or comments regarding this request? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1290 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 37 ANX 04-1222: Annexation (DORIS ROBERTS, 608): Submitted by BRAD BRUNS for property located at THE SOUTH END OF ROBERTS ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 47.13 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1280: Rezoning (DORIS ROBERTS, 608): Submitted by MARC VANPELT for property located at THE SOUTH END OF ROBERTS RD., SOUTH OF HWY 16E. The property is currently zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 47.13 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Shackelford: The next thing on our agenda is ANX 04-1222 for Roberts. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This item, in tandem with the following item, is a rezoning request for the subject property. This property is located at the south end of Roberts Road essentially, where it turns into Goff Farm Road. It is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 47 acres. The request is to annex this property into the City of Fayetteville. As I mentioned in the brief staff report at agenda session, and included the graphic, there is significant development occurring in this area. Improvements are following with that development. If you will note on page 17.13 I did include a graphic there showing the outline of approved subdivisions in the immediate area. Located on that page is Stonebridge Meadows Phases II and III, which are immediately adjacent to the south of the property. Those are within the City of Fayetteville and are approved subdivisions. The property to the west includes Stonebridge Meadows Phase I along with the associated golf course. Bridgedale subdivision, just recently approved, is located to the north and west of this property, and the remaining surrounding property to the north and the east are single family homes and agricultural land which are located within the Planning Area and the City of Fayetteville. Additionally, part of the site characteristics on this particular piece of property is the floodplain and floodway of the West Fork of the White River, which does cut through this property to the southeast. In our annexation guiding policies there are several findings that both the planning staff, engineering staff and public service providers make and our zoning review tour that we take and compile for you any findings that go forward to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Those findings have been included for your review. I won't go over all of those. A couple that are note worth, fire and police service and emergency service in general, have in the past, been concerned in this area. There have been subdivisions approved in this area and other annexations and rezonings. I would mention that with approval last week the City Council did approve the purchase of the Tyson complex there and eminent plans for that are for a fire station which will alleviate some of those response Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 38 Shackelford: Van Pelt: times which are currently about 8 to 9 minutes and which should drop significantly with the addition of a fire station in this general vicinity. One of the other issues that we typically see with annexation and rezoning requests are street improvements and what would be required at the time of development. Obviously, with an annexation and rezoning request we are not looking at specific street improvements at this time. However, we do make recommendations as to what might occur should this be developed at it's full capacity and as noted, I believe on page 16.3 our staff engineers have compiled some findings. As noted, the current site does have current access to Goff Farm Road. At the time of development this street will need to be brought up to current standards along the property frontage, which is typical, including all city requirements, should this be annexed and rezoned. Roberts Road will also need to be improved to a minimum 20' standard. The recommended improvements will be based on the development plans that are submitted. Really, we are looking at land use issues right now and it is at the Planning Commission and ultimately, the City Council's discretion whether this property should be annexed into the City of Fayetteville. Staff is recommending approval of that annexation. We feel it is compatible with adjacent land uses and future land uses that are in this area. The General Plan 2020 calls for this area to be residential in nature and it is developing as such. The tandem request, should this property be annexed or recommended to the City Council to be annexed, is to rezone it from R -A to RSF-4, which is the most typical single family residential zoning district. That is the zoning district of surrounding developments including those aforementioned subdivisions that are in the immediate vicinity. Staff is recommending approval of this request to rezone the property RSF-4. As I did mention, annexation and rezoning of this property will provide the ability for the city to review many things that otherwise we do not. I believe one of the items later tonight that Mr. Conklin will present talks about subdivisions in the one mile area and changing those ordinance requirements. However, they are still very limited. They really deal with street improvements. With a subdivision in the city we are looking at detention requirements, parks and recreation board