Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 13, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN VAC 04-1324: Vacation (SALEM RD. TOWNHOUSES, 401) Forwarded to City Council Consent LSP 04-1322: Lot Split (MCDONALD/ BRIDGEDALE, 569) Approved Page 4 LSP 04-1312: Lot Split (RON PAYNE #1, 526/565) Approved Page 6 CUP 04-1313: Conditional Use (RON PAYNE, 526/565) Approved Page 8 LSP 04-1343: Lot Split (RON PAYNE #2, 526/565) Approved Page 9 CUP 04-1327: Conditional Use (HARRIS CHILD CARE, 596) Approved Page 10 CUP 04-1325: Conditional Use (TERMINELLA TOWER, 479) Approved Page 12 PPL 04-1310: Preliminary Plat (CROSS KEYS PH. II, 478) Approved Page 19 PPL 04-1338: Preliminary Plat (SLOAN ESTATES, 258) Approved Page 22 PPL 04-1308: Preliminary Plat (CRAIG HARPER S/D, 61) Approved Page 41 R-PZD 04-1307: Planned Zoning District (ASPEN RIDGE, 522/561) Forwarded to City Council Page 47 ANX 04-1334: Annexation (HARPER/TEATER, 101) Forwarded to City Council Page 47 RZN 04-1335: Rezoning (HARPER/TEATER, 101) Forwarded to City Council Page 67 RZN 04-1329: Rezoning (HOGEYE, INC., 595) Forwarded to City Council Page 73 RZN 04-1330: Rezoning (Dunnerstock Development, Inc. 361/400) Forwarded to City Council Page 77 PZN 04-1331: Rezoning (BALE, 596) Forwarded to City Council Page 81 RZN 04-1332: Rezoning (J.B. HAYS, 373) Forwarded to City Council Page 94 RZN 04-1333: Rezoning (LB. HAYS, 373) Denied Page 97 Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 2 Alan Ostner James Graves Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Christine Myres STAFF PRESENT Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Leif Olson Jeremy Pate Brent O'Neal Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 3 VAC 04-1324: Vacation (SALEM RD. TOWNHOUSES, 401): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at THE N SIDE OF WEDINGTON DRIVE, W OF SALEM ROAD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. Ostner: Welcome to the December 13`h meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Could we have the roll call please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Clark being absent. Ostner: We do not have a set of minutes to approve. We will do that at the next meeting. The first item is on the consent agenda, it is VAC 04-1324 for Salem Road townhouses. I am going to read the item here. It is submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. for property located at the north side of Wedington Drive west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. If anyone in the audience would like this item removed from the consent agenda please speak up. If anyone on the Commission would like to remove this from the consent agenda, otherwise I am entertaining motions to approve the consent agenda. Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 4 LSP 04-1322: Lot Split (MCDONALD/ BRIDGEDALE, 569): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 1341 ROBERTS RD AND E OF STONEBRIDGE S/D. The property is in the City of Fayetteville and the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 5.67 and 1.80 acres and approval of a waiver of lot width requirements. Ostner: Our first item under new business is LSP 04-1322 for McDonald Bridgedale. Morgan: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the almost 7.47 acre tract into two tracts of approximately 5.67 and 1.8 acres respectively. Tract A, the larger tract, is located within the city and Tract B is within the planning area. This property is part of the approved Bridgedale subdivision. The applicant has submitted a waiver request to the Planning Commission for approval of this lot with no frontage and it is shown within the Bridgedale subdivision to be utilized partially for detention. Staff is recommending approval of this Lot Split with five conditions of approval to include Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to permit the creation of a 1.8 acre lot with 0' frontage where 75' is required. Staff is in support of this. Additionally, staff does request that conditions be placed on this Lot Split restricting construction of a residential, commercial, or accessory structure until such time that right of way and infrastructure is provided to this tract. We have received signed conditions of approval and will entertain any questions that you may have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation please? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. Suzanne has presented the findings and we have signed conditions of approval. Our client is in agreement with those. We have no further comments. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it to the public for comments. Would anyone from the public like to speak to LSP 04-1322? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Shackelford: This is a pretty straight forward Lot Split. We have conditions of approval as recommended by staff that the applicant is in agreement with. I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1322 subject to those five conditions of approval. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page S Anthes: I'm a little confused as to the future disposition of Tract B and I see that staff has recommended that the proposed tract shall be restricted from development until appropriate infrastructure is provided, do you see that happening? Pate: This lot is specifically utilized for detention for the associated subdivision, Bridgedale subdivision. It is shown as primarily a drainage easement on the entire lot. Staff's concern is that there was no adequate infrastructure to build a house on this particular lot. We would not see that structure as a building permit because it is in the county and would not require a building permit through the city. Therefore, as part of the Final Plat and the Lot Split request that is why we requested that this note be placed upon that. In answer to your question about if there would be adequate infrastructure at a later date, yes, potentially if property to the north develops and they do a combined or regional detention area, facility, this could potentially become a subdivided lot in the future with adequate services, streets, etc., to adequately house a single family residential. Anthes: If that happens the detention that is currently on this site would have to be incorporated and moved? Pate: That is correct. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, are there anymore comments? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-1322 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 6 LSP 04-1312: Lot Split (RON PAYNE #1, 526/565): Submitted by HOLLY PAYNE for property located at 689 RAY STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.86 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 2 tracts of .30 AND 1.56 ACRES. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSP 04-1312 for Ron Payne #1 if we could have the staff report please . Morgan: If you would allow me to address this as well as the next two items, a Conditional Use for Ron Payne as well as another Lot Split for Ron Payne together. The applicant currently owns a piece of property that is 1.86 acres. It is located west of Ray Avenue. The applicant, if you address your survey which has been given to you, requests with this first Lot Split that .3 acres be subdivided from the property to the north of the tract. Additionally, they are requesting a Lot Split to create a 1.12 acre tract which will have 25' of frontage and utilize property behind the .3 acre tract to the north and a .44 acre tract to the south which currently houses an existing single family home. The second proposal for the 1.12 acre tract is to create a tandem lot, which would require the approval of a Conditional Use. Staff is in support of the two lot split proposals as well as the Conditional Use request for creation of a tandem lot. The lot in question is a very large lot with quite a bit of property to the rear and south of this lot. Staff finds that utilizing this area for development of a single family home is appropriate in this area of town. There is an existing school to the north of this property and those who develop this tract may benefit from that service provided. Additionally, as part of the Conditional Use approval we are to look at construction of sidewalk and as a condition of approval for this tandem lot staff is recommending construction of sidewalk along the 1.56 acre tract of property. That has been recommended by the Sidewalk Coordinator and would help facilitate construction of sidewalks in an area which is needing sidewalks due to the school and pedestrian traffic in that area. As I previously mentioned, we are in support of both Lot Splits as well as the Conditional Use. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Payne: I'm Ron Payne, the property owner. I am a licensed residential contractor and plan to do the building on the site. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak about these issues? We can talk about them together, we need to vote on them independently but we are talking about two Lot Splits and a Conditional Use, LSP 04-1312, CUP 04-1313 and LSP 04- 1343. We can take public comment on all three items at once. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 7 Anthes: On Conditional Use condition of approval number two, we have stated that a new access drive shall be paved a minimum of 25' in length from the intersection of the drive and Ray Avenue, do we need to state how wide that needs to be or does that come under our residential building standards? Pate: It would fall under our residential building standards with a maximum of 24' in width at the right of way line. Ostner: Staff, this is one lot currently and we are splitting it twice and we are going to wind up with four lots? Pate: Three lots. Ostner: On the letter they wrote our intent is to split this lot into four smaller lots. Is that just a typo? Pate: The original request was to divide this into four smaller lots with two tandem lots. That would not meet our ordinance requirement. There is only allowance for one tandem lot. You cannot have one tandem behind the other. Thus, the request has changed but the letter did not. Ostner: Ok. Vaught: We see the sidewalks come in on the Conditional Use, how come we don't see that in the Lot Split as well with the parks fees? Pate: With the Lot Split the condition of approval would be either at the time of development you would see either a sidewalk being constructed or money in lieu per the Sidewalk Administrator's recommendation at that time. Because of the Conditional Use it sort of jumps into that at this time so the condition of approval is appropriate right now. Vaught: That is why it s just on the 1.56 acre lot because that is the Conditional Use lot and just for that lot right? Pate: Yes. Allen: I would like to move for approval of LSP 04-1312 subject to the five conditions of approval. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion on LSP 04-1312? Seeing none, call the roll please. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 8 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-1312 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. CUP 04-1313: Conditional Use (RON PAYNE, 526/565): Submitted by HOLLY PAYNE for property located at 689 RAY AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.56 acres. The request is to permit a tandem lot on the subject property to allow development of one single family dwelling. Ostner: On the second issue, CUP 04-1313, we heard a staff report and we offered for public comment. Commissioners? Anthes: On the sidewalk construction, when I originally read the packet I was assuming that the sidewalk would go from the southernmost point of the property to the northernmost along the three tracts. That is not what I just heard. Pate: The Conditional Use request is for the southern most lot and then the 25' for the other portion of that tandem lot. At the time of development that is the time in which a sidewalk will most likely be recommended as it has been recommended for those two lots. The Conditional Use was for those two lots, the Lot Split that was just approved is an actual legal lot. Anthes: Ok, I understand. Shackelford: We did spend a lot of time at Subdivision looking at these requests. Basically, what we are going to end up is an existing house on about a .3 acre lot, a proposed house on about a .4 acre lot and then due to the fact there has to be an easement back to the tandem lot, the third tract is going to be larger, 1.12 acres. We have got the Lot Split to split it into two. The next is a Conditional Use for the tandem lot. I am going to make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1313. Myres: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1313 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 9 LSP 04-1343: Lot Split (RON PAYNE #2, 526/565): Submitted by HOLLY PAYNE for property located at 689 RAY STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.56 acres. The request is to approve a 2nd lot split resulting in TWO TRACTS OF .44 AND 1.12 ACRES. Ostner: The third item is LSP 04-1343 entitled Ron Payne #2. We have had the staff report already and we have asked for public comment. Is there comments from the Commissioners? Shackelford: This request will take the 1.56 acre tract that we just created and split it into a .44 and a 1.2, which is what we feel is compatible with the neighborhood. I am going to make a motion that we approve LSP 04- 1343. Allen: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 04-1343 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 10 CUP 04-1327: Conditional Use (HARRIS CHILD CARE, 596): Submitted by MARSHA AND JUSTIN HARRIS for property located at 3539 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to approve a preschool facility in C-1 and R -A zoning districts. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 04-1327 for Harris Childcare. Olson: The subject property is located south of Huntsville Road and east of Stonebridge Road. It is zoned C-1 and contains two lots which total 1.95 acres with one single family dwelling located on one of those lots. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a childcare facility with a maximum of 108 children. The applicant proposes replacing the existing single family home with a childcare facility that would be 7,800 sq.ft. in size and employ 13 people to staff the facility. Proposed hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The applicant's proposal does meet the city's ordinance in terms of outdoor play area that would be required, parking and those issues. Staff does recommend approval for the request with the five conditions of approval as stated in the first page of your packet. As to the findings, staff does feel that this is appropriate and that it would meet the best interest of the public in this location and with that said, staff does recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Olson. Is the applicant present? Harris: My name is Marsha Harris and I'm the property owner. We are proposing to build a preschool and remove the home that is there now. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to CUP 04-1327? Barrett: I am Joel Barrett, I live right next door. The only two problems I have with this is I am worried about the traffic. It is 50 miles per hour right in front of where the childcare is and the water runoff when they build the building there. There is nowhere for the water to go except in my yard. I am just wondering if we thought that out and if we haven't, if we could. That is all I have. Thank you. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this Conditional Use Permit? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Have we looked into the traffic issue? Pate: At the time of large scale development for the subject property there will be a number of things that we look at to ensure that this meets all of our at Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page I1 least minimum standards for zoning and development ordinances including sidewalks, right of way dedication, appropriate numbers of parking, appropriate access points for this location along a principal arterial, Huntsville Road. As for the traffic, the applicant as indicated hours of operation are intended to be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This will allow children to be dropped off early to avoid morning traffic and be picked up late to avoid 5:00 p.m. rush hour. That should help alleviate to avoid some of those specifically congested times in that location. I would also mention that this is a C-1 zoning district. Much more intensive uses could be permitted, a gasoline service station is one that generates a lot of traffic. It is A -typical that we see a Conditional Use in commercial zoning districts but it is listed in our Conditional Uses for this zoning district. Staff also listed in your staff report on page 6.7 the permitted uses by right in this neighborhood, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Professional Offices, Eating Places, Office Studios, Related Services. Staff feels that this use is compatible with this area. With regard to the drainage, again, we would review that at the time of Large Scale Development. Detention is required through this development to ensure that the post development flows do not exceed the predevelopment flows on this property. Ostner: I hope that answered some of your questions Mr. Barrett. We are going to see this again. This is a Conditional Use concerning the use that will happen on this property. This is not an approval for construction. It will come back through as a Large Scale Development. Commissioners? Shackelford: I concur with all of staff's comments and I think this is a good improvement to the property and much needed care facility in our city and in this neighborhood so I am going to make a motion that we approve CUP 04-1327. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1327 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 12 CUP 04-1325: Conditional Use (TERMINELLA TOWER, 479): Submitted by Tom Terminella for property located at 3425 S. DINSMORE TRAIL. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRUCULTURAL. The request is to approve a 30' observation tower as a temporary construction facility. Ostner: Our next item is CUP 04-1325 entitled Terminella Tower. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This property is located at 3425 S. Dinsmore Trail and is located on what many know as the Marinoni Mountain area which is west of I-540 and south of Persimmon Street. The property is primarily vacant currently. The applicant is preparing to develop a large residential and mixed use development on this property in a number of phases as well as additional properties in the immediate vicinity. The proposal is to erect an observation tower to allow the developer to oversee the progress of the project and to provide a viewing platform for potential investors. This would also operate as a point of construction observation plans for instance, would be up there. You could look through construction plans to see that different phases of the development were occurring as planned. The tower is considered a temporary tower. However, it is proposed to be located on this property for approximately four to six years as the project develops. I am not sure of the overall acreage of this property but it is a rather large piece of property. The tower has elevations that are on page 7.8 and 7.9 of your packet. You can also better reference the location of the subject site onto pages 7.10 and 7.11. Because this structure is not an accessory to the primary structure established on this property staff was unable to issue a building permit without further review. Essentially there is not a primary structure that this could be an accessory to. The use of the structure is solely made necessary by the future development which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The facility could not be installed unless and until that development project has been approved and released for construction. The property immediately surrounding the site of the proposed tower is agricultural and essentially undeveloped. There is a table on page 7.3 representing the land use and the zoning surrounding. As you can see, most of it is either large lot residential or vacant property at this time. With regard to findings, the applicant has submitted drawings, as I mentioned, and the Planning Commission is empowered under Chapter 161 to grant this Conditional Use. Parking is not required for this use. The owner and visitors will have ample space to park their vehicles on the subject property. A private drive will likely access this particular site. Trash pick up for the construction facility shall be the responsibility of the developer. Any trash shall be removed from the site in a timely manner. It is not anticipated that this intended use will generate debris. On your findings on page 7.5 it states no utilities will be extended to serve this facility. There may be a change in that depending on what the applicant says tonight. I have had Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 13 conversations with him and I would also like to address the finding following that. The applicant proposes to fly two company flags. Staff is not in support of these flags. They would violate our city ordinances for wind blown signs. An American flag or a state flag would be allowed by right as well as the spot lights to light them as would on any piece of property in the city. Therefore, no utilities will be extended to serve this facility. I would anticipate if that is the case electric would be extended to serve that. That is not really the Conditional Use request. The flags are allowed by right without this Conditional Use. The proposal does comply with a requirement of open space and setbacks. It is unique. We have not seen a request like this in the past that I'm aware of. If you have questions feel free to ask. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use request with seven conditions. Number one, tower structure must comply with all applicable building and fire codes. It may require an inspection by the Building Safety Division and Fire Marshall prior to permit. Staff will review a specific site plan showing adjacent property lines and dimensions prior to issuance of a building permit for this tower. The structure shall be erected no sooner than construction plan approval and the city's release for work in the first phase of development on the subject property. Again, staff feels that this is directly tied to development on this property and until such time as development is approved on this property we feel that it is not appropriate for this tower to be located at this time. With regard to when the temporary tower should be removed, condition number four addresses, the structure shall be removed no later than Final Plat approvals necessary to file the Final Plat for the final phase of development on the subject property. Item number five addresses signage. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Terminella: Good evening Chair and Planning Commissioners. I am Tom Terminella, 24 E. Meadow, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Jeremy outlined it rather well. It is a temporary observation tower for our Mountain Ranch project which everybody is aware of, which falls in the valley of the Boys Club and new school. The purpose is as stated, an observation point for our infrastructure people and potential purchasers of developed lots in that part of the world. We ask for your approval. There are just a couple of things that I will speak to. As far as the flag issue, we find it reasonable to think that we will just fly an American and a State flag there instead of a Mountain Ranch flag as requested, and we would ask that the Planning Commission approve spot lighting to back light the flags in the evening out of respect to them. Other than that, I'm open to any questions and available. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to CUP 04-1325? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 14 Anthes: The first paragraph of the staff report states that the request is to approve a 30' observation tower. It looks to me that to the underside of the roofline is 35' and then we have a roof on top of that and a flag. Is that something that needs to be amended in our report? Has the drawing changed? Pate: I believe that needs to be amended in the report to reflect the eave height. Anthes: If that has increased does that change any of staff's comments? Pate: No, these are the original drawings that we received. Anthes: The second question is do we have any indication of how high the surrounding tree canopy is? Pate: I do not have that information unless the applicant does. Terminella: I would estimate it to be about 30'. This will be right at the top of the canopy just to see out over the top instead of cutting the canopy that is there we thought we might go up and over it. Anthes: My last question would be about the sales. We usually see a sales office, would this tower be in addition to the other structures we may see as sells property? Terminella: There will eventually be a model home in the first phase when we come through and get a final and get it built. This is strictly for the owner/investors and the contractor and it will be secured and limited access to all. It is no an open structure. Just the liability if it was un - maintained and unsecured would be tremendous. Anthes: Thank you very much. Allen: I have a question about the word temporary. Four to six years doesn't seem particularly temporary to me. What sort of definition do you usually use there for a temporary structure? Pate: We don't have a basis to go from when it becomes temporary. It would not be a permanent structure in that eventually, from what the applicant states, this location will likely be a lot on which a home will be built as part of the development. I anticipate the structure will be removed prior to all phases being developed for the simple fact that a lot of the property is not viewable from this location. There is some property further south that you can't view from that. It is our intent to tie this tower to the actual development on the subject property so that when the property has been platted for the development of single family homes in the final phase or Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 15 whatever development does come through, that that tower would be removed at that time, thus, being temporary. Allen: Well, I know with some of the other developments around town there are trailers that have been there temporarily that seem to stretch on to infinity so I would like to see condition number four have a specific time rather than just a vague end of the completion of the development so that it doesn't happen. How do other commissioners feel about that? Shackelford: I would like to ask the applicant, how long do you envision this tower being in place? Terminella: That depends a great deal on the planning process and the approval processes for a PZD for the overall 472 acre project, which is quite massive in size. The recommendation of staff is to bring it through in four or five phases so we will be able to comply with the underlying issues as far as our civil work. On the short window I would estimate 36 months, on the long window I would estimate 60 months. It will fall on the second phase of development. Our first phase, if all goes well, will come on line March or April of next year. That will be about a 24 month process and Phase II will fall in right behind that and that will be another 18 to 24 month process. It does fall within the developed part of our overall plan so it would adversely affect the second phase if I left it there for any length of time. The best guesstimate would be 48 months. Anthes: In response to Commissioner Allen's question, because we have seen some other problems, and I don't expect there to be any here, but we could add something that talked about that we would permit 48 months from the construction of the tower with an option to renew if there is appropriate progress on the project. I don't know if there is an easy way for them to renew without them having to come back before this body. That would be my question. Pate: As part of the Conditional Use the Planning Commission can impose those conditions on this request. Staff would be more comfortable in seeing this come back for your review as you are the body approving the request. With the Conditional Use, for instance, if it has an expiration date of 48 months and it is not down it could come back before you to see if it is appropriate for it to remain there. Terminella: I would ask one other thing in pondering this. I got this document late Friday, keep in mind, the development within the next four weeks will be underway. I am being asked to provide right of way for streets for points of ingress and egress for all of the things that are being developed in the valley. It came as a surprise to me that they were wanting to tie this to the approval of the first phase when in fact, we, Terminella & Associates and Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 16 Mountain Ranch, have moved forward with all the necessary documents in order for the district to move forward with their LSD and their requirements for right of way and dedication of properties that we currently own to facilitate that. I would ask if we are going to put a 48 month window on this where I have to come back through that we would be able to conceivably to ask for the approval to move forward with it in the first quarter of next year. 48 months is a relatively time limit on a project of this size. I can see it taking into the second quarter for the approvals and possibly into the third quarter of next year for the first part of the PZD to be approved by this process. My intent would be to have it constructed and to have it for a point of reference to where we could utilize it prior to the approval of 115.7 acre PZD which will be it's own animal. I have no problem with the time restriction if you guys would like to see me come back through the Planning staff that is no problem. I would like to see if we are going to put a limitation on it that we are able to move forward with constructing it in the first quarter. In my mind, we are fully committed once we sign those deeds and right of ways to provide access to others and at that point, in my mind, we are under way with development. Of course, this body will see all of our plans throughout this process in this multiple phase PZD and I just ask for your sensitivity on that issue please. Ostner: Would anyone be against granting this Conditional Use within the next two or three months and then starting the four year limit? Vaught: How would we word that? Williams: I think he is asking for condition number three to be changed because that says it can be erected no sooner than construction plan approval and the city's release for work on the first phase of the development, which could take a long time. You could make your conditional use effective immediately if you wanted to to allow him to construct as soon as the construction plans have been approved and start the clock on the construction plan approval so that then he would have 48 months from whenever he decided to start constructing the tower to either get it finished or come back and say he needs more time. If you want to do that strike the last part of condition number three where it says and the city's release of work on the first phase. Leave the first sentence, the structure should be erected no sooner than construction plan approval, which I think will be approved by a building permit. Make sure that we still stay in the loop there, that we approve he construction plan approval but at that point in time he can build and that is when the clock starts running on the 48 months. Is that what you are looking for Mr. Terminella? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 17 Terminella: Just to clarify, what's being discussed is to allow me to move forward once we are able to obtain a building permit and from that point once the permit is issued we have a 48 month window. Williams: And at that point in time you would have to come back if you don't want to remove it. Terminella: That would be acceptable. Vaught: Number four will be amended to 48 months from construction plan approval. Terminella: Would that not be issuance of a building permit? Williams: It is basically the same thing. Vaught: With the electric, should we allow for spot lighting, should we change condition number six to say no utilities except electric shall be extended to serve this facility? Williams: That is a good change. Vaught: I do like the 48 month period. I look at it kind of like a sales office. With all of that said, I will move for approval of CUP 04-1325 with the said changes to condition number three, the structure shall be erected no sooner than construction plan approval and an amendment to condition number four to include the final plat or 48 months from construction plan approval. Also, a change to condition six to say no utilities except electric shall be extended to serve this facility. Shackelford: I will second but I have a question of staff. As we have written condition number four with the duration period of 48 months, at the end of that 48 month period the applicant would have the ability to request an extension from the then seated Planning Commission or do we need to make that part of it? Pate: That would be automatic prior to that 48 month period it would need to come back. Ostner: I have a question from the motioner. On the third condition, structure shall be erected no sooner than construction plan approval, approval of the tower or approval of the development? Vaught: The tower. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 18 Ostner: I believe that the thought behind staff was to tie that to the development, we obviously, talked about that. I think item three is pretty much null because we don't allow construction without permits. We are simply saying don't build it without permit. We have changed I around that instead of construction plan approval of the development we are talking about plan approval of the tower so I think we should remove it completely if we are not tying it to development. Williams: I think it is clear one way or the other. The only reason you might leave it is because you mention construction plan approval in condition number four after it so it ties it together pretty well that you know exactly what you are talking about. That is true that we don't allow construction without a building permit. Ostner: I was going to suggest that number three read structure shall be erected no sooner than construction plan approval of the development. I know he wants to build it now. Maybe I'm confused, number four covers it, never mind. I would like to strike condition number three. Vaught: I don't think it makes a difference so I will amend my motion to strike number three all together. Shackelford: I will amend my second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 04-1325 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 19 PPL 04-1310: Preliminary Plat (CROSS KEYS PH. II, 478): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE SE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PERSIMMON ST AND BROYLES ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 34.80 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat of Phase II with 20 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Our next item is PPL 04-1310 for Cross Keys Phase II. If we could have the staff report please. Olson: This property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Persimmon and Broyles. It is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 34.8 acres. This property was annexed at the request of the developer in the summer of 2004 and it is a portion of a larger parcel of land that was annexed. Currently there is a Lot Split in process to create this tract and it is a required condition of approval for this request. The applicant proposes approval of a Preliminary Plat for the 34.80 acres to be subdivided into 22 lots with 20 for development of single family homes and two lots are designated with storm water detention. This brings the total density of the property being developed to 0.57 dwelling units per acre. As far as right of way being dedicated, a minimum of 35' from centerline is to be dedicated for Persimmon Street and the development will be dedicating varying right of way for Broyles Road along it's current frontage depending upon where the property line lies in relation to Broyles Road on the Master Street Plan. Staff recommends that the developer construct Persimmon Street a minimum of 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, pavement and a 6' sidewalk located along the right of way line along the length of the property. In lieu of constructing Broyles Road adjacent to the subject property, staff recommends that the developer bear the cost of installing a planned turn lane at the intersection of Persimmon Street and Broyles Road along with a 6' sidewalk located at the right of way line. This is in conjunction with plans to extend Broyles Road to the south in the future. As part of the Preliminary Plat, dedication of the Master Street Plan right of way for the entire parent tract of 158 acres is to occur for the streets fronting the property, specifically, Persimmon to the north and Broyles to the west and that right of way is to be by separate instrument. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets: Persimmon Street and Broyles Road are both classified as collector streets on the Master Street Plan. Park land dedication: The parks and rec. board recommended money in lie of land dedication in September, 2004. Fees are to be assessed in the amount of $11,100 for the 20 single family lots. There will be some tree preservation/mitigation required and that is laid out in the tree report here. Connectivity, the development will improve and extend Persimmon Street to the east. Access would be currently from 46`h Street and will in the near future be accessible via Broyles Road to Wedington. Staff does recommend approval of PPL 04-1310 with the following 10 Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 20 conditions of approval. The first condition goes back through the Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Condition number three talks about the tree canopy that will be removed and the on site mitigation recommended for 12 2" caliper trees. If you have any further questions we would be glad to answer those for you. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett. I'm with Jorgensen & Associates representing the owners of this project. Essentially, this is an estate lot subdivision to mirror the existing home that currently sits on one of the lots. The owner has signed the conditions of approval, we are in agreement with all of them and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it to the public if anyone would like to speak to PPL 04-1310? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: On the south side of the property there are some access easements to service the detention ponds, is that correct? Pate: Yes. Vaught: Why is there one that runs from Broyles over instead of the ones down from Persimmon Street. That gravel road runs quite a distance. Brackett: That is an access road to the manholes. There is a requirement that the sewer have access so that the sewer department can maintain the sewer. Vaught: Because we are adding sewer in the rear? Bracket: Yes, it is in the rear. That was done because they are such deep lots and it falls off to the south. Vaught: Access for the lots will be on Persimmon? Brackett: Yes Sir. Anthes: Will construction traffic be using those gravel roads and then will they be maintained? Will the property owners be able to use them? Brackett: The only construction for this project will be the sewer so that traffic will use that location because that is where the sewer is being run. The little bit of street improvements are right along Persimmon so they will be using Persimmon for that. The rest of the construction traffic, there is no more Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 21 infrastructure for this subdivision. That will be an open access so if the home owners wish to use it it will be open to them. I don't foresee that that will be the case. Anthes: The reason I'm asking about that is I live in an area where we do have rear alleys and a lot of home owners do find that very convenient to load things from the back of their houses so I was wondering if that was available as an option for these home owners. Brackett: It won't be a paved road, but it will be open and available to them if they would like to use it. Anthes: We have seen the concept for this on a couple of occasions and I think subdivision and staff worked through it with setting the sidewalks back on the right of way line so we have a nice space between the curb line and the sidewalk and I appreciate the developer having these estate homes face onto Persimmon Street, as I have stated in previous meetings. Therefore, I will move for approval of PPL 04-1310. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1310 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 22 PPL 04-1338: Preliminary Plat (SLOAN ESTATES, 258): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at THE INTERSECTION OF SAGELY LANE AND GULLEY ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 32.14 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 57 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1338 for Sloan Estates, if we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This subject property contains 32.14 acres located west of Gulley Road and Sagely Lane. The proposal is to create a 62 lot subdivision with 57 single family lots and a 4.2 acre park which is also to be the location of a septic system drip field for a community sewage system. This property is located within the planning area not adjacent to the city limits. There are certain things which the city reviews for these types of developments to include appropriate division of land. That the proposal meets county lot area and lot width minimums of 10,000 sq.ft. lot area and 75' width for each lot as well as right of way dedication in conformance with the Master Street Plan, septic system approval from the Arkansas Health Department for those lots less than 1.5 acre, connectivity as well as the impact of traffic which will be generated through this development. Staff has tried to address each of these issues within the staff report. Staff did receive a letter from the applicant which was received from the Arkansas State Health Department stating that the proposed subdivision will require a minimum of 4.11 acres for the drip dispersal system and additional area for treatment plant and setbacks. Their proposal does contain a 4.2 acre area for this purpose. Prior to submittal of construction plans a permit from the Arkansas Health Department will need to be submitted to the city for the proposed community septic system. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 90' right of way for Sagely Lane in compliance with the Master Street Plan. Additionally, staff requested at Subdivision Committee that additional stub outs be made to the south and a reconfiguration of the stub out to the north to provide connectivity for future development and the applicant has modified the Preliminary Plat to incorporate these changes. Staff has received numerous concerns from the public with regard to this proposal. Staff is, however, recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with fourteen conditions, of which, two require Planning Commission action. The first is Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. Staff finds that with the proposed connections to the north, west and south the appropriate connectivity for future development has been adequately addressed. Additionally, condition number two states Planning Commission determination of appropriate alignment of the proposed extension of Sagely Lane identified on the Master Street Plan. Staff does find that the proposed location of the street will allow for appropriate and logical extension to the west. Just as a note, Subdivision Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 23 did find in favor of that location. If you have any questions, I will be happy to address those. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Scott: My name is Art Scott with Project Design Consultants here to represent the developers. They have numerous concerns. I would like to clarify something on the septic treatment system. This is the drip irrigation may be a little misunderstood. This is actually underground release of the treated water from the septic system. It is not a drip outside and it is not a spray, although often times this system is used as spray irrigation for golf courses and parks. This will be an underground release of the water. That water is treated to a much cleaner, much higher standard than a typical septic system. Probably a typical septic system is nine to ten times higher in pollution than the treatment of the water that comes out of this system. I did want to mention also that this is outside the city but we are constructing curb and gutter and it will have drainage improvements consistent with the ordinances of the City of Fayetteville and using that manual for our design on that. I am here to answer any other questions you all might have. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Scott. At this point I will open it up to the public. Please come forward, introduce yourself and give us your comments. Gibbs: My name is Teresa Tuck Gibbs. I live at 3031 N. Gulley Road south of the proposed division. As we stated at the other committee meeting, we find this proposal to be totally inappropriate for the area. It makes use of the value of their property to increase the value of theirs while decreasing ours. It also represents a great many hazards to the area. When the developer talks about the drip system being underground, he is aware, as we all are, that underground is where all of our springs are. I don't know how many yards from his sewer system I have a spring fed pond that I have no doubt that his sewer system will go directly into and I will have my water tested repeatedly. I'm not real sure who becomes responsible when it becomes contaminated. I fully expect that it will due to this drip system. When they met with us we asked a specific question, when does this type of community sewer system not work? Their answer to us when the soil is clay and rock, which is what our soil is. It is very ill thought out. It is poorly located as far as safety is concerned. It is totally inappropriate for the area and I think although we are just in the future growth plan of Fayetteville, I think if this is approved that Fayetteville is going to be annexing an area that will be ripe with problems that you will inherit. I hope that if you have to pass it, pass it with prejudice if there is such a thing. Thank you. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 24 Wood: My name is Steve Wood. I have property next door to where Tessie is on Gulley Road and the back of my house faces the development. Certainly there are many citizens here concerned about this and this is the third time now that I've spoken before Planning Commission members regarding our concerns. I don't know really where to begin because it has all become somewhat apparent to me that even though perhaps you all support our concerns there is really not much you can do about it. On the other side it goes over to the County. Apparently, from what I understand there, they really can't do much about it either because unfortunately there is no zoning in the county. Most certainly I noticed in the paper this morning that there was a big headline about the city was invoking its standards for streets and such that they would apply in the city limits to development in the Planning area. However, it seems like unfortunately, that at least in my observation, that some of the concerns of the citizens here are not really being looked at very carefully, i.e. by the city engineers, by perhaps geologists. It is a real problem up there. The development I believe is too dense for that particular location geologically and also just basically on the basis of street traffic, runoff and other situations like that. I don't know if the city has approved or agreed upon standards of stand alone community pooled septic systems in the city limits. I don't know if that is on the books here in the City of Fayetteville but certainly there ought to be because you all are allowing this to proceed on through. The big issue in my book is that on the top of that hill the geology won't support 60 houses or more with many thousands of gallons going through that system every day and going down into the ground. Over on one corner of that area there is a stock pond and that stock pond is at about the same topographic level as the effluent area that is proposed. That stock pond is fed by springs. That stock pond is near the top of the development. When you get a heavy rain up there the water just comes up out of the ground. I just unfortunately, don't feel like this is a well thought out, well suited development for this particular part of our community. We just appeal to your judgment. I think that someway or another, if you all can invoke street planning and curbs and stuff like that on developments out in the planning area but not in the city limits why can you not invoke some sort of authority on how the effluent of our sewage system is going to be handled? Why can't you guys do that? I just don't understand it. I look at the goals for the City of Fayetteville for 2008 and right now I'm standing here thinking we've missed it by four years. I implore upon you all to really for once, do some no voting up here. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Ginger: My name is Rebecca Ginger and I live at 3241 N. Gulley Road. My property is directly adjacent to this development to the north. I appreciate your taking the time to listen to me. I have lived in this property for 25 years, almost 26. It is a rural area. Gulley Road is a rural road. It is narrow, there are no shoulders and our whole setting in this area of town is Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 25 rural. The density of this development is atrocious. It really, the developer is trying to get every dollar he can out of every square inch of this property. I know that you all don't really have a lot of power to limit them of what they do. I know you are aware of the congestion on Hwy. 45, Mission Blvd., this is going to put 120 more vehicles coming into Fayetteville every morning on Mission Blvd. The corner of Crossover already is so congested. The school system McNair and Vandergriff are already full to capacity, so is Root, so is Happy Hollow. There are not enough schools, the road is narrow, the congestion is thick. As the City Planning Commission I know you have your eye on the east end of Fayetteville that will eventually be part of the city and we want to be part of the city, but improved mobility and street quality. When is Sagely Lane going to be connected? I know dollars are important. We just implore you to please consider all of our concerns as the citizens of Gulley Road. Thank you very much. Ostner: Are there anymore comments from the public? Ginger: My name is Darrell Ginger, I am the husband of the former speaker. I also live on the north edge of the proposed project. I noticed that there was communication about connectivity being to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west. The north road that you see platted in front of you opens onto our property and that is not part of the project. That is a dead end street. Likewise, the connectivity to the south that you see platted there goes onto the Tuck property which is also a dead end deal. There is no plan for development there. Essentially, it only goes to the east and to the west. I also stand in opposition to the density of this project. I am concerned also about the effluent for the septic system that they have proposed in our neighborhood. This is an ill thought out project and I stand in opposition to it and I would encourage you to rethink it. When the developers came to us the first time they withdrew their project with the understanding that they would come back with a lesser density and with a project that would be more community appreciated and would be more to our liking. This is no better. If anything, it is worse. It is worse than the original project. We stand in opposition to it and we encourage you to encourage them to rethink the subdivision of the property. Thank you very much for your attention. Ostner: Thank you. Wolf: My name is Nancy Wolf, I live at 5350 Sagely Lane. Thank you for listening to us. Everybody has reiterated everything that I also have opposition to the plan for. I would like to just state the traffic problem. Three new subdivisions have been approved within the last year or two adding probably 80 houses that go onto Gulley Road. This would be another 59 houses. The road is a rural road. It says no trucks when you Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 26 pull onto the road. I don't know what no trucks means in terms of what kind of road that is. It also crosses a small creek. It is not a bridge but the road crosses a small creek that goes through there. That is going to be the major entry and exit out of that subdivision. Traffic is already very bad when people try to cut through Hwy. 265 and go around the 265/45 intersection. They use that to cut through. There is already a lot of traffic beginning to go that way. This will add a lot more traffic. The other item is the septic system. I know that you don't approve the septic system but the Health Department does. They are in Little Rock. The engineers understand the technical plans for the septic system but they are in Little Rock. They don't know the area around here in terms of what it is going to look like. It seems a little disjointed when one agency relies on another agency to approve or disapprove and then they say as long as they approve it we will approve it. The Health Department says as long as the city approves it then we will approve it but nobody is working together on that. When you put an individual septic system on a property a three bedroom home, the lateral field is sized for 450 gallons of water per day. 59 houses times 450 gallons is going to be a lot of gallons of effluent being pumped out there on 2 '/2 acres or four acres including the area if it should fail. The other reason is that these are all pump systems. They all have to be maintained. It is so new to the Health Department yet that they don't have guidelines on who is going to maintain it. They just want to know who. That is all you have to do is put a name in there. They are not going to be in charge of enforcing that maintenance. Somebody has to be in charge of maintaining all of the pump work and the computers and the electronics that go with that system. The homeowners should be aware that they are on a community septic system and that they are going to be paying for this maintenance for the life of the system. I don't know, I hope that you all consider it very carefully. I think that it is a very scary site for such a new system. If it should fail there really isn't anywhere for it to go on that piece of property. None of the other soils are suitable to put it anywhere else and they will all have houses on them. I would hope that you will consider it very carefully and that if it should pass you will see these community septic systems everywhere. Thank you. Talbert: Good afternoon, my name is Ron Talbert, I live at 3130 Gulley Road, which is just east of this property. Below the property and just adjacent across the road from my property will be the waste dispersal field for this whole entire development. I know that I have springs that come out onto my property. I also have a pond on my property that I'm concerned about. Where does that water, I know that it flows downhill from that hillside up there but I don't know exactly where the connecting areas are but my pond is spring fed and also there is a good size spring above my house and below my house where I am now that come to the surface there during rainy weather. I'm concerned about that aspect. I'm also concerned about the increased traffic in this area and just the overall layout of the high Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 27 density housing is not what we have in our community out there so I just object to it on all of these basis just like all of my neighbors are objecting. Thank you for listening. Alter: I'm Fay Alter, I live at 3030 N. Gulley, I'm southeast of this proposed property. My biggest concern other than the effluent is that this road is a narrow