recommendation, floodplain and floodway review through our Floodplain Administrator and tree preservation among many other things. Again, staff has determined and made our finding that this proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use plan and if you have any questions or disagree with those findings please ask. Thank you Jeremy. Is the applicant here this evening? I'm Mark Van Pelt. I'm here on behalf of Doris Roberts who is the trustee of the Doris F. Roberts Trust. With me this evening is Eldon Roberts, her son, and Brad Bruns who is a real estate agent who is handling the transaction here. I would simply ask that you approve both the annexation Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 39 and rezoning here based on staffs comments. We are here to address any concerns that you might have. Shackelford: Would anybody in the audience like to address us on either ANX 04-1222 or the adjoining RZN 04-1280? Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. Clark: I have a question. On the wonderful graphic you gave us on Page 17.13 where you showed all the development that is going out there. Roberts Road, where it makes the turn toward the west, is that something that staff thinks this development might be responsible or improving or are you just talking strictly Roberts Road up to Huntsville? When it goes around that corner it is still a narrow street. Warrick: I think that we are certainly needing to look at all of the infrastructure in this area depending upon what is brought forward with regard to a development on this site. Obviously, we believe that what will brought forward is a single family subdivision with approximately 2 Yz to 3 units per acre meeting our requirements with regard to tree preservation and parkland dedication and all the different criteria of a project within the city limits It would very likely not maximize four units per acre. 188 units would be absolutely maximum if the RSF-4 zoning were approved by the Council. That is a lot of vehicle trips per day that would be impacting that area that you mentioned so there would very likely need to be some improvements. I can't say exactly what those would be but we would certainly base that on the traffic generation that was being created. Clark: The reason I asked is the infrastructure notes in my packet specifically say Roberts Road to the north needs to be improved. As I have sat on this Commission just a scant few months I am reminded that developers will come back to this wording as they develop and say that we are not supposed to do that part. I'm really concerned that the area that turns that comer back into those other subdivisions is still I think is 14'. I would just want to encourage staff to be a little more vague and say road improvements along Roberts Road in general and not just limit us to the north. Warrick: One thing that we know that you may not be aware of because of your time on the Commission, and it is easy to overlook. There are currently Phases II and III of Stonebridge Meadows under construction. They do have a burden of improving Roberts Road adjacent to their development which immediately adjoins the curve and the Roberts property. They are still under construction and so we will see some improvements in that location and once that is done we will have to reevaluate any new project that would again impact that area. Piece by piece as these projects come through we are seeing those roads being improved with curb, gutter, storm Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 40 Clark: Warrick: Clark: Allen: Conklin - Williams: MOTION: Clark: Shackelford: Roll Call: Thomas: drain and sidewalk. The piece that will be improved with Phase II of Stonebridge Meadows will span, if you see on page 17.14 the RSF-4 portion that is kind of an ameba shape that circles around part of the golf course that is zoned R -A there is a significant portion of frontage on Goff Farm Road that will be improved with that development. They will be improving the portion that is adjacent to their frontage including the cutout for the R -A golf course section as well as the cut out for one intervening land owner that is not within that subdivision. When I drove down there it looked like their road improvements might have already finished and it just stops. It is under construction and it will need to be improved. We have been through the 546 Street wars and I don't want to set us up for that in the future. I would like to ask staff if they know the projected time for the completion of the future fire station? That has not been decided at this point. The City Council's next action, do you know what that would be Kit? The City Council has decided to buy the building if the contract is as they wish. I think it will be. After that they will have to appropriate some money to do the remodeling in order to turn the facility that is there now into a fire station. I think that they want to move it forward pretty quickly. It might be within a couple of years and maybe even quicker. Since we have to always bid everything out it delays everything so I would guess it would be at least two years away. I will move that we recommend approval of ANX 04-1222. I will second the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. There is a motion and a second, are there any questions regarding this action? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1222 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 41 Shackelford: We will now consider RZN 04-1280 to recommend rezoning from R -A to RSF-4. Are there any questions or comments regarding this recommendation? Clark: I share Commissioner Allen's concern about the fire response time but I'm assuming that when this property is developed we can consider that and we will consider the Preliminary Plat and that will be a concern, quite honestly, because we do have a lot of density headed out that way and the response time is pretty stretched right now. Having said that, I will move that we approve RZN 04-1280. Myres: Second. Shackelford: There is a motion and a second. Are there any questions regarding the recommendation for rezoning this property to the City Council? Vaught: I just want to echo the comments made on the previous item about just so the developer knows that the improvements to Roberts Road will be something we look at so don't be surprised when that comes forward again. Shackelford: Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I will call for the vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1280 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 42 Shackelford: We are onto ADM 04-1305, ADM 04-1303 and ADM 04-1306. Tim, I assume you are presenting these to us. Conklin: The first two you mentioned I am going to present. It was my understanding at agenda session that the Commissioners wanted to have some type of working session. I proposed that we can do it next Monday the 29th or the following Monday the 6`h. I would like to briefly explain the term form based code. I think everybody received the downtown district, it is in your packet. As part of the downtown master plan I included in the scope of work a draft zoning code for our downtown. I wanted to make sure that after our downtown master plan was done with the recommendations we had something as a starting point to look at for the downtown area. This contains four new zoning districts and a cultural and entertainment overlay zone. The title of it is a new district for the City of Fayetteville's Unified Development Code. I might argue that it is actually not a new district but actually an old type of code that we are looking at how to code our downtown to achieve the urban design principals or urban fabric that have historically been built within our community. When we walk out of the building and look at the square, the term form is important to understand where buildings are placed on a lot and how many stories buildings have within certain areas of downtown. Also, I want to make a point that this code needs to be tailored to Fayetteville. Every community is different. Springdale's downtown or Rogers or Bentonville's, Fayetteville is unique and we need to look at how our city has developed and how we add to it. It is more of a code of not just throwing everything out but looking at what we have, what we like. That was what the downtown master plan was about, was about visualizing this change of what the downtown could look like 20/50 or 100 years from now. When you look at this code it is a lot different than your traditional zoning which focused primarily on land use and set out some minimums where your building has to be setback a minimum of 30' but we don't really care as a community if you sit it back 150' and put a parking lot in front of it. The difference with this code states that we do care where your building is placed on the lot and we are more concerned about how it fits in with the urban fabric and historic character of our downtown area. In exchange, we are not as concerned primarily about land use. The other thing about this type of code is how to level the playing field for development. Having the same zoning districts that we have downtown that we have at CMN Business Park really doesn't make sense. They are two different types of urban design and architecture that we are trying to achieve. This code proposes that in exchange for us looking as a city at where you place your buildings and the mass of your buildings you get approval by right. Let's decide what our vision is for this community. Let's decide as a community what we want it to look like and in exchange instead of going through an architectural review board or architectural standards that talk about what we currently have, a square Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 43 box. A square box might not be a bad shape in the downtown. It is what is on that square box that's important. This code talks about the minimum elements that the city would like to see on the actual buildings. Should developers be rewarded to have balconies or arcades that extend over the sidewalks? Should they have incentives to do something beyond the maximum height with a type of roof or architectural feature? This is what the code is trying to achieve. I just want to make sure that you all know that it is not about more regulations. It is about how to make the code more predictable for the developer, the commissioners and staff and the citizens of the community. It is really exciting I think because it is a different way of thinking and this, in my opinion, we will have to work on. I think the best way to do it is to look at it block by block. It is not a code that we are going to put over 350 acres in the downtown area and say everything is the same. You can walk out this building and go a block and a half and be in a very different development pattern than you are right on the square. It is something that is very fine grain. It is not large, it is block by block. What I would like to do is to have a working session, be able to show how this code could be implemented in our downtown to show actual examples on the ground of how it would allow more development, more density, more building intensity in certain areas. Most of our subdivisions, the lot size, lot area are non -conforming and we have to put public hearing signs up to get developments approved for what we actually want to achieve in the downtown master plan. We need a code for that. With that, I'll leave the date to the Commission. Shackelford: Can we set a date regarding your desires? Myres: I am going to be out of town for both dates so I don't want to hold everybody up just for me. Conklin: I picked Mondays. The City Council has a very busy schedule with the budget and budget meetings. Shackelford: I would rather see December 6th, Monday night at 5:30 p.m. With that being said, let's move onto ADM 04-1303 an amendment to require on site improvements in the Planning Area. Conklin: Something that was discussed during our annexation taskforce meetings was our ability to regulate development outside our city limits. The Washington County judge has issued an order to allow cities to require city street standards within one mile of the city limits within the planning area. We have drafted an ordinance to amend our subdivision regulations to require city street standards, sidewalks, street lighting within this one mile area. This change will require additional staff time and staff review and inspection. Basically, engineered construction drawings will be required, public works inspectors for the City of Fayetteville will be Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 44 required to inspect and verify that they meet our city street standards. Our recommendation to you and to the City Council is to go ahead and approve this change and evaluate the impact on city staff work load and inspections as we go forward. As you are aware, there is a lot of development occurring in Washington County and our Planning Area. This is not just one or two developments a year. It will have an impact on our city staff. Overall though, having a city street when these areas are annexed will benefit this community. That is all I have if you have any questions. Shackelford: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Tim at this point? Vaught: This will be anything approved from here on out, it is not retroactive? Conklin- It is not retroactive. I do have a map here that shows the area. It does take in a large part of the planning area. Our planning area does not extend five miles out. In some areas it is contiguous to our city limits and in some areas it is 2 to 3 miles out. It does accomplish a lot to get the city street standards. Once again, just for the public, we do not regulate land use in the county and we have some large, non-residential developments occurring in the county that we are receiving calls about. That is something that we cannot regulate but with regard to streets we can. We will need a recommendation to Council to approve this amendment. Vaught: I will make a motion for a recommendation to forward on ADM 04-1303 and also with the statement that I hope City Council does continue to review, like they always do, the level of our staffing to meet the needs of these increased regulations. I think this is a great step forward in helping us control the growth that someday will be in the city and until we can get an annexation policy in place this is a positive step forward. Shackelford: I will second that motion and add that I think this is a step in a very good direction. I agree that a lot of this property will be annexed into the city over time. It is nice to have the infrastructure improvement brought to city standards prior to it being annexed. It is just that many more amenities that will be added to our city limits at some point in the future. I think with our growth that's inevitable. I will second the recommendation for approval of ADM 04-1303. Vaught: Does this buffer continue to move as we annex or is it a static area? Conklin: It will move as we annex. The regulation is drafted to say within one mile and outside one mile. Shackelford: Are there any other questions before I call for the vote? Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 45 Clark: I think this is a great administrative item and I commend staff for proposing something that is going to cause more work for them. I think it shows much diligence on their part. I whole heartedly support it. Shackelford: Renee, call the vote please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval ADM 04-1303 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. of Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 46 Shackelford: The final item on our agenda tonight is ADM 04-1306, an amendment to Chapter 170, Stormwater Management Drainage and Erosion Control. Coover: I'm Gary Coover, City Engineer. What I want to show you, and you can have copies of the PowerPoint presentation. We have a film of a subdivision here during a rain event. It looks like Mt. Sequoyah is erupting. The existing Chapter 170, which is stormwater management, drainage and erosion control, this is also called the drainage manual. It talks a lot about drainage permitting. It doesn't say too much specifically about erosion and really nothing at all about pollution prevention. It is a short document, about five pages long. Rogers recently passed a very strong stormwater and erosion control ordinance. You may be aware of the recent sweeps by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. They came through and cited several construction sites for violations. We have learned recently that those fines are actually pretty minor They were a slap on the wrist. The Environmental Protection Agency can issue fines up to $32,500 per occurrence so if the EPA gets involved it can get pretty major. One of the reasons we need to rewrite the entire chapter is it is a required component of the city's Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit, which is a five year process to develop and implement best management practices for stormwater pollution prevention. We have nothing right now that addresses the pollution aspect unless it discharges into our stormwater system. It says that only clean stormwater should be going into our streams and our rivers and that is what the rewrite of this chapter is intended to try to accomplish. A very major component of this Chapter 170 is establishing new construction site standards and requirements for all sites. Nobody is exempt from the erosion control requirements. That ensures compliance with the NPDES and ADEQ Stormwater Permits. It deals with erosion sediment control, dust as well as mud on the streets. It deals with trash bins, construction entrances, concrete truck wash areas, storage of materials, dirt and top soil storage, toilet facilities and removal of erosion control devices and re - vegetation for construction sites. There is a section regarding herbicide use. I recently saw a channel here in Fayetteville where somebody recently nooked the entire channel with a non selective herbicide and if you go there today there are tremendous erosion problems with the bank slopping off the channel. We have nothing to address that anywhere in our codes. This also establishes an erosion sediment control manual. It is our way of educating people with what they need to be doing, giving them design criteria, techniques and guidelines and we are talking right now with Dr. Finley Edwards at the University of Arkansas with helping us to prepare that very manual. We have multiple enforcement options including citations as one of the options. We don't currently have that right now. Code compliance has not addressed that issue. We wanted to create an ordinance where that was a possibility. Right now as it is currently written under Chapter 153 we write a violation letter and then we Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 47 can do a stop work order. If we do the work we can slap a lien on the property or we can revoke permits. We don't have much more authority than that right now. One of the things that we don't have authority over is single family construction. That is where a lot of the erosion and sediment problems are having. My inspectors go out there to make sure that the streets are in, the infrastructure is in and everything is grassed, erosion control is in place and then they are off to the next project. Then home builders come in and they have a whole different set of requirements. There are a lot of different crews that come in and make a huge, muddy mess and they store things in the streets. What we need to do is make sure everybody does the right thing as far as doing the construction work. We are also looking at changing, Chapter 170 right now, for such a short, small chapter has a huge name for a permit. It is called the "Stormwater Management Drainage and Erosion Control Permit". That is in addition to the grading permit that we have. What we are proposing to do is take that and call it what it is. It is a "Site Development Permit". We can eventually wrap the grading and other aspects into a single permit. I don't want someone to come into the city and come out with a wheel barrel load of permits. I want to have one permit that addresses the major issues. It also allows for landscaping of detention ponds. That is something that we have not discussed much here in Fayetteville. There are some excellent examples. The Charleston Place subdivision has some beautiful detention ponds. They have used native stone around them. They have taken the outfall structure and put a reviewing platform on top, they have planted willows in the pond. They look very nice compared to what most of them look like. We are also suggesting requiring in this new ordinance an annual inspection process for all detention ponds. If you were to ask me today how many ponds we have in Fayetteville I couldn't tell you. Do they all work the way that they are supposed to when they are designed? We don't have a process in place for that. I would like that to be codified so we could require the owner to hire an engineer to certify that this pond or that this detention structure is as it was built and it is doing what it was supposed to do. We need a process to ensure that that happens. The major goal of the ordinance is to basically encourage clean construction, clean construction sites, as best as we can, sort of a no dirt off site rule. It is basically codifying the basic kindergarten principal that you are supposed to clean up your own mess. It is unfortunate that we have to codify it. You all have seen some of the problems we have out there. We do have some amazing erosion problems. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Vaught: Including single family residences are they going to have to come in for an additional permit now and do additional plan work? Coover: I don't envision that they would need to have a permit for their process. It is kind of an interesting question between when you have a permit that is Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 48 required or a plan approval process that is required. Right now we have a building permit process. One of the things that we have come up with is a one page front and back construction site standards. That is also handed out during the building permit process. They still have to comply. The way that the clean water act is structured basically, everybody has to comply with erosion and sediment control requirements but you don't necessarily get a permit for every single development to do that. When you get a drivers license to drive your car you don't get a permit to stop at every stop sign. It is an administrative burden to require that additional permit for each single family. Vaught: In the new code, I haven't been through every detail of it, does it have a line where you say these types of developments you need an additional permit and these you don't? Coover: That is all in there. It follows pretty much the current lines that we have for Chapter 169 and 170. Vaught: On the detention pond review process, if you do all ponds every year five years down the road who owns the pond in the subdivision, is it the P.O.A.'s burden? Coover: That is all established at the time that the pond is constructed as to who is the responsible entity for that pond. Vaught: That is who we would go after to make improvements if it is not functioning properly? Coover: Right. In the Covington subdivision about a year ago the P.O.A. did some work to their pond, they dug down about three feet and found a concrete trickle channel, which actually, to me shows it was working as a sedimentation basin for all the construction work of the homes. It actually did double duty without anybody really knowing it. Had that been allowed to stay silted up you have lost that much capacity in your detention so you don't have that detention for your downstream property owners. Shackelford: You mentioned, in line with what we are talking about, are you suggesting that we require an owner to hire an engineer and reprove the work efficiency of a detention pond on an annual basis regardless of whether or not there have been any complaints or concern regarding that particular detention pond? Coover: Yeah. I think we need an annual inspection process so we know for a fact that this underground detention or above ground retention is still working the way it is supposed to. Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 49 Shackelford: I struggle with that somewhat. That is a requirement that we recertify on an annual basis at a developer's expense something that unless there are complaints that it is working or not working I don't know of any other situation in which we readdress. We don't readdress sewer connections on an annual basis. We don't readdress street improvements on an annual basis. We don't readdress any of the other things. What makes this something that we need to go back at the developer's expense and readdress on an annual basis? Coover: In other communities you have to do an as built certification of detention ponds. I have done several myself where you go out as an engineer, you say yes, here are the plans, it was built the way it was supposed to be built. What we are finding is a lot of ponds, like the one in Covington, they silt up. It depends is the responsible entity actually taking care of the pond like they are supposed to? We found one recently where our maintenance supports really had to dig and find the outfall structure. It completely wasn't working the way it was supposed to. I think we need a way for them to tell us that it is still good. Otherwise, with complaints you don't know until someone has flooded and then the lawyers get involved and you find out maybe a detention pond failed or has blown out or is clogged or not working. I think it is a way to ensure that this is a very important part of our drainage system that we don't have direct control over. Someone else is in charge of maintenance of it. It is like a maintenance agreement. Vaught: What kind of expense is a certification? It is a couple hundred bucks, is it a couple of thousand bucks? What are we asking? I assume it would be the P.O.A. in most cases. Coover: I don't think it would involve anymore than maybe a couple of hours of an engineers time to go out and do that. To look at the plans and inspect the pond to make sure that the outfall structure is pretty much as it was designed. Clark: I have actually looked through this and commend you for putting it all together. Every time I came up with a question I turned the page and there was the answer. First of all, I think it puts developers on a level playing field, as you mentioned, I think that is a great improvement. Fundamentally, the definition of term seems very simplistic but it certainly gets us out of a lot of semantic quiveling that we do a lot with developers. I think that is an advantage. I personally like the aspect of inspecting the detention ponds because for some reason I've been concerned about them, as I expressed in Subdivision this week. I am not sure detention ponds are overly safe right now and if you are requiring landscaping and review then that could certainly be monitored and I think that would be an asset to any Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 50 neighborhood to make sure that it is doing what it is supposed to do and it is doing it safely. I like the enforcement options because there are an awful lot of them. The only one I would object to is the violations when you get down to fines and I think the fine structure is pathetically low. William: That is the maximum allowed by ordinance. Clark: If I ruled the world it would be higher. Coover: The DEQ can get involved for a really bad problem or even the EPA. They have the big hammer. Clark: I think this is a great revision to our code and I whole heartedly am for it. Do we need to forward this on to the City Council or what action are we taking? Shackelford: Whatever you want. Coover: On detention ponds, one of the reasons I want the inspection process is so I can be sure the detention pond is still there. We have some apartment complexes here in Fayetteville with the detention pond about the size of this area and about a foot deep. There is one where the outfall structure looks like two little bricks sitting side by side and I don't know if some landscape or maintenance guy covered over, sodded and no one knows it was ever supposed to be a pond. I think part of it is to ensure that as part of our drainage facility system that these things are still there and they still work years later. Shackelford: I struggle with the extra level of requirement that we go back. If a tornado comes through and knocks out trees in a greenspace we don't require a developer to go back and recertify their tree canopy calculations. There are a lot of ordinances that a developer has to meet at a specific time of approval that they don't have to go back and recertify on an annual basis. I struggle with that. I struggle with the requirement for this to fall under single family homes. That is a line that we have not crossed very many times regarding regulation increases and the effect that it is going to have monetarily on the applicant based on the fact that a single family home has always been somewhat exempt because you don't want to push a lot of burden onto those type of people when it should be dealt with by the developer at that basis. I struggle with that too. How do you police what herbicides are used and when too much is too much? How will your depai tment handle that? Coover: Certain herbicides are broadly used, certain ones are for anything and everything, such as round up. If more than 70% of the vegetation is killed we are seeing that as a violation that could lead to erosion problems. In a Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 51 lot of places the establishment of 70% vegetation on a site is what EPA uses to define when erosion control measures can be typically removed. 70% of the vegetation we thought would be a good measure of enough damage had been done that you have wiped out all the vegetation on a site and have now exposed bare dirt. Shackelford: You are not talking about policing the type of herbicide but the extent in which the herbicide is used? Coover: Right. It is the damage that can be done by the misuse of herbicides. Shackelford: You used the phrase "clean storm water" should be the only thing that is allowed in our runoff. What is the definition of clean stormwater? Coover: According to the EPA, rainwater. There are certain exemptions that we have in there for certain things that can be added to stormwater such as certain flushing of lines, residential car washing in certain residential areas. There are a few places where you can't regulate every single thing. The idea is to make sure that that clean drop of rain doesn't dislodge any dirt and what hits the receiving channel is clean water. Shackelford: Isn't erosion somewhat a natural phenomenon? I don't think all erosion is bad. Coover: In some cases, yes. Shackelford: How do you define the difference in natural erosion verses erosion that is based on the development that is occurring in an area. Coover: If I could show you the video, you could see two sides of the street, one where the water is running clear and one where it is running red. There is construction and you can see water just pouring off the construction site. Third party lawsuits will define a lot of what happens with the clean water act and the Phase II implementation. It is real easy to find where the stormwater is coming from, just get out in the rain and follow the mud. We have tracked down a lot of people with street problems because it is easy to know where it is coming from. Vaught: To follow up on your comments on the annual certification. I am struggling with the annual burden being on the developer. I think I would be more understanding if it was an issue, and I know we don't want to put too much burden on the city, but, sometimes I think with simple drive bys we can find problems. We do have plats, we can identify an area. Some of them you won't be able to tell of course, but having an annual certification on the burden of the residents of the neighborhoods honestly, it is not going to be on the developers ultimately because they are going to leave Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 52 the detention pond to the P.O.A. and those people are going to be paying that annually out of their dues instead of developers maintaining ownership of the detention ponds. That is where I struggle as well. I like 99% of the ordinance, I'm glad we are doing it. That is the one area that I don't know, if there are other ideas or other means where we can do this. I do agree with the inspection. It is just a matter of how it is paid for I guess that I'm thinking. Coover: You are asking if we hire another city inspector that takes care of that or do you put the liability in a way back on the design engineer who may have originally designed it to ensure that his design is still in tact. Williams: The ordinance review committee is going to be considering this at their next meeting. Of course, those are some of the options that they will look at. We do have city inspectors that inspect a lot for compliance with our codes and you would think that a city inspector could get fairly competent in examining these sorts of detention ponds and what needs to be done and could probably handle that very efficiently in a cost effective manner What I would like to make sure that we have in all these detention ponds when the plats go forward is the right of the city to require that they be in fact, fixed by the P.O.A. That is certainly the P.O.A's cost. The inspection I think, there is a good argument that that should be the city's cost. It is really performing a benefit not for that P.O.A. but for the citizens at large. Coover: That is a staffing issue and is something that we can revisit budget wise and see. It is more cost effective to put the burden on the responsibility on the owner of the pond or should the city assume responsibility. Vaught: Clark: I do concur that the burden should be on the owner, whoever is responsible for that pond, they should fix it obviously. I hope the ordinance review committee knows that the spirit of this is excellent. I think the spirit of this is outstanding. Howe you design who does the inspections I think we can definitely work out. That would be a great job for someone to drive around and look at detention ponds all day. The spirit of this is I think superior. It amazes me that in 32 pages we can make substantive improvements to the quality of life in Fayetteville. I think back to what I just read in the paper about 27 pages of apartment specifications and ordinances in Springdale that are driving people crazy. I think this is a good thing. Coover: It is a very important thing to address. I remember going into Kit's office about a year ago and there is a drain pipe right across the street from this building that when you get a major rain up comes this huge flume of white soap across the parking lot, down Mountain Street, and heads off. I said Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 53 Kit, what do we have to prevent this kind of things? He said we didn't have anything. Things like that and dumping oil into a drain, we don't have any regulations to keep people from trashing our streams. Trumbo: One thing we always hear from citizens is problems with runoff and drainage. As far as the detention ponds go, it needs to be inspected, that is my opinion yearly. I'm currently on the hillside development committee and one of the main things that the aldermen who proposed that, was interested in erosion and drainage. If this is passed is there enough in place in this to handle development and future problems that are coming off of our slopes that are greater than 15%? Coover: Yes. Trumbo: This would be sufficient to handle those problems that are occurring right now? Coover: This in conjunction with what we have in our Chapter 169, which is our physical alteration of land, that actually has more erosion control in it than Chapter 170 does. It talks about different measures that need to be in place for different slopes of the land. Trumbo: Ok. Shackelford: To follow up, it is your position that if this is approved the hillside ordinance would not be required? Trumbo: Drainage is the main issue but a close second is aesthetics. Coover: It gives you more tools for dealing with dirt, trash, dust and problems. On hillsides those sorts of things are exasperated because of the slope and the way that it is very easy to pick up erosive velocities that will take the soil and move it where it really shouldn't be. Right now Chapter 170 deals with dirt on the streets. The dirt goes onto a neighbor's property, it fills somebody's pond and we have no authority there. Warrick: The comments from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to ordinance review and to the City Council for their consideration. If you so wish could make a recommendation but I don't know that it is absolutely necessary. Vaught: Will we see this again in a final form to recommend it? Warrick: No, this is your chance. You are certainly welcome to provide additional comments to Gary's office or to the Planning office if you have them if you want to continue reviewing the document. As this goes forward Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 54 through the process it will still be heard by of course the ordinance review committee and then it will be a public hearing at City Council. Vaught: Any formal recommendation we make on this draft, the draft is more than likely going to change in some regard. Coover: It will get some tweaking I'm sure. Warrick: Your comments will be forwarded with the draft. Coover: I can make copies of the power point and get that to you. Shackelford: This will be reviewed by ordinance review, our comments will be part of that record that they will review. Are there any other comments that we want to make for the record at this time? Seeing none, that is the last item on our agenda this evening.