country road with no shoulders and no margin of error. On either side of the road on both sides are ditches. There is absolutely no margin of error. If they are pulling out on Gulley Road off of Sagely people coming south on Gulley Road will be coming out of a blind S curve. People coming out of the subdivision looking to their left will not know if anybody is approaching until it is too late. We have a lot of accidents on the corner of Hwy. 45 and Gulley. Since I have lived out there, about five years, there has probably been four or five a year where people just pull straight up off of Gulley Road and get creamed on somebody heading west on Hwy. 45. I think that the way that this is laid out this is going to happen consistently. People coming around that turn have their foot on the pedal. They are going as fast as they can when they pull out of that turn. People coming out on Sagely are going to get creamed. I think that if they are going to do some sort of development that they ought to come up with a better idea than doing it in blind curves and probably not 118 cars coming out of there everyday in the morning and going back at night. Hayward: Good evening. Malcolm Hayward, I'm at 3200, I'm the next one up to the north. Steve didn't mention when he was building his house that he encountered a spring which now drains down into a pond. That spring is going to be right in this effluent so he is going to have a drainage area. He is going to have everybody's sewer coming right through the bottom of his house which seems to me as perhaps an undesirable situation. I came to the Planning Commission when Terry Gulley was proposing his 51 houses to the north of this. At the time the whole issue of the road came up and there was no answer. You are going to have to address the question of Gulley Road sooner or later. As was stated, there are at least 80 new houses plus there is a subdivision on the east/west stretch of Gulley Road, whose name I don't remember, it is another 15 houses. Those people will probably go to the north. Gulley Road is an accident waiting to happen. Getting on Hwy. 45, getting off Hwy. 45 and going around that comer is not prepared to absorb another whatever this is. The density is probably three times what really is going to be gracefully absorbed there. If this sewer system breaks down you all get to inherit it. No one has tried this and it is being tried at absolutely the maximum that anybody can build one of these systems. I think it is a poor way to start. I would suggest that you start with something a little less grand, a little less intense, a little less demanding and if it works you will get a chance to try it in denser areas down the line. This development is about ten years of it's time. The roads, Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 28 the infrastructure and the sewer is not there yet. Until they are it is too dense. Thank you. Ostner: Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak about this Preliminary Plat? Brown: My name is Walter Brown. I served in the military and I've been in places where these types of odors come in. The developers leave and someone else inherits the problems. One of the things, I live west of it, I look at all this sewer stuff and when we have a good rain out there the ground is saturated. There is no place for this effluent that they are going to pump in to go out on top of the ground eventually and down into our ditches. I happen to be one of the areas where the ditch comes down from my place. I don't appreciate that. The other thing is the last time we were here they said 59 houses and now they say 57. Is that an error? The next thing is they said there would be one car per house with $200,000 to $300,000 homes is what we were told. I suspect there will be two to three cars per home. There will be teenagers and everything else. You all as a city supply water out there so you will inherit the sewer problems if there is a sewer problem. Thank you. Ostner: Is there any other member of the public who would like to speak to this? I am going to close it to the public and open it up to the Commission. Shackelford: I have served on the Subdivision Committee and have looked at this project once before. I appreciate all of the comment and the input that we have heard from all of the surrounding land owners. I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions. First, we have talked about, just so that everybody is aware, those of you who have not seen this development before, this project is in the county. It is not in the city limits and that severely changes the way that we proceed with this application. There are basically seven issues that we are charged by ordinance to look at. Those issues are on page 9.2 and addressed by our city staff. One of the things that we talk a lot about is this community septic system. Two things, first of all, it is not necessarily a new procedure, it is something that has been used in other communities and in other areas for quite some time. It may be new to us but it is not technically a new technology or new procedure. One of the things that we talked about at Subdivision Committee, and Jeremy, I guess I'm going to you with this because Dawn is not here anymore. Dawn made a comment that these community septic systems are preferred by both our ordinances and the State Health Department over individual septic systems so I would first of all, ask you to expand on that Jeremy if that is correct. Pate: Sure. Chapter 166.04, Required On Site Improvements for subdivisions in the Planning Area. Subsection 8b states "Public Sanitary not accessible: Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 29 Where a public sanitary sewer is not reasonably accessible the subdivider shall be required to install a community sewage system <much as we are seeing tonight> as defined by Act 402 in compliance with State Health Department standards and regulations. Provided if a community sewage system is not reasonably available or economically feasible and a subdivision has been platted so that each lot has a minimum gross area of 1.5 acres an individual sewage disposal system for each lot may be used." Shackelford: In other areas that we have seen these outside of our community, these areas are used for public parks, soccer fields, baseball fields and that sort of thing. I think there is another misnomer that this is raw effluent that is leached onto this field. From my understanding, that is incorrect. It is treated to a level that is just above traditional storm runoff. If I could ask the applicant to speak briefly regarding the treatment that is done prior to this septic runoff being leached in the field and what level of treatment is done to that. Scott: Certainly. What I said before about an individual septic system, that is not a treated effluent that comes out of that. The ground actually treats that. The effluent that comes out of this system, they measure the bacteria level by a BOD number, a typical septic tank has 200 in it's effluent, these systems have 20 to 30 so it is 1/10 to 1/9 as strong. To put it in perspective, the natural streams in the area have a level that is around 20 to 30. You can go one more level of treatment and then that is acceptable to discharge into streams. Since this is going into the ground we are not treating to that level. Shackelford: Thank you. I have another question. One of the comments was about the safety issue of pulling out of this subdivision onto Gulley Road. Do you know the approximate sight distance from the corner to the proposed gate? Scott: From our entrance to the curve at the north it is 500'. A national design standard would be 100' for every 10 miles per hour of vehicle speed. Typically, those cars leaving that curve up there are at 30 to 40 miles per hour so we far exceed that. Shackelford: It has enough sight distance for a road rated for 50 miles per hour? Scott: Yes and it is a straight sight line. To the south it is much further than that, probably 1000 feet or more. Vaught: To follow up on that, one comment that I would like to make is being in county once again we are limited to a few things we can look at and one of those things that we can look at is septic system approval from the Arkansas Health Department. If they approve it that is not something we can necessarily consider. That is out of our hands. We can make that a Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 30 condition of the development. There are other things that we are required to look at and I have a question for staff or the City Attorney, one of the things is the impact on traffic and on site and offsite improvements. What kind of off site improvements can we require in the county? I thought all that we could require was building to county road standards. Can we go above and beyond if it is a dangerous situation? Pate: Typically, what we look at recommending is if surrounding streets in this area are not up to county standards, improvements to those streets to bring those up to county standards. Gulley Road is a collector street on our Master Street Plan. It will likely be expanded at some point in time. Obviously, it is not in the city so it is not going to be identified at any time in the near future in our CIP or any other development for expansion unless the county for some reason comes through and does that. Gulley Road is considered up to those county standards so improvements to that above and beyond we really wouldn't see. If, for instance, the developer was requesting to access directly onto that curve and that was a bad sight distance area we might look at realignment of the curve. There are other instances where we have seen an intersection improved in a nearby vicinity to help traffic movement in that area. More typically, and with this request we are looking at providing as many connection points north/south/east and west as possible so that in the future all of the neighborhoods and this surrounding community can utilize those streets once they do connect to alleviate some of that traffic congestion. Vaught: Asking for additional improvements along Gulley, since it is already to county standards, we can only ask for it to be improved to county standards right now in this situation? Pate: At this time that is correct. Vaught: My second comment and question for the applicant is on connectivity. This little hand out you gave us calls for a gated entry for Sagely Lane. To me that defeats the purpose of connectivity in the future when this road is built out. That was nowhere in our packet and I know that is once again, out of our control. To me that speaks to connectivity. Pate: Public right of way may not be gated. It is a public street. Vaught: So they cannot gate Sagely Lane? Pate: That is correct. Vaught: That is all I have for now. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 31 Ostner: The issue that we have so few rules that we can impose here brings to mind so many issues that we do usually impose when we are looking at zoning if this were in the city limits we would look at compatibility. We would look at so many things that the neighbors want. As we are going to discuss tonight in many other issues. Mr. Shackelford was on the annexation task force. Could you speak as to whether this area is being considered for annexation? Shackelford: Sure. I will let the City Attorney correct me if I make any mistakes on this. There has been a taskforce designed to look at the proposal to annex to the growth area of the city limits. This property would obviously fall into that and would try to give us a little better tool for overall planning. However, life doesn't evolve only around planning. There are other issues as far as budgeting, police and fire protection and all sorts of things that have to come into play and it would take a public vote as well. It is my understanding that the City Council is reviewing the request or the thought of requesting an annex to the city limits to our growth area to kind of allow us to better plan growth as a broad picture. That has to obviously be balanced with economic factors and how it would affect the overall budget, which obviously, the City Council is charged with doing as elected officials and we are not as well. I don't know that that decision has been discussed very far with the City Council. It would take a recommendation from the City Council and then a vote by the public to make that happen. Am I correct on that? Williams: That is correct. Ostner: It was explained to me at Subdivision that if this were in the city limits and I were being asked to rezone it I would have to say that it is not compatible. No, I wouldn't rezone it to be able to be built at this density. The other part of the annexation is the sewers. If you are in the city limits you must connect to our sanitary sewer, there is no step system. It is a county system. I just wanted to state those things. This makes me uncomfortable. It is incompatible with surrounding land uses. I wish we had more power to regulate and simply ask this developer to make the lots three times as big. I don't think we have that power. The list of items that Mr. Shackelford referred to in the beginning I want to read. These are the seven items that we are able to consider in these areas that are in the Growth Area, which is what we are dealing with. 1) The appropriate division of land. 2) A lot area minimum of 10,000 sq.ft. 3) A lot width minimum of 75'. 4) Right of way dedication in conformance with the Master Street Plan. 5) Septic system from the Arkansas Health Department for lots less than 1.5 acres. 6) Connectivity. 7) The impact of traffic. Those are our only items of consideration that we are allowed to scrutinize with this development. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 32 Vaught: I have a question for staff or the City Attorney. Appropriate division of land, would you define that? I know lot area minimums and lot area minimum width fall in there. As long as they meet that criteria, or do we have control of density as well in appropriate division of land? Williams: I am going to let the City Planner interpret that because they are the ones charged in the statute of interpreting our code. Pate: The density would not factor into that consideration. The county, as mentioned by the public here tonight and the Commission, does not have zoning at this time. Therefore, density is not regulated. We have set minimums by the county that we have incorporated into our ordinances and those are mentioned, 75' and 10,000 sq.ft. of lot area. As far as the appropriate configuration of land, we are looking more at the lot configuration with regard to streets. Does it conform to a typical and logical configuration of a lot. Vaught: Really as far as density all we have is lot area and lot width. Once again, we are bound by what we are allowed to do in the county. That is something that you guys can take up with the county officials and also with the City Council over the annexation taskforce. The county is trying to make this better. They are extending city street standards into a one mile radius of the city limits. That ordinance has not been approved yet. It is recommended. I think they are hearing it tomorrow night. Pate: If I may, this development is actually complying with those proposed requirements. The city does not require this developer to do curb and gutter. It could utilize a county street system which I believe at least one option is to use gravel roads and shoulders. They are providing curb and gutter, typical street sections as indicated by the applicant, as well as detention on this property, which again, is another requirement that we don't typically look at. In response to your concerns about density, we did a quick calculation, this would be approximately 1.77 dwelling units per acre and almost meets the RSF-2 zoning district were it in the city limits. That is just to give you a little perspective because obviously, we see quite a few subdivisions in the city. That is not comparable to surrounding lot sizes based on comments from the neighborhood here, but just for a little perspective. Ostner: Do those calculations include the big field? Pate: Yes, that includes the property being developed. Ostner: I would be interested in the density without that four acre park. I believe each of these lots is listed at about .30 acres. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 33 Pate: Approximately 2.03 units per acre without the leach field. Ostner: So it is still well under our RSF-4, which is our most common density measure in the subdivisions we approve. Shackelford: One other comment regarding the community septic system. We have seen at Subdivision Committee and heard again today, that this pretreatment effluent is approximately 1/10 of what a traditional septic system would be. If there are 57 homes on this property the pre-treatment effluent would be equal to somewhere between five and six homes with traditional septic systems. For what it is worth, I think even with the density that is in this area, five or six homes on this 32 acre tract would be something that would probably be anticipated. Anthes: I share frustration with many of the Commissioners here in that we like to be able to address the concerns of neighbors when they come to public meetings and see if we can come to a compromise with developers. It is extremely difficult to do that in this situation. I have some questions related to what Commissioner Vaught asked about the appropriate division of land. What we are hearing is that the density is not something that we can talk about there and that we have to look at a logical and orderly division of land into lots. When I look at this I see that we meet that requirement. As far as connectivity, I think a couple of people asked about that, including Dr. Ginger. The stub out condition is something that we ask for in developments all over the City of Fayetteville. That is a policy of future connectivity when land develops and that is something that we require everywhere and that this parcel actually meets or exceeds what we have requested other developments to do. If I lived near here and had a spring fed pond I would be extremely concerned about what was happening with the ground water in the area and yet from what we are hearing, we have a situation that we can't really look at it and that we are having effluent that meets or exceeds standards. I would want to comment though and ask a question of the developer on that. You indicated that there was one more level up that is possible in a system like this that actually creates effluent that is able to be discharged directly into streams. Will you tell us what that means and tell us what financial impact a system like that is compared with what you are planning to install and how you came to that decision. Scott: Certainly. The next level actually address phosphorous levels and as we know, with all the phosphorous level issues with sewer effluent in the area that would be the case. When you put it in the ground the plants actually absorb the phosphorous and nitrogen and you can plant a particular grass there that actually even absorbs more. It turns out that the soils in Northwest Arkansas absorb phosphorous very well. They have a great Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 34 infinity for it. The phosphorous is really the next problem that we would take out. Anthes: How did you decide where to stop and what would be the impact of going further with it? Scott: It would have really no impact, other than the plants in that field would not get as much phosphorous and nitrogen as they really do need. Anthes: Is that system a lot more expensive to install? Scott: It is probably $20,000 or $30,000. It is not really that expensive, it is just not really needed. I would like to point out, as I understand the concern and would have the same concern, I would like to point out that we dug several holes, 4' deep pits and observed the layers of soil. In this area this ridge line that runs through here, this entire side, this is the pond that they were talking about in this area, this is the higher side 15 acres. This side that we are placing this system in is very suitable. In the 4' deep pits that we dug there was no signs of ground water on that side. Anthes: I have another question or comment. On condition of approval number nine we show pump station drip field lots as being 14,15,45 and 64, in referencing the latest set of drawings I believe it is 13,14,37,43 and 62. Can you confirm which? It is about lots designated for detention, pump stations and a drip field. Scott: When we did the stub outs the lots got renumbered. That is why there are two fewer homes for the stub out connections. Anthes: Lot 62 that is designated as a pump station, what sort of structure is that? That is highly visible along Sagely Lane and is one of the first things that you will see as you are driving into this development. Can you talk about what that structure is? Scott: Certainly. Most of it will be underground. There will be above ground electronic portions that the developer has told us he will put a gazebo around. All you will see is a gazebo and they are so unobtrusive that they can be hidden with hedges and things like that. It will be screened. Anthes: In terms of the orderly configuration of lots if you were somewhere else, Lot 35 and Lot 36 look like a great community shared area. I hate to see those things fenced off and blocked off. It would seem like two great lots for the P.O.A. to purchase and have a community property. I know there is nothing that we can do about that but I thought it would be on the record. I really think that if we were seeing this in the city limits we would be on a sewer system and that would alleviate a lot of the concerns Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 35 that the neighbors have. As far as density, this is meeting the density requirement and pattern that we have all over the City of Fayetteville. I really wish we could require some off site street improvements to help with the safety on that curve but we just can't do it. I really appreciate the neighbors in this area coming to us three times. I know we have seen a lot of you here and you have spent a lot of time and I guess that is why a lot of us live in Fayetteville is because we have that kind of interaction with the public and the appointed and elected officials and usually we can get to something that is a real strong compromise. I apologize that we are probably falling short in your eyes tonight. Allen: There seems to be little that we can discuss tonight but one condition that seems important to me is a condition of good will. I wondered what sort of efforts that the developer might have made to try to address these concerns and if you have made concessions or modifications to try to spread good will. Hoskins: I'm Tracy Hoskins with Paradigm Development. I'm also representing the development. I came into this thing back in September. The property itself at that time had a totally different plan than what it does now. At that time it did not encompass another seven or eight acres on the northwest corner, that was originally where the drip field was. The density I don't believe has really changed. The lot sizes are basically the same as what they were before. However, what we have done is in this new design we have also included that seven acres that was drip area and a couple of lots before. What we did to address some of the concerns of the neighbors is one of the things that I saw was a real problem was the location of the drip field itself because it was basically in the back yards of all the surrounding neighbors. We basically moved that up to the front of the subdivision and made a park out of it getting it away from any of the surrounding neighbors and actually within our own development. Also, it is the intention of the developers to clear the sight distance around the curve of Gulley Road, clean that up and put up a wrought iron fence. I believe with the changes in this development that if it was in the City of Fayetteville the City of Fayetteville would be tickled to death with it. It has curb and gutter, streets, etc. as required, detention facilities and by all means, a 4.2 acre park. The developers are sensitive to the trees and have every intention of preserving as much of that as possible. I think the engineer addressed the step system very well. I also know that other municipalities have actually looked at this same type of system for their small cities. We believe that we have done a good job on development. It is not near the density that it probably could be and if it was in the City of Fayetteville we would have RSF-4 zoning more than likely which means that the density would be even higher. Also, the subdivision to me is a very good alternative as to what could go there. It is in the county. It could be anything from mini storages to very high density housing. I think Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 36 the developers have acted in very good faith asking Art and myself to take a look at the project again and basically redesigning the whole thing. Basically, anything they had done before is basically scrapped and all of that money is spent. I happen to agree with Dr. Ginger that came up here and spoke before that the stub out to the north and to the south, it would be the developers preference and obviously, the neighbors on both sides if those stub outs were not made. We will do it either way that you want us to. If we could possibly get rid of that we would be fine with that as far as redrawing that as well. Thank you. Allen: While you are there talking about the City of Fayetteville being pleased if you were in the city. One thing that they wouldn't be pleased about would be the gated community and I wondered what your rational was behind that decision. Hoskins: It is not gated. That is strictly for aesthetics. It will be much like the entrance to Savanna. I don't believe it was the developer's intention to ever have those as operable closed gates. Allen: It just said gated entry. Hoskins: That is my office's fault, we labeled that a little bit wrong. Myres: As logical as everything that everybody said is I still have a real problem adding 120 cars to Gulley Road. One of the things that we talk about frequently is improvements to infrastructure before we expect said infrastructure to carry a larger load than it already does. I know that I don't really have a leg to stand on to vote against this but with all due apologies to the developers, I am going to simply because I have a real problem with the added burden on that road as far as traffic is concerned. Shackelford: We have talked at length regarding what we can do and what we can't do regarding this development. We have talked at length regarding the community septic system. I think there is some fear of the unknown because we haven't seen this in our community. It has been used in other communities. I have researched this and seen it in other projects outside of our community. In fact, like I stated before, it is actually a preferred method over what we are used to seeing in the county. Basically, as you mentioned, there are seven issues that we an address. Staff has done a good job addressing those issues. I think that we have governed all that we are empowered to govern on this issue. We are here and charged by our ordinances and operate at the will of City Council to enforce our ordinances regarding growth and development and I think that we have done that in this project. We have done all that we can do given the ordinances as they are now both in the county and in the city. With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 04-1338 Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 37 subject to the stated conditions of approval, which there are 14 with the specific finding in condition number one of appropriate street connectivity. While I understand the applicant's and other folks comments regarding stub outs that is something that we would require if it was in the city for future connectivity. Some day the land north and south of this project will develop. It may not be in my lifetime but it will be sometime so we need to have that connectivity. Condition number two regarding the placement of Sagely Lane. I find in favor of staffs recommendation on that as well. I believe those are the only two specific findings of fact that we need to make. I make a motion for approval subject to those comments. Pate: Condition number nine, there are some lot numbers that need changed there. It should read Lots 13, 14, 37, 43 and 62, which those lots shall be classified as unbuildable. Shackelford: My motion will show in condition nine Lots 13, 14, 37, 43 and 62. Vaught: I have a question for staff to alleviate one more of my concerns. Impact on traffic with on site and off site improvements to these dangerous traffic conditions, what all does that entail as we look at a county project? Is it basically as long as they are built to county standards are there other factors that we can look at like proximity to the entrance of the curve but what about size of the street? As long as it is to county standards we don't govern size of the access road into this at all? How does that factor in? Pate: If you think of it in comparison with the city, this is within the Planning Area. If it was in the city and all the surrounding streets were up to city standards, likely, there would not be requirements to improve the streets. Likewise, in the Planning Area, if the surrounding streets that access this property are up to county standards and they have met or exceeded those standards. As mentioned by some of the Commissioners tonight, the Planning Commission does reserve the right to require off site improvements. Staff is not recommending anything other than what is shown on the plat at this time. We feel that those streets do meet the county standards. The sight distance, which is something that we would look at potentially for an offsite improvement, is acceptable in this location for Sagely Lane, which would eventually connect west to Skillern. Additionally, the intersection south with Huntsville Road is a relatively safe intersection. A collector road, which would provide at it's full build out, 4,000 to 6,000 vehicle trips per day. The next arterial that this intersects with is a principal arterial which would allow for 17,000 to 20,000 vehicle trips per day at full build out. Access to these properties staff finds is adequate. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 38 Vaught: What I was thinking is on the other side of town we dealt with a subdivision right on a 90° corner and when we are looking in the city one of our terms is compound a dangerous traffic condition and I don't see that in the things we consider. To me when I'm looking at what we can look at it is basically can the road handle the traffic and if it does we can't require improvements if it is built out to county standards. Pate: It is something that we look at in Chapter 166.07 Required Off Site Improvements it goes through the rational nexus calculation just like you would in the city when there are required off site improvements. Again, staff finds that the surrounding streets in this location do meet those standards at this time. Vaught: With all of that said, I will second the motion. I just wanted to clarify that for us and for everybody else. Williams: Is this your most recent lot numbering or is this incorrect? Scott: That is the most recent. Williams: I noticed that the large park is Lot 15 is that supposed to be buildable or not buildable? Vaught: The numbers don't match. Pate: The submitted plat that you have for review labels it as Lot 14 and that is what staff has reviewed. Vaught: So Lot 13, 14, 37, 43 and 62. Shackelford: Yeah because the southern stub out is different. Williams: All the reference will be to the submitted plat and not to the hand out. I have not seen the submitted plat, does the submitted plat show gates, even non-operable gates? This is a collector road and I think it would probably be inappropriate to have an indication that this is somehow a private road where the gates could be closed with the City Council's policy of no gates and connectivity, I think it would be improper to approve a plat that would indicate to the public that this is not a through collector street. Vaught: Staff said that no gates are permitted in a public right of way or public easement. Pate: A public right of way may not be inhibited by a structure of any type including a gate. That is also a county ordinance I believe that was passed in the last few months. Again, these plats don't have that gate. You have Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 39 something that we don't have a copy of that shows the gated reference. The plats that we have reviewed have never indicated any type of gate. Shackelford: Applicant, do you agree not to put gates on this entry? Scott: Absolutely. Ostner: There is a motion and a second. Anthes: I'm looking at this and I'm trying to compare what would be any different about whether we were looking at this in the city verses in the county and the only things that I can find are different is we ask for off site street improvements and every house on this would be on a sewer. Every other thing seems to meet all of our development ordinances for every kind of zoning that we could anticipate this kind of property having. I do think that with them clearing the corner and not putting houses on that corner that should at least help. It will not be as compounding the situation anywhere near as if they would've built homes out on what is now designated as Lot 14. I just don't see anything else that we can do. As far as the drawings and the way that these lots are laid out and constructed, it is very logical and it is something that we would approve in the city. Ostner: You are assuming that the rezoning discussion went smoothly. Anthes: Assuming we are somewhere between RSF-2 and RSF-4 which as we are seeing, the RSF-4 is a more common zoning designation than the RSF-2 and we are pretty close on those. While I struggle with this like a lot of us have, and I certainly support what the neighbors said, I don't think that there is any way to do anything but vote for this development. Ostner: I would tend to agree. I would implore the neighborhood to seek relief from your elected officials in the form of county zoning. I think that if you had zoning protection this discussion would be completely different. You don't so we are left regulating the few things that we are. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes that I feel compelled to vote in favor of this item. Pate: Just one comment for the public's benefit, this item does go before the Washington County Planning Board as a public hearing for final approval. Other improvements should they see fit for county roads to be imposed at that level based on their ordinances may be approved. Allen: Do the neighbors have any kind of recourse on what decision we make? Williams: This still is going to require the City Council to approve the change in the deed restricted area. However, I don't see that as being a major stumbling Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 40 block for this development. I was on the Council when this deed restricted area was created and it was to protect the right of way for the Master Street Plan and here they have designed the road to fit the Master Street Plan with a slight change in it's location. I don't see the City Council as being very reluctant to change that as they have many times to move the location of a master street to fit a development as it is coming through in a slightly changed or requested change in the Master Street Plan. That is the only other thing I see in here except for the County Planning Board. It might even be that eventually, I'm sure that there will not be county wide zoning, but it might be the JPs would consider zoning within a certain range of cities or something to give these growth areas some more protection. They might approach their elected officials that way and they might be more receptive to close in zoning and let the outside county still be unzoned. Ostner: Is there further discussion before we vote? Could you call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1338 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes and Allen voting yes with prejudice and Commissioner Myres voting no. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 41 PPL 04-1308: Preliminary Plat (CRAIG HARPER S/D, 61): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at THE SW CORNER OF THE ALBRIGHT ROAD AND GEORGE ANDERSON INTERSECTION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 19.98 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision with 48 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Craig Harper submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This property contains approximately 20 acres and is located west of George Anderson Road and south of Albright Road. The property was recently annexed into the city from the City of Springdale and rezoned RSF-4. The applicant proposes to create a 48 lot subdivision with 47 single family lots. Right of way to be dedicated within this property is per the Master Street Plan with 35' right of way from centerline for George Anderson Road and 25' from centerline for Albright Road as well as an additional 50' of right of way dedication for all interior streets. The applicant is proposing connectivity to the south from Copper Creek subdivision as well as two connections north to Albright Road and a stub out to the west for future connectivity. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat, PPL 04-1308 subject to thirteen conditions. Required are Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity as well as determination of appropriate street improvements. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Moore: Good evening, I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services representing the owner. I really don't have a formal presentation. We have agreed to the conditions of approval and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to this Preliminary Plat please step forward. Nooncaster: My name is John Nooncaster, I'm an adjacent property owner. I own property to the west of this project. I was also at the Subdivision Committee meeting. I raised some concern at that point. I had some questions about the design of this with houses to the back of Albright. Also, I had a question about since a portion of this property was recently de -annexed from the City of Springdale, I question if this is still in the Springdale water district. I talked to Mr. Boettcher, the City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Director and he wasn't aware that this property had ever been taken out of the Springdale water service area and I haven't heard back on that but he wasn't aware that it had been. My Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 42 main concern about this is when the property that I have to the west of this was annexed just recently there was talk of off site street improvements to Albright. Since this property that you are considering tonight is the largest, undeveloped piece of property that has the most frontage along Albright between George Anderson and Crossover, if we are going to be fair about this and if we are going to ask for any offsite improvements I think they should be done for this property as well. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments. To start, staff do we know if this is in the Fayetteville water service district? O'Neal: The subdivision will be connecting to the Copper Creek subdivision to the south which is in the Fayetteville system. Ostner: It is in the Fayetteville water district. Nooncaster: The question is not whether it is connecting to Fayetteville but rather whether according to the map is it in the Fayetteville water service district or not. O'Neal: I'm not sure of the boundaries for the district. If you will notice at the top of your plat there is a 6" water line that is inside the city limits of Springdale. I'm assuming that Albright is going to be a divider since this was de -annexed from Springdale and annexed into Fayetteville that that map would be revised for that annexation. Williams: I don't think that's necessarily automatic, maybe it should be. We do have agreements with Springdale and occasionally we swap back and forth the water district lines between the two cities depending on the circumstances. In this particular case if one city is providing the sewer it should also provide the water. Both Springdale and Fayetteville agree on that and so we have in fact, adjusted the line in the past between the two cities when that occurs. I don't think it is necessarily automatic with the annexation although that would be a good idea if we could figure out how to draft an agreement that would make it automatic. If it is not in the Fayetteville Water District now then probably it should be because if we are going to provide sewer then we need to provide water too. Shackelford: I have a question regarding tree preservation. On page 10.2 it shows existing canopy is 2.81, preserved is 2.21, the removal of those trees, is that in right of way or is that easement where there will actually be trees removed from this? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 43 Pate: The trees that are within the existing right of way are not counted as even existing trees. Those trees that are shown to be removed are actually either on the detention pond or on the property as part of the project. Shackelford: The public comment regarding the road improvements to Albright, condition number two requires Albright Road to be improved to 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalks. Can you speak towards that level of improvement verses what else we've seen on Albright or is this the first piece that we've required improvements to Albright? Pate: I believe this is one of the first subdivisions that we have seen directly onto Albright Road. I believe there was a PZD recently that was on Albright Road west of this property. The improvements directly adjacent are relatively typical. As our ordinances state, if you are adjacent to a road that is substandard the typical improvement as determined by the Planning Commission and recommended by staff in most instances is to improve half of a street width in that location. Therefore, in this location Albright Road would improved for a distance of 1,318 feet and George Anderson to the south would match the improvements of the Copper Creek subdivision. Trumbo: Staff, I'm not sure I understand what we are supposed to be determining on condition number two. Pate: The Planning Commission determination of street improvements for a subdivision or Large Scale Development. That is a Planning Commission determination and staff is recommending those improvements that you see there that George Anderson be widened 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalks along the length of this property. It is primarily the same improvement to Albright Road. Williams: As the City Planner mentioned, there is before the City Council, an ordinance that is going to take into effect what the County Judge ordered granting the city the right to require city streets within one mile of the city limits. It looks to me like rather than improving Albright Road to one side being county standards and then by the time that Mr. Nooncaster comes through he is going to have to improve it to city standards, it would be a much safer situation to have a city road on both sides all the way back towards Hwy. 265. I know that ordinance is just going to the City Council in a week but it seems that it might be something that you would want to actually do to make that a safer situation. Pate: Our typical recommendation based on our rational nexus calculation is that the half of the street, 14' from centerline that fronts onto this development is improved to city standards. Therefore, the other half of Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 44 the street, should it ever develop in the future is developed, that responsibility would be born by that developer. That is our typical recommendation within the city limits. Moore: In this case Mr. Nooncaster actually owns to the west of the property, not across the street. We will end up doing our side. County standards are paved so you will have a fully paved road on both sides of the street from the intersection of George Anderson past Mr. Nooncaster's to the west. Williams: I think Mr. Nooncaster's position was when he was before the City Council asking for rezoning that they began to talk about offsite improvements headed back towards Hwy. 265. That is what he was concerned about. Maybe he can speak to that. You have poor access to both of your developments because that is obviously, going to be a very heavily traveled road once you all have both of your developments in. That will be the quickest way back to Hwy. 265. Moore: Actually, this has access through the Copper Creek subdivision also. That is a wider street. If I am in that subdivision I'm probably going south first and then to the west instead of traveling on Albright. Anthes: Mr. Moore, I have a question pertaining to internal street widths within the subdivision. Will this subdivision have covenants? Moore: Yes. Anthes: Will those covenants in any way prohibit on street parking? Moore: I don't know. The covenants will be the same as Copper Creek or similar to. These are the lots that are pretty much similar to Copper Creek. I'm not sure what the covenants will say. Anthes: We are expecting to see a covenant that says you cannot park your car on the street over 24 hours but you can park it there other times? These internal cross streets, Street "A" and Street "C" have a 28' cross section for 8 or 9 houses which seems a little excessive unless we are going to allow on street parking. I would just hate to see that happen. Moore: We can reduce it to 24' if that is what you all would desire. That is a savings to us. Vaught: I prefer to match whatever the adjoining subdivision has so you are not driving down the street having it wide and then narrow. It makes sense to me if it is adjoining a 28' cross section that it should keep that 28' cross section. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 45 Anthes: It would be only the internal streets "A" and "C" that are laterally connecting, the streets that connect north/south. Ostner: You would have to turn onto them. I would be in support of reducing that. Vaught: "A" connects to the west. Pate: Staff would recommend that a through street retain local street standards. Staff would support Street "C" being reduced to 24'. Ostner: Would the developer be amenable to reducing that? Moore: Sure. Ostner: The comment I have has to do with the streets along the northern edge turning their backs to Albright Road. Mr. Nooncaster spoke to this a little bit at Subdivision and he, as would I, those homes already existing on Albright Road I don't believe should have to face the back of other homes. That is not addressed in our development ordinances. We are developing so fast in Fayetteville that we are approving these developments with the backs facing the street but we don't get them built quick enough for people to see it and react to it. I believe if we do that a lot we start to really lose the sense of character and street life that Fayetteville has. We don't want to create concrete canyons that you simply drive. I believe it is time that the Council address this. It is not fair to the community to build streets that don't serve anyone except someone to drive past them. I am not going to vote against it. In fact, I am going to vote for this project but I believe our rules with our Master Street Plan are lacking in this area. With that, I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 04-1308 with the condition number 14 that Street "C" be reduced to a 24' section with curb and gutter. Shackelford: I will second. Williams: Are you adopting the staff recommendations in condition number two then? Ostner: Yes, a specific finding on condition number two to go ahead and widen George Anderson Road 14' from centerline including storm drain, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalk and the east side of the roadway will be in the county and Albright Road will need to be improved to 14' from centerline including storm drain, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalk. Do we have further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1308 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 46 Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 47 R-PZD 04-1307: Planned Zoning District (ASPEN RIDGE, 522/561): Submitted by MATT CRAFTON of CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE SW CORNER OF HWY 62, S ON HILL AVENUE AND BORDERED BY 11TH STREET AND THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 27.969 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 220 condominiums in two phases proposed. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is a PZD for Broyles. Pate: The subject property is adjacent to Hwy. 62 south on Hill Avenue bordered by 11"' Street. The property is currently zoned RMF -24 allowing 24 units per acre and contains approximately 27.969 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 220 condominiums in two phases proposed. The first phase being on the east side of the creek east and north and the second phase being on the south and west side of the creek. The property previously was inhabited by a mobile home park along with several single family homes. These were recently within the last year or year and a half removed by the applicant. Just for your benefit, this is not really recognized in the development review process, but a lot of time and effort has been taken by the applicant to remove a lot of trash and debris left on the site by years of abuse and neglect on this property. There was a total of 49 mobile homes in addition to that, and six single family homes removed. Approximately '/z of this site is underneath tree canopy. A majority of that is located along Town Branch Creek. This stream and associated runoff from surrounding development has been the source of many neighborhood concerns in past years and the applicant has met several times with the neighborhood in both formal meetings and just a door to door type basis as well as addressing comments received at public meetings from the last Subdivision Committee meeting. There are existing wetlands in this area also, much of which the developer is proposing to retain or enhance along the creek corridor. The site, as it exists today, is currently vacant with remnants of the previous development evident. Surrounding properties are zoned a variety of zoning primarily RMF -24, C-2 to the north, I-2 to the south with Pinnacle Foods there, I-1 to the east with some of the commercial development along Hill Avenue and College Avenue as well. The actual request, the applicant is requesting a rezoning and Large Scale Development approval for a residential development within a unique R-PZD zoning district. As I mentioned, this is to be a condominium style development consisting of 220 attached residential units. As I mentioned at agenda session, there is a little learning experience here for all of us, I included information with regard to the difference between condominiums and town homes and the differences in those. Just to reiterate, a town home is a home that is attached to one or more other houses and has land. A condominium does not have that land underneath. The proposal that we see before us is a Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 48 condominium style development. However, the applicant has stated that his intent is to come back at a later date once these units are in the ground and actually subdivide the property into each unit having it's own lot. This would require an amended PZD. That is information for your benefit. The total proposed density for this project is well below what is allowed by right. The 7.87 dwelling units per acre is the proposed density, which is again, well below the 24 dwelling units that are currently allowed. The potential for a townhouse style division of land, the inclusion of a public trail system, a public park, a large tree preservation area, a riparian corridor, preservation protection area, these are all challenges presented by the existing natural conditions as well as the railroad easement to the west, which do contribute to the need to process a PZD as opposed to a Large Scale Development multi-family type of development. In your staff reports on page 11.3 there are the zoning criteria as outlined by the applicant. The use units that are proposed, Use Unit 1, city wide uses by right. Use Unit 8, single family dwellings, Use Unit 26, multi-family dwellings, which actually allow the townhouse style development. Building setbacks are shown, building height, a maximum of 40'. Greenspace is 51.6% for this project. There is information on wetlands, water and sewer that are being extended individually to each one of these units as well as access, the access points to this property. Access and street improvements are obviously, a concern. We talked about those at length with several of the projects tonight. Staff made a recommendation for the street improvements surrounding this project. Those are itemized on page 11.4 and 11.5. Those are to repair the broken pavement on l Ith Street identified by our City Engineers. Continue the existing sidewalk on the north side of 11th Street to connect to the proposed sidewalk on the applicant's proposed entrance, that is approximately 20' of sidewalk. To complete the curb and gutter on the south side of 11th Street from the bridge to improve some of the drainage situations in this area. Based on the traffic study presented, the applicant's traffic engineer recommended widening the intersection of Hill Avenue and 6th Street to include a turn lane. The cost of locating a traffic signal is a necessary cost to add a left turn lane to that signal system. Additionally, a portion of Hill Avenue will need to be improved where necessary and a 6' sidewalk is required both on Hill Avenue and on 6th Street at the right of way line. Also, with regard to Phase II for the 107 units that are proposed. This exceeds the maximum number allowed by International Fire Code to have a secondary means of access. Therefore, staff worked with the applicant many months ago to find a secondary means of access for this piece of property, which is relatively limited with frontage. It is a large piece of property but it has a very small amount of frontage on right of way where access could be gained. In doing research staff and the applicant have proposed to extend Brooks Avenue south which is platted right of way from many years ago, and connect that to 12th Street. At Subdivision Committee there was a question if this could extend south all Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 49 the way to 15`h, which would be a logical connection and one that staff asked as well. That right of way has been vacated for decades and is no longer a feasible connection in that area. The applicant requests to build a street to a 24' wide section. Staff is recommending a 28' wide section in this location. There was a letter past out right before the meeting about some of the recommendations from staff. I believe this is one of the only few items that the applicant and staff have not compromised on and found a solution. Staff feels that a 28' wide street is appropriate in this location based on the traffic numbers that would be associated with Phase II. Approximately 627 vehicle trips per day would be generated from that development if I remember my numbers correctly and we feel that half of those would access that street, about 313 would access that street. Therefore, it would allow for on street parking in that area and for potential development in the future. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends a combination of money and land and services to the parkland dedication requirements. I will mention, as noted in your letter and the recommendation to City Council should this go forward, there will be credits applied to those homes that were removed from the property. I don't have the number in front of me but it is in excess of $30,000 that will be credited for the removal of those homes. Additionally, the applicant is requesting temporary office space in one of the units to allow for sales. Staff is in support of that as well. Neighborhood involvement has been crucial in this project in getting to the point that we are at today, as well as staff involvement and I believe the applicant has done a good job in meeting with the neighbors. We have heard from the neighbors stating good things and concerns both for and against this project and I am sure that you will hear some more tonight. Staff is recommending approval of this PZD that is based on the development ordinance requirements that we review as part of this Large Scale Development as well as the numerous rezoning findings that are included in your staff report. I will not go over all of those findings for you but if you are in agreement staff would recommend that this project be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. There are 24 conditions of approval. A couple which I haven't mentioned, item number two, Planning Commission recommendation for a future vacation of portions of Hunton Avenue and Anderson Place rights of way. That is referenced on the graphic. Staff finds in favor of these vacation requests. They are not formal vacation requests at this time but we feel that it is important to understand the Planning Commission and City Council's recommendation for this when a formal vacation request does come forward. Staffs recommendation is based on the fact that the circulation that was achieved with these rights of way has been achieved, just in a different location. The same circulation, you are still getting the connection from 6`h Street to Hill Avenue and actually with a potentially improved location as shown on the site plans. Item four requires Planning Commission's specific determination regarding the temporary sales office, Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page SO as well as item number five, a determination of appropriate off site street improvements, specifically the 28' verses the 24' street. I would ask that the Planning Commission make a finding with regard to that tonight. The rest of the conditions are relatively straight forward and do not require specific recommendations by the Planning Commission. I would note that staff finds in our findings that this Planned Zoning District meets the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan for this area for residential. We feel that it is a benefit to this neighborhood. It is providing a reuse and is one of the principals for the General Plan 2020 as outlined, revitalize South Fayetteville. We reviewed it with regard to all of our development ordinances and find it to be compliant with the exception of a couple of things mentioned in the conditions of approval, which are not beyond fixing with the construction plan review. The parking and off site street improvements are acceptable and we are recommending those street improvements to not create or compound a dangerous traffic situation. You might have seen in your specific findings that the Police Department did mention with regard to safety and access that just rezoning this property to this PZD could increase the traffic. I agree because the property is vacant currently. However, it could also develop to 24 units per acre, which is a much higher density. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: If the applicant will come forward and introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Crafton: My name is Matt Crafton, I'm an engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates. With me are Mr. Hank Broyles and Mr. Hal Forsythe. They are the developers and owners of this property. We thank you for the opportunity to be here. This project has been in planning for about two years now. We have brought numerous concepts to city staff and we want to publicly thank them. We have thanked them many times for all of their efforts. They have worked very hard with us and met with us many times to try to develop a concept that would be successful, both for the city and for the developers. Also that would be very unique and appeal to the City of Fayetteville and all of Northwest Arkansas. Jeremy has done a good job tonight of explaining the project and going through all of the details of it so I won't rehash everything that he has gone through. As you can see on our plan, we have four wet lakes with retention ponds that also act as detention. As you mentioned, there is about a .86 acre park on the south part of the project. There are very nice curved boulevard streets with tree plantings up and down them. We are saving some of the larger trees at those entrances to enhance the look. We think that this will be very unique. The units actually face onto either greenspace, a lake front or other features like that rather than looking onto a parking lot. We feel that that is unique. There is not a whole lot of that that we are aware of going on in Northwest Arkansas so we feel like that is a positive feature of the Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 51 project. Some of the issues that were raised at the Subdivision Committee we wanted to address and show that we do want to work with the city and the adjoining property owners. We have added since the Subdivision Committee an additional median on Windstone Drive, that is the east/west access. There will be trees planted there as well. One of the intersections when you come off of 6`h Street coming to the south we had the entrances a little bit skewed and we have lined those up according to one of the Commissioners request. Some of the neighbors expressed concern about the floodplain in this area. Of course this is Town Branch Creek that runs through the site and it does have a floodplain surrounding it. The city received floodplain study data from the Corp. of Engineers within the last year or two and we have used their data to map the floodplain in this area. We feel very confident that's where the floodplain is. All of our units are at least 2' above the 100 -year floodplain. In fact, for the most part they are 2' and 3' and 4' above, and that is the garage level. The actual living space is 8' to 10' above that. We don't feel like there is going to be an issue with floodplain encroaching upon people's living area in these units so we do feel like that is addressed. As Jeremy mentioned, we submitted a letter today to respond to some of staff's recommendations in this packet. First of all, the owners are Mr. Hal Forsythe and Mr. Hank Broyles. Regarding the width of Brooks Avenue that is going to the south and connecting to 12'h Street, it really is going to go back to what do we assume people are going to do. The Phase Il development is expected to generate about 627 cars per day. Our traffic engineers, Peters & Associates out of Little Rock, has estimated that only 4% of those 627 cars are going to use Brooks Avenue. Again, it is required for fire code that we have a second access to this site, however, we don't think it is going to be used a lot. That is why we are recommending that it be a residential width street and that would be plenty big enough for 4% of those 627 cars, about 25 vehicles per day. The hours of operation of the sales office, we had submitted hours previously and it was our mistake. We have Monday through Friday and also Saturday and Sunday and we have given the hours in our letter. The repair of the broken street in front of our southern entrance to the site, we wanted to quantify that as well. It is about 2200 sq.ft. of asphalt that our developers will be repaving. Regarding the parkland dedication, I just wanted to request that the actual credit for the existing units be shown on the recommendation to the City Council and at $555 per unit, which is what the parks staff requires, at 55 units that amount is $30,525. We would like that specific amount in the recommendation to City Council. Then finally, a pedestrian path has been added. We do have a pedestrian bridge that connects Phase I and Phase II but we have also added a second pedestrian access between Phase I and Phase II to the green area that is shown in our drawing there. The desire is to make that a 5' wide mulched trail rather than concrete. It will be lined with landscape timbers so it will be a nice trail through the tree preservation there but we would rather not pave that. Those are our Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 52 comments regarding city staff's recommendations. At this time I would like to have the developers come forward and present some additional information. Broyles: My name is Hank Broyles, I'm one of the developers, along with Hal Forsythe. We just want to say how much we appreciate all of the input that has come from the community. They have met with us numerous times. They have walked the property, they have walked the creek, they have invited us into their neighborhood association meetings. The two things that they stressed to us the most was flooding and they wanted a park. We have put the three detention ponds in Phase I and a very large detention pond in Phase II. That is our answer to their request in trying to capture as much water as we could before it got to the creek and those will allow for seepage back down into the creek basin. In the yellow you can see that is our park area down there. We have been successful in working with parks and they were good to work with also. Thanks. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public if you would like to make some comments please step forward. I would like to remind everyone to introduce yourself and sign in at the podium. Holcomb: My name is Fred Holcomb, I own property on 12th Street. My concern was about the traffic coming out of Phase II onto 12th Street. I noticed that staff said that the right of way couldn't be extended to 15th Street but it has been platted out on the city map for years it looks like. Over there, they are getting a right of way through that part at this time and I don't understand why they can't take it on to 15th Street. He said there would be about 25 cars per day come that way. At this time I have seen that many cars come up 12th Street and turn around from people just looking around so I really can't agree. Surveys are good but sometimes they are a little bit short. I'm concerned about the traffic going on 12th Street. Grayhom: My name is James Grayhom. I own some property on S. Hill Avenue. I would like to say that I'm a little excited about this redevelopment that is coming into the neighborhood. I think it is going to be a great addition. I wish I was part of it. However, I was not invited. I am standing here now because I have a concern over the storm runoff. Mr. Broyles pointed out that there are four retention ponds that are going to be constructed on this property that will help catch some of this storm runoff. I really don't think that that is going to take care of the amount of water that is going to runoff from this property. Whenever you add 220 town homes parking spaces for that, sidewalks, and all the concrete, you are going to have a lot more runoff that you have from the vegetation that is currently there and the trees. These retention ponds are going to help, and probably will help and take care of this runoff for the majority of the time. In the wet part of the year whenever you have a lot of rain these retention ponds are going to be Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 53 full. Whenever these ponds are full and you get a lot of rain that water has to go somewhere. It is going to go down this College Park branch. That property is bordered by this branch on the back side. I have seen on numerous occasions what heavy rains can do. This branch will actually get out of its banks and it will flood the property there. It just so happens that the dwelling that I own is high enough that it is probably not going to be affected. However, I think that there are some more concerns from property owners that are downstream from this that are going to be affected by this additional runoff. I'm excited about it. I'm ready to see them start construction but that is one concern that I have and it is something that this committee needs to address. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further public comment? Shepherd: I'm Aubrey Shepherd we live at the south end of the development. The street comes towards our yard as it now exists. It started that it was a full acre but it happens that the previous owners sold that 1/2 acre to the trailer park before we bought our Yz acre so that is why we are going to have one of those nice buildings next to us. There are many concerns. A few years ago the people making the maps at the city named this College Branch. If you look at the older surveys, this is the Town Branch main portion. This is the Town Branch of the West Fork of the White River. This is an historic neighborhood. There are many concerns there. It was mentioned that there was credit for the housing that was moved off of that street. They had to spend a little money on each of those moving them out. There was a question that that reminds me of. There is one historic house that these guys have bought but I would like the status of the preservation of the 135 year old house. We are concerned that it be preserved and were hoping that maybe they could make a bed and breakfast in it or something but if that is not possible perhaps they could take it apart and move it somewhere. It is a wonderful old home. Those of us who have bought old houses in Fayetteville because they are old and historic in nature really like those better than some of the new ones, although these are going to be constructed much better, I understand that. Three of the houses were removed by fire and I want to ask if we have seen the last of that. The Fire Department appreciates getting to do it but at some point the wind could cause a fire nearby. The first occasion they burned one it burned for 48 hours before it was completely burned out. We hope that that will not occur on the remaining houses. Another question, is an agreement with the railroad yet with the trail that you can actually describe? The railroad tunnel has been filled in for a long time and they are building a trail up to it which will be a part of the city's trail system. It is going to be expensive to clean it out and we are wondering about the specifics of whether it will be cleaned out. This summer when they replaced the railroad ties they dumped the old ties right off into the tunnel mouth and they slid down into the creek. It is illegal by federal and state law to dump into a stream so we Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 54 hope that that part will be addressed soon. I didn't get the firm explanation of the drainage. Also, I did not find a soil study available of the hydric soil and so forth on the property. I didn't find anything about boring in the dirt on the land to determine the depth of the soil above the base rock. This of course will be of concern when you are building a three story building and how deep do you have to go for it to be stable on various parts of the property. Have the sink holes that exist on various parts of the property been addressed? Particularly the west side. Part of that is prairie land and it is wetland prairie. It is not going to all be delineated as wetland but portions of it are very obvious to anyone and much of it can be delineated as wetlands but you have things like the burrowing crawdads that come up from the ground. They don't live in the creek. They come from the ground water that is always on that land on the west. If you dig a little bit it caves in under there and there are several instances of visible sink holes as big as a king size bed or bigger in places that have standing water out there much of the time. This is something for their engineers to study in looking at the base of the structures. If they have to go down deep how will it affect water on the adjacent property, particularly the people such as we are, south, who share the same underground water with this property. We know that there is limestone bedrock under most of that. We have structures underground all over in this part of the state and this is probably what they will determine if they do a study out there of some sort. I hope that they don't go out there and start moving dirt and discover that they can't dig one of these lakes where they expect to without blowing out a lot of rock and I think it is something that they need to look at before they get to the actual construction. I did not find a wetlands delineation on the set of plans listed and I'm not sure who did the actual delineation of wetlands on there which is pretty standard for this kind of property. Which ones of these ponds will hold water most of the time and which ones will be the storm ponds or storm gardens that were discussed early on in our talks with the developers? Right now it is not exactly the same as when we had our neighborhood meeting in April. In fact, the whole west side has been constructed since then. We are concerned about tree preservation. It has 52% tree canopy. If you stand on the railroad there just south of 6`h Street you can see what appears to be solid woods. We have had people go up there and not believe that this is inside this city. That will radically change if you take out that much of the existing timber. We were certainly disappointed that the percentage of preserved timber isn't higher. We hope that this isn't something like Steele Crossing. They were surveying on Mr. Hoodenpyle's property today so did they get the results of that and how did it come out? I think you have to complete a deal on that property for the entry way. Another thing, we get back to the wetland delineation. This is the overflow area and the four areas that they are showing on here, this shore line is lower than this shore line. Whenever it rains this water is going through and it goes all the way back to this property here. That might be a question to look at before you go too far Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 55 here. On the Brooks Street extension I believe we have paperwork that it was abandoned in 1993 and I'm not sure who wanted it for what. At some point there they vacated it and it belongs to the cannery people. It would seem that it would not be too expensive to benefit the people on 12"' Street to open that up. There was an agreement made years ago under previous administration when they paved 12`h Street they allowed a turn around to be built that extends out into the Pinnacle property. It is big enough for a moderate sized semi -trailer truck to turn around there and drive back out 12`h so you don't have to turn around in anyone's yard. At the time that that agreement was made the property owners were assured that it would never be opened up to traffic from the west or north or south at that point. I don't know where that is in file, whether it may be in the city's files or the county's files or Pinnacle Foods files. Unfortunately, some of the men who participated in that negotiation with the city have since died. It is more than a decade ago. These people expected that agreement to be kept and that is why we urge you to see if there is a possibility of opening the previous right of way that was once dedicated all the way to 15". It is much faster for people to get out. You can go quickly to the interstate or to the campus or to 71 B and downtown. I think that some of the people at the city and the gentlemen developing this would like to see that happen. I don't see how it would be a problem for the corporation who owns it. They don't have to give up any of their property. They still have their buffer because they make a lot of noise. That's all that I have. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Shepherd. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this item? Hayes: I'm J.B. Hayes I would like to comment about the inconsiderate individuals that come up with the repetitive repetition and put a time limit of three minutes or something like this on them. Thank you very much. Ostner: Is there further comment about this development? Seeing none, I am closing this to public comment. Commissioners? Myres: I think a lot of the concerns that have been voiced by the people who came up to comment on this development are certainly well founded but they are also going to be addressed in a later stage in the development of this project. Ostner: Actually, this is the development stage. This is a combination of rezoning and development. Myres: So what we approve today is going to stick? We won't see it again? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 56 Ostner: We are going to forward this to the Council for their approval, our recommendation. This is the approval stage for this body to forward it to the Council. That is where the pressure or the size of this project is very important and I think that the comments of the neighbors are crucial. This is a very big development. It is very complicated to try to work something like this into an existing part of town. It is not easy. We can devote an entire meeting tonight to this and we have to work it into everything. I would like to start by asking about a few of the things. The first question was on the vacated Brooks easement going all the way to 15`h Street. How final is that right of way vacation? Pate: The platting of Brooks Avenue happened quite a while ago. This is part of the old portion of the South Fayetteville plat. As Mr. Shepherd mentioned, it was vacated in years past. You can note on page 11.45 south of the subject site there is an obvious right of way extending south and then it basically dead ends into lots. When right of way is vacated the property ownership ceases to be the City of Fayetteville's and it goes to the adjoining property owners. Therefore, the property owner there, which I believe is the Pinnacle Foods Plant, does own that property. As they own both sides of the existing Brooks Avenue that the applicant is proposing to construct. They own both sides of that property through which this right of way is platted. In order for the applicant to construct a public street in that location he would be required to purchase that property from the land owner and dedicate the right of way to construct the street to 15`h Street. Just for your benefit, it is something that we definitely looked at. It would seem to be the most logical solution to getting people south as well as north to a major arterial from this project. However, with it not being available in this location the next best alternative was to alleviate the traffic by connecting 12th Street, which I believe is 31' wide at this time, it is really over built for our current standards to Duncan Avenue and then travel south to 15`h Street or north to Hill Avenue. Ostner: Applicant, did you all pursue those discussions with the property owners on the Brooks between Brooks and 15`h. Broyles: Yes we did. Approximately two years ago we contacted Pinnacle Foods when we first started and realized we were going to need another exit out from that side. We asked them and they refused to sell us any property at all anywhere down there. We did try. We did approach them for probably three or four months in negotiations and it went up the ladder and when it got up to the top they said no, nothing. Vaught: On access, we don't have a street crossing the creek to connect the two phases together, I was just curious on the logic and what went into that. Is it environmental? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 57 Pate: When I initially started on this project months ago just looking at conceptual drawings we looked at the potential for a street crossing to connect these two phases so that vehicular connectivity could be provided between the phases. It would be difficult but it is possible with a bridge crossing. It would take a bridge crossing to get over this creek. Staff felt it was more appropriate because of the points of access that the applicant could gain, that is really where the discussions from getting a second point of access to Phase II came about. If there is not another point of access for this development south of the creek across the creek there has to be some other way in and out of the property. That was staff's recommendation, if we are not going to cross the creek we need to look at another means of access. We feel with two points of access, a pedestrian access across the creek that it provides connectivity that is consistent with our city's General Plan and policy of connectivity as well as it does not environmentally impact as much of the wetland area and stream crossing as it potentially could should there be a vehicular bridge across there. Vaught: It seems like you are going through significant costs to finish out Brooks and 12`", why did you guys go that route over the crossing of the creek? Crafton: As Jeremy pointed out, we had looked at that in the past when we were looking at different concepts for this. One of the reasons that we did not had to do with the neighbors did not want that connection and requested that it be limited that way. That was the primary reason that the developers did not choose to do that due to the significant cost to build a bridge across that creek. Allen: One of the neighbors mentioned something that I think I think is important in our community, and that is addressing adequate housing that is affordable and I wondered if your project included any affordable housing, the prices of some of your town homes, do they differ? Crafton: My clients can address this better than I can. There will be differentiating prices with the units. Some are lake front, some are looking onto public streets, some onto the railroad so there will be some variation in price within this neighborhood. As far as "affordable housing" goes it is just not feasible economically to do this. The cost for this project is significant. The off site improvements that we have talked about with Brooks Avenue, the Hilt Street intersection with 6`" Street is a significant cost for the developers to widen that street, improve the signals and all that kind of thing. The project is quite expensive actually for the amount of land that we are talking about so it is not going to be feasible for there to be "affordable housing". Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 58 Allen: You hear the neighbors repeatedly expressing concern about the storm water runoff, does staff feel that their plan adequately addresses that repeated theme? O'Neal: With further review of the drainage report the applicant is proposing to over detain. There are just a few minor modifications to the report. It does meet our ordinances. Crafton: Some of the folks asked about which ponds are going to be wet and actually, the intent is for all four ponds that we have shown to hold water and to be wet all the time. There will be a concrete drainage release structure within those ponds that will set that water elevation and then the additional depth on the banks above the water will serve as the detention that actually detains the storm water to predevelopment flows. Ostner: That leads me to my next question. Are you certain of the depth that you need to excavate for your detention? Crafton: Yes Sir. We have done extensive analysis. It is quite complicated when you try to tie different ponds in together but we have done that analysis and submitted that to the city in preliminary format. As Mr. O'Neal pointed out we still have final drainage reports to submit along with our construction plans and so the city will have an additional chance to review all of the details of all the storm inlets and the storm pipes and the detention pond release structures and everything else will go through a further city engineering review to make sure that we've got that calculated correctly. Allen: Can I follow up on that question? What happens if that doesn't work? Who's responsibility is it if your best laid plans are not adequate and indeed these people are flooded? Crafton: How do you mean if it doesn't work? Allen: Maybe your calculations, the depths of the detention ponds aren't adequate. Crafton: There will be a Property Owner's Association that will own the property and can address any neighbor's concerns in the future. Engineering is done with the best engineering knowledge we have available. Allen: It is kind of like a slope that has got to end some place. Crafton: Each pond is designed to detain enough water to limit the flow exiting the site to predevelopment flows. It is engineered that way. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 59 Vaught: On Royal Oak Parkway and how it connects to 6`h Street, I am assuming the out is a right only turn out. How far from that bridge is the entrance? That is a very blind bridge coming across that. Crafton: The entrance side, the embankment of the railroad slope comes down and then we are going to be right at that location. It is a little over 100'. Vaught: Jeremy, do you feel that that is adequate for sight distance? Pate: Yes, we have reviewed that. I believe the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department has also reviewed these plans. Crafton: Not yet but they will. We will have to get a permit from the Highway Department to have that access. Vaught: That bridge sticks out there almost to the road and it is hard to see around. Do we have covenants? Typically don't we see covenants of some sort? Pate: In trying to respond to all of our concerns, as we have it submitted it is a Large Scale Development, it is not a subdivision. This is condominium style. In the future we may see an amended PZD. This is a new process, we have not gone through this before and I think potentially the PZD ordinance revisions that are upcoming in the next couple of weeks could address this and allow this to be one process but as we have it on the books right now in discussion with other staff members and the applicant, this is the only method we have to process this. In the future we may see covenants, but as it is, we have the development regulations and the plans as well as conditions of approval on these drawings that really exhibit what is required to be built on this property. Vaught: So a town home structure would require them but a condominium does not? Pate: Right. It is typical that a subdivision of land with a PZD would require covenants. Vaught: On the parkland, I know this is something that the neighbors have requested. I'm just looking at access to it for the existing neighborhood. Would that be Gracewood Drive or is there another means of pedestrian access to that site? Crafton: The public access would be on Gracewood at the circle there. I don't know the progress, the city is negotiating with the owners to the south of us to purchase that property for additional parkland, which is why the park is where it is at. It is on the property line because the city had some intent Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 60 to try to purchase additional land to have a larger park there and not only this park here that you see. Vaught: Ok. Ostner: To follow up on that, are you all installing the playground equipment in this park? Crafton: Yes. Part of the agreement with the Parks Department was once we knew what the cash equivalent amount that was going to be required, we subtracted off the value of what the trail would be and that will be bid out and whatever that costs to construct the trail will be taken off of that cash value. Yes, there will be a cash value of approximately $30,000 and it was an agreement with the Parks Department and the Parks Board that that $30,000 be spent on this park. There will be neighborhood meetings to determine what that park equipment is, whether it is playground equipment or something else but there is some equipment that will go for that park. Ostner: I didn't want it to be set aside as some sort of open green. Just to go ahead and jump into this issue of the 24' or 28' Brooks. There is a discrepancy between what you would like and what staff would like. I think a 24' street might be appropriate. I am not sure volume should dictate width of streets. I think frontage is a much better determinant of lane width. I believe Dickson Street has a 24' section and it handles tons of traffic really slow. That is just my opinion. Does staff foresee a bunch of on street parking? Those lots seem pretty big to me as they are even though they are not really platted lots. Pate: More than the surrounding development will utilize this property. We look at our Master Street Plan, which is a policy document set out by the City Council and looking at that the volume dictates basically what type of street we have on the books currently 300-500 cars per day is what the residential street standards dictate. That is typically a dead end street or local street as we saw in the subdivision earlier that would connect 10 to 15 lots to that subdivision so it would not be a through street. It is our finding that this wilt connect to the 107 units proposed at the end of the street, as well as potentially future development in the future. I think there is a discrepancy between staff's view of how many cars per day will access that and the 4% that the traffic representative has stated. That is basis of our findings meeting our Master Street Plan requirements of a 28' wide street. It would allow for on street parking on both sides I believe as well as adequate turn lanes. Ostner: I understand that that is what the Master Street Plan says. But a 28' wide street that no one ever parks on is just not good planning and I believe a Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 61 24' wide street will be fine. That is really minor compared to so many other things that we need to talk about. On the Vacation issue, I mentioned this at Subdivision, I'm not so convinced that the vacation of the easement between Hill heading westward to Royal Oak is warranted. There is a slope there. I think those buildings that face north could face a public right of way and it would be a street scape. That right of way could serve that development that is being left out of your plans right now. The other vacations I'm in favor of and I can understand those. Would you like to comment on that? Crafton: As Jeremy pointed out, there is an improved east/west access through the site with what is named Windstone and that is going through Phase I from Hill to Royal Oak. It will be a much wider right of way that the city will receive than the small right of way that is Anderson right now. Even if we left Anderson where it is within that right of way it would be very difficult to construct a street to any city standards, the right of way is so small through there. Ostner: How wide is it? Crafton: I believe it is 40'. Ostner: Ok. I'm willing to let that go. I understand it is constricting. I have a couple of other comments. On 11`h Street the condition of approval I believe talks about a maximum of complete curb and gutter on the south side of I I'h Street, the minimum street width shall be 24' face of curb to face of curb. Were you all planning on building a 24' section or making that wider? It is pretty jagged, it could go either way right now. Crafton: Right. The north side of the street does have curb, gutter and a sidewalk and so we would just offset that 24' and that would be out line. We would have a nice straight street through there and would make up the jaggedness with asphalt. Ostner: Ok, great. Those are all of my comments. The entry onto 6th Street still troubles me to have two curb cuts on a major arterial. I understand they are controlled and with no left turn exiting onto 61h. But visually at high speeds, which unfortunately, people do speed there. Two curb cuts can be confusing. I believe one curb cut may be visually safer. As I drove by there I see that the way you have it is sort of existing now. There are two curb cuts currently there straddling that white building. Those are all of my comments. Anthes: I am referring to the letter you wrote to us, the additional pedestrian connection, does that appear on the drawing where the second pedestrian connection is other than the bridge? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 62 Crafton: It should've appeared on the set of plans that we submitted after Subdivision Committee. If not, we do have it drawn now and it will be a part of our plans to do that. Anthes: It goes through the lower part of the topography with the wash, is that correct? Has staff made a recommendation about the surface material there? Pate: Staff hasn't made a recommendation. We would like to see a hard surface path. We understand that we are going to be going through primarily the tree preservation area and mitigation area so cutting and filling concrete would be difficult in this area. I think just allowing for a secondary means of access is our real goal here. There is another secondary means of access with a bridge across the creek. Anthes: Would any section of that be subject to a lot of flooding that would undermine any of that concrete and send it downstream if it were hard surface? Crafton: That would be possible. There is an existing culvert that that stream goes under. That is going to control what flow comes through there. Yes, that is a possibility. This is within the floodplain boundaries. Anthes: I'm trying to address that question and to me it would be nicer to have a soft surface because of its location. Where there is a lot of water (that our residents have talked about) washing through this area. If we had a flood event, then shredded mulch and landscape timbers would be washed downstream rather than undermining a concrete or hard surface walkway. I am not really sure what percentage of walk would be subject to that, but if we felt like that was a possibility I would rather see the soft surface. Allen: Back to the width of the street again, I was wondering how many parking spaces are being allowed for each condominium. Crafton: Each unit will have a two car garage as well as two places behind the garage for the people in those units to park. In addition to that, we have scattered a few parking spaces around the development to allow visitor parking, two or three parking spaces at a time throughout the development. Allen: What is the square footage of most of these condominiums? Crafton: About 1,600 or 1,700 sq.ft. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 63 Shackelford: I would like a little more input from Commissioners regarding the street width. I see both sides and believe it or not, this rarely happens, I haven't made up my mind on what we need to do with this. I have supported 24' street widths in neighborhoods for safety in lots of developments that we have seen. However, this in my opinion is a little different than a neighborhood based on the density of this development and the location of this development I can very well envision other projects with substantial density connecting to this in the future. I would like to hear some more conversation if I could regarding whether we should do a 24' street width in this location per applicant's request and possibly somewhat of a safety issue in this neighborhood verses staff's request of a 28' street for connectivity given the density of this project. Trumbo: I think it should be a wider street. I am thinking also that there will be more density built in and that road at some point will have more traffic on it so I think I would be in favor of a wider road. Vaught: I wrestle with this too. Just as we did the downtown master plan and how to change the thinking of on street parking and street widths. To me 28' has become to mean on street parking on both sides to help control the traffic flow. If we don't have that it worries me a little bit about having the race track effect. Even though this isn't a very long distance I could see it being that way. I wrestle with it too just for those considerations. Do we really need a 28' street here or will 24' work? To me it becomes more of on street parking and what is the use going to be with that street. If it is just a cut through street with one or two curb cuts then I see a 24'. That is hard for us to tell right now but that's where I'm stuck. Ostner: That goes back to my difficulty thinking of frontage. These are going to be old timey 45' lots that is already platted then people are probably going to park on the street and we need a 28' street. If it is not platted people are going to be doing 75' lot frontages, it is very unlikely that people will park on the street. Shackelford: As the applicant suggested, there are two car garages with stacking behind the garage per unit, is that correct? Crafton: Yes Sir. Shackelford: I don't envision there being a significant amount of on street parking associated with this development. Ostner: I'm talking about on street parking with future build out to the south that has nothing to do with these guys, the area facing Brooks basically. Vaught: Currently none of this is platted? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 64 Crafton: There is a platted subdivision. The lot lines that you see there is what was platted many years ago. It has never been changed over the years. A question would be if future development did come along Brooks Avenue would it then not be incumbent upon that developer to widen that street if that was deemed necessary by the city at that time? Ostner: That is the issue. If it has already been platted there probably wouldn't be a developer. There would just be a guy pulling a building permit for his house. That is where we run into these issues with previously platted areas. Jeremy, do you have any information on those lot sizes? Pate: I believe they are about 100' wide by probably 150' deep. They are very similar to a lot of the lots that were platted in this entire area. I would mention that currently it is all owned by Pinnacle Foods with a street configuration through their property. There is potential for the sell of that property in the future. Ostner: Thank you. I wasn't aware that Pinnacle owned both sides of that. Crafton: The lots that you see there are as platted. We have five lots on the east side and five on the west so we are talking about a total of ten lots that are existing and there is not a huge amount of additional traffic if those lots held true in the future. Shackelford: I am going to make a motion to keep this proceeding. I would like to make a comment first. We had a lot of conversation and questions regarding what I consider the engineering side for this project. I don't know that it is our position to jump into the engineering side. I think that we have to depend on the professionalism and expertise of the engineer that designed the project. We also depend on the professionalism and the expertise of our city engineers and our city staff to review that design and makes sure that it protects the citizens of Fayetteville. I think that the standards of this project as well as the other ones that I've looked at in the six years that I've been doing this. There was a lot of conversation about that and I think that has been addressed. I have full confidence in this engineering firm and our city engineers to be able to handle that. The second thing I want much feel that this is part of the guiding principals of the 2020 Plan. I think that this is a good step towards revitalization of south Fayetteville. I think it is a very good looking project and I whole heartedly want to see this development. With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of R-PZD 04-1307 with the specific findings with a recommendation in favor of the vacation of the right of ways that we have discussed. Condition number four, the applicants request a temporary sales office recommendation in favor of that. Condition number five, a determination of off street improvements, I Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 65 am going to agree with all of them, but Brooks can be built at a 24' wide public street. I believe those are the only specific findings we needed to make. Otherwise, subject to the 24 stated conditions of approval as part of the staff report. Vaught: I will second. I believe the applicant asked in condition number seven to put a specific dollar amount. Pate: Staff will include that as it goes forward to City Council. Vaught: I would like to thank the applicant for a great project, not just improving this one piece but also doing several street improvements and off site street improvements to hopefully help the neighborhood and areas where it is greatly needed. I know IIth Street was a street that really needed improvement for a while. Hopefully, Town Branch Creek, with the hope that this will help control a lot of those issues. Shackelford: I would like to add for the record that I appreciate both the neighborhood association, applicants and city staff. We have been hearing about this project for over two years before there were PZDs and I really appreciate the work that everybody has done to get this from concept to where we are today. Ostner: I would like to agree with that. I don't think that I have ever seen a developer and the neighborhood be on such a friendly first name basis. It is a credit to how you all are doing business. This is very complicated and takes lots of talking. Anthes: On Brooks Avenue, the fact that it is zoned I-2 and could be developed that way by Pinnacle Foods makes me wonder about the 28' street section actually being more appropriate. Especially since it connects to 12`h Street that is currently developed at a 31' to 32' street width. I am having a hard time just because of the size of that property. From staff, what do you think the likelihood that that I-2 zoning would stick and that that street would be warranted? Pate: With regard to the I-2 zoning, I know that this plant recently underwent some expansion. They do have minimum greenspace requirements that they have to keep in this zoning district and most of this space out here acts as that greenspace. It is really hard to tell what would develop, much as this property has immensely changed from the time that this developer took it over from mobile home parks and derelict homes to some nice homes. It has changed dramatically with regard to what is proposed in the project and what was there two years ago. Currently, this industrial property to the south has full access to 15`h Street and that is their current access point. It is a large site that they do have and there is a lot of room Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 66 for expansion. I'm not sure if this is answering your question at all. They could never get to 15`h through that street so it would never be a through street if that helps at all. Any traffic would have to go through 12`h and Duncan which I don't anticipate that industrial traffic and the truck traffic with that type of development, I don't anticipate they would go in that direction. Ostner: What are the greenspace requirements? If they were to sell these lots that have frontage onto Brooks, would that satisfy their separation or would their greenspace simply encroach? Would it shrink their allowable development area? Pate: Potentially, yes. If you counted this property as greenspace it is shrinking it just by the developer building the street. Technically this is city property that is right of way currently so it doesn't count against them. There is ample greenspace. We recently permitted additions to this plant and there is well more than enough to meet the requirements with that regard. They have a lot of property. Vaught: I think it was also noted, any future development that is placed on this road we will review a large scale and off site improvements and I imagine if anything comes in that industrial in nature we probably want to limit access but industrial is a pretty substantial development and I imagine 28' might not be enough. Shackelford: For the record, since I noted that I was debating back and forth, the reason that I'm recommending a 24' section is based on the answer of the applicant on what they anticipate the lack of on street parking to be in this development. Quite honestly, even though this adjoining property is zoned industrial I have a hard time envisioning it developing industrial given the growth pattern of our city over the last ten years and where I think this area is going to go in south Fayetteville with the improvements that this project, the University of Arkansas and a whole lot of other people are doing down here in this area. I am still comfortable with the 24' recommendation based on what Commissioner Vaught just said. If I am wrong and it develops as industrial we will get a second bite at the apple to require off street improvements at that time. Ostner: Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of R- PZD 04-1307 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 67 ANX 04-1334: Annexation (HARPER/TEATER, 101): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 5513 GEORGE ANDERSON ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 60.37 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-1335: Rezoning (HARPER/TEATER, 101): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 5513 GEORGE ANDERSON. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 60.37 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Our next item is ANX 04-1334 entitled Harper/Teater. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: Yes Sir. The subject property contains three tracts of property totaling 60.37 acres. This property is located north of Zion Road and east of George Anderson Road within the Planning Area. Adjacent property to the west is being developed as the Copper Creek subdivision, as well as approximately a 12 acre tract recently annexed and rezoned to RSF-4. At this time the subject property is used for agricultural purposes with pasture and at least one single family home on the property. The applicant proposes annexation of this property into the City of Fayetteville. The current services provided to this property, there are several collector and minor arterial streets surrounding this property. To the north, south and west are collector streets and to the east a minor arterial street. Some of which have been constructed and some have not. At the time of development these streets will need to be brought up to current standards along the property's frontage. Improvements to water will be required and the extension of sewer at the time of development. The Fire Department reports that this property is approximately four miles from fire station #4 and projected response time is 11 to 12 minutes. The Police Department finds that annexation of this property will not substantially alter the population density or create an undesirable increase on police services. On the request to annex this property, although, it will not create an island of county property, it will create an extension of a peninsula east of the approved Copper Creek subdivision. Staff finds however, that there is quite a lot of development pressure in this area and incorporation of this property into the city with compliance to our city standards. In addition to a request to annex this property the applicant is also requesting a rezoning to RSF-4 from R -A. In addition to findings of services to this area, with the rezoning the Police Department found that although the annexation will not substantially alter the population that rezoning will. However, it will not create an undesirable load on the police services. Staff finds that the proposed RSF-4 zoning for single family residential is compatible with adjacent and nearby single family residential use. The General Plan designates this area for residential use and it is compatible with Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 68 surrounding development. As I mentioned previously, the proposed zoning is justified to promote orderly as well as consistent development patterns and make use of existing infrastructure and at the time of development improvements will be required. The proposed zoning will provide additional traffic on adjacent streets. All of the streets, as I previously mentioned, are identified on the master street plan as either a collector or minor arterial and will be able to carry high volumes of traffic. Staff is recommending in favor of the proposed annexation as well as rezoning to RSF-4. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Harrington: I'm Mickey Harrington. I'm representing the Harpers and Mr. Teater in this annexation. Are we taking them one at a time or together? I'm representing them in both of the matters. Ostner: They were presented together so we will discuss them together and we are going to vote on them independently. Harrington: I'm representing them on both matters. Brian Moore with ESI, the engineer for the project, is here with me if you have any questions of him. I think it is fairly straight forward so let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to public comment. Would anyone like to speak to the ANX 04-1334 or RZN 04-1335? ??: I'm an adjacent property owner. I have property approximately Y2 way along Zion Road, which would be the southern boundary of this proposal as I understand it. My name is Mark Foray. I suspect I'm in favor of what is being planned. Certainly I'm in favor of improvements to Zion Road which now is graveled county road and I assume, as a result of this, that is going to be paved. I think that is a benefit for myself and for my neighbors. I talked with some of the neighbors and there seems to be consensus along that. I have questions and perhaps they will be explained by the engineer here. They are simple minded things. I don't know where the power is going to come from. I would be concerned if there were more overhead power lines in the vicinity of my property. I am curious, I'm not sure I'm opposed, but I'm curious why the annexation contemplated does not also include the property that I own to the south of Zion Road. It seems to me that there will be an area left unincorporated in the county more or less surrounded by city land with uneven distribution of city services. I'm not sure I'm opposed to that because there are advantages to being in the county but I would like to hear that addressed. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 69 Ostner: Thank you. Is there further public comment? At this point I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. If you have a statement Ms. Harrington. Harrington: The engineer is certainly willing to talk about things like power. The only reason that this gentleman wasn't included in the annexation is because we weren't aware that he was interested, but I'm sure he is free to annex if he chooses. It wasn't a thought on our behalf. Ostner: On the issue of nuts and bolts of development such as overhead power lines, this is purely a land use issue, whether they should be in the city limits and whether they should be rezoned. All of those power line issues will be addressed again here for Preliminary Plat. Most of our power lines are buried. They are not above 12 kV. Shackelford: Without getting too far into politics, we have seen tonight on this Commission the difference in developments within the city and outside the city. My position, as I've stated many times, is development is going to occur whether it is in the city or outside the city. Simply, if it is in the city we have a whole lot more control over how it develops and how it is held to standards to their neighbors. I think that is a good trade off that the developer gets city property and we get a little more control. With that very brief statement, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval ofANX 04-1334. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion from the Commissioners? I have a comment. I was going to mention exactly what you said. We have seen both extremes, we have seen infill with Aspen Ridge and we have seen the dark side of county development with Sloan Estates where the lack of rules allows a lot of things. I always thought it was unfair that this board is not supposed to be a political body but we are expected to review annexations. It is such a policy issue. I suppose we are included in that decision. Growth is not always the best thing all at once and too fast. Where to draw the line I'm not sure how much is good and how fast should it happen. My question about annexing this 60 acres into the city, I understand the Police Chief has said that they can handle the response time to this area if they are asked to do so. They tell us every time. They will do their jobs no matter how difficult we make it. The Police Chief wanted to request 12 new officers but knew he could only maybe get two. He only asked for two in the last budget round. That is with the current state of our city limits. On page 12.3 under these findings, the current conditions result in a response time of 11 to 12 minutes for fire protection from Station #4. I believe that the goal of our fire department is 70% of their calls should be under seven minutes. This is well beyond the seven Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 70 minute range. I am just concerned about city services. I understand that we can probably cover it but I believe it is a stretch. It is located as creating more of a peninsula. It is far out. It is not near the bulk of our city right now. Shackelford: The only point I want to make is this is near and dear to my heart because I live very close to this area. There is a joint response agreement with the City of Springdale on fire and the fire response time from Springdale to this location is substantially better than the data that you just gave. For the record, there is that joint agreement with the City of Springdale in these outlying areas. Vaught: Our annexation subcommittee that met several times and the ideas garnered from both Planning Commissioners and Aldermen, this was definitely an area on everyone's mind as one to be included in some sort of annexation because of the rapid development in this area. I think creating a little more of a peninsula is better than getting 60 septic tanks in an area that is more than likely going to be annexed in sometime in the future if not today. As stated in the Sloan Estates subdivision, the best case we get an effluent drip system, the worst case we would have a bunch of septic tanks in an area that is rapidly developing. I know several other developments have bought huge chunks of land in that direction. I'm sure we will be seeing stuff on that at some point in time. To me it makes sense annexing this area of town in because of the development pressure. I guess some of the need is alleviated with the city street standards going out a mile but then we still don't have the water and the sewer standards that we do if we go ahead and annex it into the city. If this was an area in the south part of town where it is not rapidly developing I might look at it a little bit different. I don't know if that is correct or not but that is the way that I have to look at it. This is probably the tenth annexation within /z mile of this location that we have seen in the last six months. Ostner: Right but most of them were fairly small and contained within the bulk of that Copper Creek area. We haven't jumped like this. Vaught: Copper Creek created a peninsula. Ostner: So two wrongs don't make a right. I am simply suggesting that this goes back to what I previously said. I don't think we are the right body for this. This is a policy decision where to draw a line. It is very difficult for us, I believe, because we are not elected and don't have people wearing out our phones and we are expected to share our part in this. Vaught: That is why we make recommendations to the City Council and they can shoot us down or over turn us. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 71 Williams: I think you all are probably aware too that the City Council and Administration is looking at relocating the west fire station after they locate the one into the old Mexican Original on Hwy. 16, they plan to move the one that is on the south side of Hwy. 45 and move it significantly north in order to try to make these response times better. I think the Administration is trying to respond to what you have been recommending in annexations and rezonings in order to get the fire station out there where there is too long of a response time. They are trying to react to what you all are doing right now. Ostner: I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to annexation, I'm just trying to address my concerns. We are not going to see these back off. We are growing quickly. It concerns me. I am not sure all growth as fast as the applicant wants to bring it to us is what we have to do. That is why we are here and that is why the Council turns down annexations once and a while. Shackelford: My only comment, I don't want to get into a political debate, I think property is going to develop whether it is annexed or not. I don't think not annexing it into the city is going to stop that property from developing. I think it simply gives us more control over the type of development and the type of amenities and the rationalization of how it fits in with the neighborhood. That is my only comment and I'll leave it alone. Ostner: Right, but if it is going to develop whether we annex it or not why are they bothering? They are bothering because we offer a tremendous slate of services, trash, sewer, controls that if they were not annexed they couldn't offer their potential buyers. It is not necessarily going to develop whether we annex it or not. It might develop in a completely different way. I'm not so sure about that. We have a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Thomas: Before I call the roll, let me just let everybody on the Commission know that there are annexation task force minutes that are available for all of you to read and the police and fire department were there and they have significant comments that would address all of those issues. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-1334 was approved by a vote of 7-1 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 72 Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1335, we've already heard a staff report. We have already heard a presentation by the applicant, is there further public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: Based on the recommendations for annexation, I think the logical rezoning request to RSF-4 is in compliance in association with the other development around so I am going to make a motion that we recommend RZN 04-1335 for RSF-4 zoning on this property. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion on RZN 04-1335? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1335 was approved by a vote of 7-1 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: Before we carry on, there was a mistake I made earlier tonight. On item ten, a Preliminary Plat for Craig Harper subdivision, we were talking about George Anderson Road and Albright Road. When I made my motion I didn't thoroughly restate the condition of approval #2 on page 10.2 in the packet. Williams: I think all you need to do is just to clarify it for the records and I think that will be good enough. You just omitted one phrase. Your intent was I think to adopt that entire condition as stated by staff. Ostner: Yes. My intent when I made the motion on PPL 04-1308 was to completely in it's entirety accept condition number two talking about George Anderson Road and Albright Road. I stated parts of it and it was an incomplete statement and I would like to completely accept condition number two. Williams: If there is no objection by the Planning Commission, the minutes should reflect that that was his motion. Ostner: Is there any objection by the Commission? The minutes are hereby changed. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 73 RZN 04-1329: Rezoning (HOGEYE, INC., 595): Submitted by KEVIN SANTOS for property located at THE N SIDE OF HWY 62, ACROSS FROM OZARK MOUNTAIN SMOKEHOUSE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.35 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1329 entitled Hogeye, Inc. Morgan: This property is approximately 3.35 acres. It is currently vacant located north of 6`h Street and northeast of the Ozarks Smokehouse. This property is used as pasture land and is zoned R -A, it is affected by the floodway and floodplain in the rear of the property or to the north of the property. The property to the north, east, and west is also zoned R -A with R -O and RMF -24 to the south. This 3.35 acre tract of land was created in 1993 with approval of a lot split to create this tract as well as a tandem lot to the north. The applicant is currently requesting a change of zoning to C-1 as reflected in the staff report. This property, as well as many of the properties in this area, are identified on the General Land Use Plan as mixed use. Staff finds that a R -O zoning rather than C-1 is more consistent with this land use plan and compatible with the land uses in the area. At this time, many of which are either non -conforming or are residential usage in this area. As for existing services to the site, the site currently has access to Hwy. 62 However, improvements to the right of way including dedication of right of way, pavement, curb, gutter, storm drain and sidewalks will need to be considered at the time of development. This site does not have access to public water nor does it to sanitary sewer. Both of those things will need to be addressed with development. This property is located fairly close to Fire Station #6 with an approximate response time of three to four minutes. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning request will not substantially alter the population density. However, access will need to be addressed with development to ensure no dangerous traffic situation. Staff finds with regard to the type of zoning that a R -O zoning allows for development of residential dwellings, office buildings, as well as eating places with approval of a Conditional Use. Rezoning the property to R -O will allow for a mixed development compatible with surrounding residential uses and it will also avoid strip development which is discouraged in the General Plan 2020. Staff also finds that the allowed uses within the C-1 zoning district are not compatible with surrounding uses nor the zoning at this time and will only further encourage large, strip development along 6`h Street. The size of the subject property will limit substantial increase in traffic danger and congestion due to it's size, 3.35 acres. However, traffic volumes in this area are high and increasing and any future development on this site must address safe access and cross access concerns. It is therefore, staffs recommendation that this property not be rezoned from R -A to C-1 however, staff would support a recommendation to the City Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 74 Council to rezone this property to R -O. The applicant has indicated information that they may wish to revise their rezoning request for a R -O zoning designation. I will let the applicant's representative further address that. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Santos: I'm Kevin Santos. The owner is Cliff Slinkard. The reason we asked for C-1 zoning is Cliff wants to build an office park. He has photos. He does very good work and he wants to replicate the photos that you have of an office park that he built in Rogers. We wanted C-1 so we could have eating places in there and make it truly mixed use as the land use plan calls for. He wanted a Subway and a coffee shop. We are perfectly willing to take the staff recommendation and amend our petition to rezoning to R -O. That makes it nice and easy. I'm three acres instead of 60 and a three minute response time instead of 15 and I'm already in the city. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to come forward? Wilkes: My name is Gretchen Wilkes. My property is currently our home sits directly behind the property that is in question. Staff mentioned, the property was at one point one large tract. When we bought the land in 1993 we were the ones that did the lot split. The land is very close together, our home to this requested C-1 property. Recently someone told me that if we didn't like the development that was happening around us or the traffic that was going up and down 6`h Street that we should move. This is not an option for my family. We have 100 year old trees on our land. Blue Herons nest every year on our creek and have babies. You can hear coyotes behind our house still. We love this land and we care about this community also and we are not going to walk away. We want to continue to be part of the dialogue and the decision making process that happens as we shape the growth of this community. As part of that dialogue, we met with Mr. Slinkard last week and spoke about this development. He showed us the architectural plans for an office that was designed and built in Rogers. He indicated that he wished to construct a similar unit in front of us. While commercial zoning was not necessary for a project of this type he wanted it so that he could put a fast food restaurant in his complex. A restaurant means for us a business that is open in the evenings and has evening traffic. It means too the lingering smell of food and cooking odors and food refuse that is bound to draw the numerous skunks, rats and coyotes that live on our property. Given that I have counted no less than 23 restaurants between Razorback Road and the City of Farmington, all of which are no more than a 10 minute drive from Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 75 this property, I don't think that having a restaurant calls for C-1 zoning. Commercial zoning is not good for us. Not only does it allow fast food restaurants, it provides for car lots or gas stations or Quick Marts and once the zoning is granted we will have very little recourse as to what is built in front of us, virtually in our front yard. As home owners and tax payers and long time members of this community we are absolutely opposed to C-1 zoning and we hope that you will be also. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further comment from the public? I would just like to make a note that the applicant is asking for R -O zoning now. Wilkes: My name is Steve Wilkes, I'm Gretchen's husband. We live at 4188 W. 6`h Street. I am very pleased that you are doing that. That was certainly the argument that we were going to make tonight. I do understand, I want to make sure that I understand this correctly, R -O does allow conditional placement of a restaurant, does it not? Ostner: That is correct. Wilkes: We still want to make the argument that restaurants or any business that is dependent upon foot traffic, customer count, turning people through the doors, that is what we are opposed to. That is the kind of business that leave to trash. We are isolated there and we like being isolated. We really don't want any kind of development directly in front of us, I could literally throw a rock through what is going to be built from my front porch. We don't want to wake up in the morning and find where folks have been sitting on our bridge over night having a beer. That is what we are afraid of. We want to make sure that whatever is developed is developed for daytime use and once you allow a restaurant to come in, restaurants don't close at 5:00, they close at 9:00 and 10:00. Restaurants have dumpsters and dumpsters smell and they have trash pick up at 4:00 a.m. and we don't want trash pick up at 4:00 a.m. right across from our fence line. Those are my concerns. I am very pleased that Mr. Slinkard is going to ask for R -O. That tickles me pink. I am not opposed to proper development in front of us but there is lots of land on either side of us where restaurants would be more than welcome and not any homes. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Wilkes. Is there further public comment? Sharp: My name is Sara Sharp and I'm the daughter of Steve Wilkes. I too am very happy to hear there might not be any restaurants. In case they could, I just wanted to add in, I have three small children under the age of five. This is somewhere that our family gathers for Christmas, Thanksgiving, mothers day every year, and it is generally, always outside. This is somewhere that my kids can go and run around. We go on walks, we look at nature. There is a creek. My husband and I were concerned that if there Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 76 was a restaurant brought in with a dumpster wind could blow trash into the creek down into the parts that we go on walks and things like that. Another sentimental thing is this is where I got married almost six years ago. To see a dumpster or gas station lights or what have you in front of the place that I got married would be kind of heart breaking to me. That is really all I wanted to say was more about the environment of the property. It is just somewhere very nice where my family and I gather together. Thank you. Ostner: Is there anyone else in the public who would like to comment about this rezoning issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for further comment. Shackelford: As I look at this property with the staff findings, I'm in agreement. I think R -O is a proper zoning for this property. For the record, R -O does not allow restaurants. If there was a restaurant requested it would have to come through as a Conditional Use. All adjoining land owners would have to be notified. That Conditional Use would take the same approval from this board as the recommendation to City Council for a rezoning does. For the record, that is pretty much taken off the table unless they want to come back through the process. That being said, I am going to make a motion that we recommend RZN 04-1329 with the specific rezoning designation of R -O for the property in question for approval to the City Council. Allen: I will second. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there further discussion? Please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1329 with a zoning designation of R -O to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 77 RZN 04-1330: Rezoning (DUNNERSTOCK DEVELOPMENT, INC., 361/400): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE W SIDE OF RUPPLE ROAD, N OF WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 19.88 acres. The request is to rezone the subject properties to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 04-1330 for Dunnerstock Development. Can we have the staff report please? Pate: Sure. This property is located on the west side of Rupple Road north of Wedington Drive south of Mt. Comfort Road. The property was part of one of the overall large tracts of 254 acres that was brought in as one of the island annexations this summer. You may remember, this property is due east of the Hoskins rezoning that was approved a couple of meetings ago. It does have frontage onto Rupple Road and is south and east of Bridgeport and west of Willow Springs subdivision. As I mentioned, this is part of the property that was zoned to RSF-1 when it was annexed by the City Council in the summer of this year. The property is currently undeveloped, it is primarily old agricultural land. The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate a future development of a single family residential subdivision at a higher density than that allowed with the RSF-1 zoning district. Adjacent surrounding properties are primarily RSF-4 with the exception of RT -12, which is Willow Springs subdivision. This is developed as a single family residential subdivision however, and RSF-1 which is the remaining portion of the island that has not been rezoned. The property does have access to water and sewer along various streets. You may note on your maps on page 15.12 it does have a stub out from Plum Tree Drive, which is the Willow Springs subdivision. The expectation there is to connect to that drive to alleviate some traffic at that location. Additional expectations will be some improvements along Rupple Road and potentially off site improvements that are not directly adjacent to this property. Much of the property being developed does not have access onto Rupple Road and therefore, we will have to look at that based on our rough proportionality evaluation. The property is located about .8 miles from Fire Station #7 on Rupple Road. Fire response time is adequate at three minutes. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. Staff finds that this zoning is consistent with land use plan objectives for residential use in this area. It is justified and needed in order to allow for a similar density and lot configuration as the surrounding single family developments. As I mentioned, there is a finding specific to the traffic danger and congestion and staff finds that connectivity in the form of street stub outs will be expected to ensure a safe and adequate means of access allowing for traffic to disperse in a maximum number of ways. A traffic study may be required with future Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 78 development, depending on the development that is proposed. With that, staff recommends approval of this rezoning request to RSF-4. Shackelford: Thanks. Would the applicant please introduce yourself and share anything you would like to add regarding your project. Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates representing the owners of this property. I don't have a formal presentation but I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Shackelford: At this point I am going to open it up to public comment if anybody here would like to address RZN 04-1330 please come forward at this time. Ziegler: My name is George Ziegler. I am a property owner that owns several properties next to this rezoned property on Plum Tree which is going to be stubbed into the area. I faxed you comments today. I have three comments. This rezoning is a further increase in construction as well as domestic traffic along Rupple Road. Rupple Road is an embarrassment to the City of Fayetteville right now. It is a safety hazard and it needs to be straightened out before any kind of construction or change is made to the zoning around there. The problem is that it is not sized right and most of the development that you have already approved has caused major problems in there. It just needs to be fixed before this is approved. It hauls a lot of children to the school and also to the Boys Club out there. Something needs to be done about that. The second item I have in there is there is a large tree line along our property and this rezoning and with the rezoning it is going to cause more of a sight problem and it is going to increase the density there. We ask that those trees be retained along the property line. The last comment may seem a bit strange but this rezoning is going to cause an increase in problems and the rezoning should not be issued until some kind of P.O.A. is established because there needs to be covenants here because of the increase in population. It is going to require covenants anyway because there are going to be retention ponds required on the rezoning area if it is approved. We ask that these items be done if possible, I may be speaking out of turn here, before or while you issue this rezoning if you are going to rezone it. I think the developer can accommodate most of these things anyway. We ask that you consider this now rather than letting this go into the second and third stage. Thank you for staying up late and listening to me. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this rezoning? Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Pate: I can address a couple of those concerns. The tree line between Mr. Ziegler and this property we would of course, be looking at at the time of Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 79 development. The minimum requirements of the tree preservation ordinance that we do have in affect and we will definitely take a look at that. I have walked this property with the developer and there are several nice trees, especially along the draw through the property. That is something that we will definitely take into consideration at the time of development. With regards to the POA being established, the City of Fayetteville does not require covenants, we have not reviewed those and are not a third party to those unless, of course, there is a Planned Zoning District subdivision. However, someone is responsible for maintenance of facilities. That is typically a P.O.A. noted on the Final Plat and we typically would request if covenants are going to be established for a subdivision that we see those as well to have those in our files. With regard to Rupple Road, staff agrees that it is a problem at this point. We are looking at every means the city can to try and address that. Until recently this was not in the city and we had absolutely no means to address that. It was a county road. We have not seen the development in the city since it became city property, this will be the first. I don't expect all problems to be fixed with this development by any means, I wouldn't want to put that on the applicant, I don't think the Planning Commission would either. However, as I mentioned in our findings, some off site improvements may be warranted by this developer. He is the first in line for development. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Commissioners? Vaught: The break between the two pieces of property, was that with the prior rezoning? Pate: Yes. That was a portion with the prior rezoning. It is an access easement. Shackelford: Mr. Ziegler brought up some very good points, these are things that need to be considered, Rupple Road improvements, tree preservation, all of those sorts of things are development issues. No specific business will be done tonight, we are simply making a recommendation for rezoning to the City Council. I by no means want to belittle those comments because they are important to the development of this property and they will be addressed. This, unfortunately, is not the time to address those. With that being said, the specific request before us is a rezoning request to an RSF-4 rezoning, which I think is pretty much in line with the development we have seen in this corridor. With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council RZN 04-1330 to RSF-4. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Shackelford. Is there a second? Graves: Second. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 80 Ostner: My question, we have sort of touched on this. On the Rupple Road issue, I noticed Rupple Road is slated to be moved by the Master Street Plan, is that something on down the line that this developer may expect to pay for? Pate: Based on the size of this development I don't expect that there will be a recommendation to realign Rupple Road at the time of this development. I know that the city does have in it's CIP plans to improve Mt. Comfort Road, specifically a portion of Mt. Comfort Road at this intersection. I don't think that that will be the realigning of that property. That would take purchasing the right of way and the realignment of a new bridge as well. Potentially there would be a bridge assessment. That is something that we are going to have to look at in terms of the development that is proposed. All of those are definitely considerations based on the development proposed. Ostner: Rupple is slated to be moved eastward to line up. I have a motion and second, are there further comments? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1330 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 81 RZN 04-1331: Rezoning (BALE, 596): Submitted by LISLE LAW FIRM for property located at 3513, 3515, AND 3517 W. 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: The next item is RZN 04-1331 for Bale. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: The subject property for item number sixteen is located at 3513, 3515 and 3517 W. 6a' Street. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -A, Residential Agricultural and does contain approximately 0.80 acres. It is directly west of the Medley rezoning request that just went before City Council. I did include it as part of your history here. The applicant directly to the east, Mr. Medley, recently requested a change in zoning from R -A to C-2, much like the current applicant is requesting. Staff did recommend denial of this request based on it's incompatibility with the land use plan and policies along with other findings with regard to our findings for a rezoning. I did attach those minutes for your review. The Planning Commission voted seven to one to forward that request to City Council with a recommendation for CA as opposed to C-2. The applicant was before Council on December 7`h and was approved for C-1 zoning. That is just a little history on the property directly to the east. This request is also for a C-2 zoning. The surrounding properties are zoned primarily R -A and C-2. Much of these properties were developed and/or zoned prior to 1970 when our current zoning regulations went into affect. Therefore, there are a lot of non -conforming structures and non -conforming uses in this area. This property contains three non -conforming structures and would be a non -conforming use were they in use. The structures have been vacant for more than six months. Thus, only uses permitted within existing R -A zoning district area allowed. The entire property is also located within the 100 -year floodplain, much like the property to the east. This is approximately .15 miles west of the Lowe's PZD on 6th Street. Properties in this area have experienced flooding in the past due in part to the existing development located within the floodplain and floodway constructed prior to our current drainage and floodplain regulations. As noted in the zoning maps attached in your staff report, mainly page 16.11, you can see a strange shaped piece of R -A property. The auto salvage yard you see there is zoned C-2. It is a non -conforming use in the C-2 zoning district. Meaning it would not be allowed today in that zoning district as it is developed. This request is not that entire R -A piece. Essentially, it is the rectangle piece, .80 acres around those three structures that you see there that we did visit on Thursday at agenda session. The site does currently have access to public water. It does not have access to sanitary sewer. Any redevelopment of this property would require extension of sewer lines to serve this development. The property is located 1.4 miles from Fire Station #6, fire Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 82 response time is approximately 2-3 minutes. Staff is recommending denial of the C-2 zoning request based on the policies found in our General Plan 2020 land use plan. This plan designates this site for mixed use, as many of the projects that we have seen recently have shown. Rezoning this property to C-2 staff finds is not consistent with the land use plan. Many of the same findings are actually found in this report as with the last report. We treat each one of these individually but the circumstances here are much the same. Our 2020 Plan does state strip development along heavily traveled areas has been a common pattern. However, if Fayetteville is to retain it's identity as a unique place, strip development should be discouraged. That is a quote out of General Plan Chapter 9. The existing zoning land use decisions for nearby properties were made under at least three different General Plans and reflect a wide variety of the policy in the city. Several surrounding properties have, for the most part, existed as they are for over 30 years and consist of many non -conforming uses that were established prior to 1970, which was when the current zoning regulations were adopted. Staff finds also that the proposed zoning is not justified or needed. The applicants stated intent is to rezone the property to allow for a new use in the existing non- conforming buildings. Rezoning the property however, will not create a conforming structure. It will change the uses, the setbacks, the bulk and area requirements allowed on the subject property however. A more intensive use pattern would be allowed on this property. Additionally, the property is located entirely within the 100 -year floodplain and will have certain restrictions imposed upon redevelopment on this site. Access to this property from the police department states a concern because the road system on W. 6`h Street. The speed and road type are of concern to the Fayetteville Police Department. However, they do not believe that this should prohibit the rezoning request. As I mentioned, staff is recommending denial of this rezoning request and finds that there are no peculiar or extenuating circumstances which justify this zoning which we find is not compatible with our land use plan. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Bale: Good evening, my name is Pat Bale, I own the property that we are trying to get rezoned. My husband and I acquired this property in 1979 and we have been in business down there since then. I am being represented by Mr. Franco here. Franco: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gino Franco, I work with the Lisle Law Firm in Springdale. I know it is late and I have sat through these things for a long time in Springdale too so I'm going to try to be brief. I will try to go as quickly as I possibly can so that we can to get to the question. We are requesting a C-2 designation. Ms. Bale and her husband have been business residents of Fayetteville for 42 years. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 83 They have had Advanced Floor Company. They were in what is now the Federal Building. They moved from there out to College Avenue where I believe Edward D. Jones is now. They were then on the square near Guisingers on Mountain. They were in Westgate Shopping Center and then we have been in this property on Hwy. 62 since 1979. They have constantly had their carpet business in one of the buildings as I noted in the packet I gave you with photographs. They have been running their business out of that building since 1979. The property, as was described, if you look at Exhibit "3" and in conjunction with Exhibits "1" and "2" show the areas that we are talking about here. If you will notice from Exhibit "1" buildings two and three are about '/2 C-2 right now. Building three is '/z C-2 right now. Building three is where Ms. Bale runs her carpet business and has since 1979. Building two is not empty, it is not vacant. It is now and has been a warehouse storing fixtures for IGA food stores for over 15 years. It has been used for that for over 15 years. I have kind of, if you look at Exhibit "I", those are the setbacks from the side of our building on every side to about the property line. That is where we are at right now. There is about 63' of setback from the roadway and I don't think we measured that from the right of way, I think we measured that from the edge of road. We have that much up front. We have the setbacks on the back are 18' on one corner, 41' on the east corner and we have 24' on the side between what is noted as building one, which would be the eastern boundary of our land. These three buildings, when Ms. Bale and her husband bought these three buildings, like I said, building number three in photograph number one has been Advanced Floor Company since 1979. Also, up until December of last year they also sold trailers there, horse trailers, flat beds, all sorts of trailers were sold out of that business also. Building number two, as I said, has been used and is still being used for warehousing fixtures for IGA. It is not vacant. Building number one has been a series of businesses, which I listed from the time that we acquired this property. It was Freight Sales Furniture. It then was Kawasaki Motorcycle Dealership and Service, which I believe has now moved out to I-540 north. It was marble art at one time, they manufactured marble and had a sales and showroom plus did the manufacturing of the marble in that building. After that we became Superior Vaults for a while. They sold tombstones and burial vaults. After that they were Furniture Connection, so they were another retail furniture sales and then until August of this year it was Baceys Roofing. It was a satellite office and storage building for a roofing business out of Rogers. Building number one became vacant in August of this year. Until then it has been constantly in use off and on through that entire time. This is a commercial situation. I have also given you a couple of the letters from surrounding land owners. The other photographs, if you look through them, photograph two is property just across Hwy. 62 and just to the east of us, they have automotive repair. Right across the street from us is Wild On, the bar at this time. They have their bus there that they pick people up Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 84 with. Of course photograph number four is the auto salvage with our buildings to the left and then finally is a view from the other side showing back down the auto salvage. You can just barely see the property that was rezoned, Mr. Medley's property. I know staff, from doing this and being a part of rezonings in the past, I know that these people work really hard and I know that they are not out to stick it to the land owner. We have to disagree with them. We do not agree with several points that they have made. We have water to the property. We have sewer to the property, at least we get charged for sewer each month. I am not certain where the problem with that is. The buildings have been in continual use the entire time that we have had it and building one until August of this year. We have an individual who is ready to sign a lease right now, he is going to put in a pawn shop. That is when we first found out that we weren't zoned to do this. He went down to get his license or whatever and they told him no, you're not zoned for that. You are zoned Residential Agricultural. We have been under the impression all along that we were zoned C-2. This property is unique. It is significant and we have to respectively disagree with the Planning Department. It is significant because Yz of our buildings are already C-2. Residential Office in this area, the concerns about mixed use are all very well taken by us. We understand that but this plan came along long after we bought it. We are stuck with what we have got and we are in the 100 -year floodplain. Residential Office is going to do us no good even when Hwy. 62 Salvage decides to do something better. It is not going to do us any good because that land as R -O is not going to produce enough income to justify the development that the floodplain requires. We understand that we are in the floodplain and we understand that if we ever decide to develop it or if somebody else is going to come to develop it, they are going to have to put a lot of money into it to satisfy the requirements of the floodplain and they are not going to be willing to do that if they are sitting on a piece of property that is zoned half R -A and half C-2 or a lesser zoning. That is why we are requesting that you all recommend this to the City Council as a C-2. Like I pointed out, we are unique. We are in a situation where over time the city has decided we don't want a complete strip of C-2 up and down that highway. We are going to come back now and not try to work against these. That may help and that helps the folks up from the road from us that we just heard from. That helps them and they are ok with that. We are not because we are stuck with 1/8 of an acre smack dab right on one of the busiest roads in Northwest Arkansas. It screams to be C-2 because that is the only thing that we can justify. That is the only thing that this property can continually be used as in the future. If somebody is willing to lay out the money to develop that property there has to be a back end of it. That back end is it has to be profitable. It is not going to be as profitable if we put in a doctor's office or a dentist's office from the standpoint of putting money out. The doctor may go home with some money or the dentist may go home with some money but the property itself making money for the Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 85 owner, not to mention with the surrounding areas around it, we would request that you recommend C-2 on this property. We have no plans at all, other than what was stated with the individual who was willing to rent one of the buildings. We have no development. We are not trying to develop it. We just want to be like everybody else is right around us. If you will look at Exhibit "1" you will see that pretty much all around us is now C-2. You have 1/8 of an acre here right next to us has been rezoned to C-1, you have us Y2 C-2 and our land becomes useless if we are anything other than C-2. We can't use it to it's best ability. It becomes almost arbitrary to say you can be C-2 and you can be C-1 because now we want it mixed up and down through here. We are unique and I think the only thing that we can do is C-2. That is the best way we can use our property. We appreciate all the work that the Planning Department does and appreciate your time in letting us speak. If you have questions for me or Ms. Bale we will be happy to answer them. I don't think there is anybody here against us from the public. We are ok with everybody except getting this through you guys. I don't think we are doing anything out there that is going to decrease anybody's values. We are not going to increase the noise or traffic or anything like that. We just want the rest of our lot to be what maybe Y4 of it is right now. Ostner: Thank you for your presentation. At this point I am going to open the floor up to the public if anyone would like to speak about this rezoning issue, RZN 04-1331. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: Staff, if you go to page 16.15 and take my comments with regards to the property next to this they pretty much apply to this property. Where are we, or has the City Council looked at that C-1 proposed zoning that adjoins this property? Pate: It was approved last Tuesday night by the City Council. Shackelford: Asa C-1 zoning correct? Pate: Correct. Shackelford: Would a pawnshop be allowed in a C-1 zoning? Pate: I don't believe so. I would have to check the use units but I don't believe it would be. The C-1 zoning district is more neighborhood commercial. The use units listed here are office, studios and related services; eating places; neighborhood shopping; gasoline service stations; drive in restaurants; and professional offices. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 86 Shackelford: I make that statement because obviously, if you read the minutes from the previous meeting, a lot of what I said applies to this property as well. If you all go out and look at this property I think it definitely has a commercial feel to it. I don't know that Residential Office will work here in particular with the floodplain issues as we addressed in October on the adjoining property. I will let other folks comment but I think that I am going to come along pretty much on the same lines as the property that is adjoining this property back in October that we looked at. Vaught: I feel the same way and my main question was why not C-1. Is the pawn shop the only use that would not be allowed that is currently done on this property? Do some of the other uses not be permitted under C-1? The carpet business, would it be allowed in a C-1? Pate: Most of the uses that were here prior to this development are continued uses that were there, they were existing non -conforming uses and therefore, they could continue as long as they weren't in operation for more than six months. I believe that the applicant stated there was a period there where they were not in operation. I don't have the exhibits in front of me and we weren't given that so I'm not sure what buildings were referenced. We did check water records for the City of Fayetteville and there were some uses that were not served with water. Vaught: I was just curious what the thrust was and I guess the main reason is that they are not allowed a pawn shop in a C-1 is that correct? Pate: Many of the uses actually that were mentioned would not be appropriate for a C-1 district but rather for a C-2. Vaught: Would they be allowed by a Conditional Use? Pate: Not likely with C-1. C-1 is more neighborhood commercial. Vaught: What are the use units in C-1? Pate: Use Unit 12, Offices, Studios, Related Services; Use Unit 13, Eating Places; Use Unit 15 is Neighborhood Shopping, Gasoline Service Stations and Drive in Restaurants and Professional Offices. C-2 adds hotel, motel amusement facilities; trades and services; commercial recreation small site and large site; adult live entertainment clubs or bars and liquor stores as permitted uses. Just to mention, the trades and services use unit is probably one of our largest categories. The impact from trades and services is quite extensive. Use Unit 17 includes anything from used car lots to manufactured home sales to marine craft sales/service, parts and accessories, packing, crating, rug cleaning. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 87 Vaught: What are the Conditional Uses in a C-1? Ostner: Under C-1 Conditional Uses are Unit 34, Liquor Stores; Unit 35, Outdoor Music Establishments; Use Unit 36 Wireless Communication Facilities. The ones allowed by right are Use Unit 13, Eating Places; Use Unit 15, Neighborhood Shopping; Use Unit 18, Gasoline Service Stations and Drive in Restaurants. Vaught: The pawn shop would fall under Use Unit 16 Shopping Goods? Pate: Either Use Unit 16 or Use Unit 17, that Trades and Services. Vaught: I'm like Commissioner Shackelford where most of my comments on the neighboring property apply. Where I'm torn is I understand it is a developed site. It is different because these buildings are here. Non- conforming uses could continue so it is not affecting the current business and operations. This is basically to allow a pawn shop. I'm torn in our responsibility in what we think this property should be not affecting existing businesses and setting it as C-2 so one business can operate in this location. Do we rezone the whole thing so they can have a certain business in one of the buildings or do we set the zoning with what we feel like complies with the master plan and leave non -conforming businesses? Ostner: In my opinion a rezoning is a land use issue, not a business issue. If they wanted that business they could either go somewhere else or they could rezone but when they rezone they can't claim we have to rezone because of this business. It is the other way around. In order to get the business we have to rezone. It is almost not the issue. The issue is all the things that we are allowing in C-2, which I don't think are appropriate. I think Mrs. Warrick stated it best in October when we were talking about the same issue Mr. Shackelford was talking about. On page 16.14 "1 believe one of the primary things that you are going to have to be looking at in the future is access. Access to this site is very important. What we are trying to do is to regulate 6rh Street, not to become College Avenue, which is what everyone points to and says we are not willing to do that again because we feel there are too many problems inherent with that type of development. Access management is one of the key points we will have to look at for any type of development. As far as land use, you can't grant a variance on zoning but you can look at Conditional Uses that are specified as the types of specific uses that you can request under any zoning district." I would be in favor of R -O here. I agree, this is a commercial area, it is not a residential area. R -O is a different animal. It is not solid cars, customers, which is strip development. I don't think we are imposing the master plan. They came to us. They want a new zone so they can do something different. The rules of the community change as Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 88 time goes on. I am opposed to C-2 and C-1 but I would be amenable to R - O. Vaught: I don't think R -A is correct right off the bat. I think C-1 would be appropriate in this area. I don't think the adjoining properties would get C-2 if they came through today. At the time the ordinances were way different and as we update our ordinances they try to fit them as best as they could into the new zoning regulations. I think this area a C-1 makes sense. We had the same conversation back in October. I think that it would be unfair of us to look at the two sites any differently. There are several uses in a C-2 by right that I think this area would not be correct. It doesn't match, it doesn't meet. Myres: I know it's late but I need something clarified. I am confused about the non -conforming structures and businesses that are currently on this property. If it is rezoned to one designation are those grand fathered in basically? They can continue to operate. But what happens if down the road somebody wants to open up something that is non -conforming again? Pate: As Chairman Ostner read, there are not variances in zoning that are allowed. Conditional Use requests deal with land issues to a certain extent but only within that zoning district that they are allowed in. With regard to the structures, I believe the structures based on our Master Street Plan requirement of 55' right of way from centerline with an additional 50' setback, I seriously doubt that those structures meet these requirements as they were there prior to our Master Street Plan that is in existence at this time. For the uses, I believe that the whole issue has come up simply because there was not a use established there for at least a period of six months that could be proved that was established there. A request was made to reuse one of the structures but that use could not be permitted because it was not a use by right or even by Conditional Use in an R -A zoning district. Were it rezoned to C-1 any use that was permitted within the laws of the zoning district would be permitted. Expansion would have to meet the zoning district setback requirements and parking requirements. This site in almost it's entirety is non -conforming with regard to access, parking and all the other typical development standards. Myres: Any future development on the site would have to conform? Pate: Yes, it would not necessarily take an entire redevelopment of the property just to conform. Our ordinances allow for a sliding scale based on the additions proposed. If the entire lot is the lot that is under question there is no room to expand on this .80 acres that goes from side to side essentially. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 89 Vaught: I really don't think you are going to get C-2, if we would forward it as a C-1 or R -O would you want us to continue or would you want to withdraw? Franco: No, we request that you vote on C-2 at this point. Vaught: Up or down on C-2, you don't want to amend it at all? Williams: Let me make sure the applicant understands. This is just a recommendation going to the City Council and you can appeal an adverse or whatever is going up. Vaught: We can modify if we see fit? Williams: Yes, you can recommend a different rezoning than they request, just as you did with Mr. Medley. Anthes: The staff report on page 16.2 at the top states that the structures have been vacant for more than six months and thus, only uses permitted within the existing zoning district R -A, are allowed. The applicant has stated that in fact, one of these structures has been continually in use, how does that change how we look at this or does it? Williams: That is simply a proof problem between the staff and the applicant about who is correct on that. If an activity has gone on and has not been suspended for six months then that activity would be able to be grand fathered in. It is once the activity ceases for a period of six months at that point the grand fathering of this non -conforming use ends and they have to come back, even if they want to reestablish the same use. I don't know who is correct. That would be something up to the fact finder to decide who is correct on that. Ostner: It is completely separate from the zoning issue. Williams: I would not consider that in this zoning request. Anthes: They do the investigation and the title search and doesn't that tell what the zoning is? Williams: I don't think that that is usually a part of a title or a deed. It is actually records kept right here in the city. We have a zoning map and there are zoning ordinances for that. If they wanted to know their zoning they probably would've come down to the city and taken a look. Anthes: That burden of proof is on the owner to provide that or to know what they are buying when they buy the property. Is that what you are saying? They Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 90 are not provided with anything that directly tells them what the zoning is but that burden of proof is on them when they are purchasing the property? Williams: If they wish to know what their zoning is then yes they would need to come down to the city. I can tell you sometimes property gets rezoned. When I had my rezoned here back to R -A I wasn't aware for a while that some of my property was zoned RMF -24. They wouldn't be the only ones that did not know exactly what their property was zoned. Anthes: I guess with this I'm saying that it appears that the zoning has not changed since this property owner owned the property. It appears that the zoning has been in place since before they purchased the property. That is the zoning is R -A. I am looking at the buildings as they currently exist and thinking about which zoning would better bring the existing buildings into conformance with our ordinances. It looks to me as I'm looking between C-1 and R -O that the setbacks that currently exist on the property as stated by Council here, do not meet the setback requirements in the C-1 district but they do meet the setback requirements in R -O. Even if there is not going to be additional development on the property it seems like being those buildings into conformance and the development into conformance, an R -O zoning would do that. Ostner: I would just like to interject that a land use decision and a rezoning issue really supercedes all of that. Anthes: They are trying to use their property. Ostner: I understand that but even if they won't utilize these things we are granting them. We are granting these different use units and that carries with the property and not with them. No offense. Anthes: I'm agreeing with you and I'm saying that the use units that I think are appropriate and meet our General Plan 2020 also bring the existing structures into better conformance at an R -O. Shackelford: Here is my take on it. This is a rezoning request which I think we are not looking to bring non -conforming property into conforming property. I think that we are looking at basically future land use. The rezoning is going to out live the existing structures. You just get to a common sense point of view. We have to figure out what is the best future land use for this property. We have a big issue that is somewhat unique to this property because it is in a 100 -year floodplain. I think that affects the ability to rationally believe this property will develop with an R -O development. We also have a situation that part of this property is currently zoned C-2. Again, I'm going to go back to where we were in Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 91 October when we looked at these same set of standards in the property that adjoins this. I think the proper land use given the restrictions unique to this property are in the future land use will be a C-1 zoning. I think that that is going to be a development that this property can withstand and I think that it is a good fit for this area given the conditions and uses for the properties adjoining and the surrounding property. With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council RZN 04-1331 with a specific recommendation of C-1 zoning on this property. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Vaught for a C-1 zoning. Anthes: A clarification for Commissioner Shackelford, I don't think I understood it quite the last time and I would like for you to explain it this time. The implications of the 100 -year floodplain and why you think that particular finding makes a difference with the R -O verses C-1. Shackelford: The 100 -year floodplain substantially changes the development costs of property, what it takes to build structures on that property. Second, it is going to change the insurance value and what it costs to carry property. A more expensive building will usually not be located in a floodplain. A Residential Office building with the high end finish out with the materials and all the furniture and stuff like that is somewhat prohibitive for flood insurance. The main thing is the development cost. In order to get the base elevation up you need more density and a little more cash generation potential to develop property in the floodplain. Anthes: Do we determine land use based on development cost? Shackelford: I think we determine land use based on unique characteristics that are associated with properties just like we do with tree preservation and many other aspects that will go into the development density that we allow on the project. I think that that is a unique aspect to this property to be taken into consideration. Ostner: I appreciate that perspective but I would disagree that land use discussions with rezonings be compared to development issues such as nuts and bolts, trees and stuff like that. Because land use issues are big. We have to look at this piece of property and fit it in a long ways away. Where does it fit with the interstate? Where does it fit with the traffic coming out of Farmington? Vaught: Along those lines, I do think C-1 is a good step down from what you see closer to the highway. I think that it will allow for a few more uses, not Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 92 many, eating places and a couple of others are the difference. It will provide some variety. Closer to the highway is definitely a more intense use and it needs to be. This is a transition area. In 20 or 30 years down the road I imagine that those three structures will be replaced including the salvage yard and hopefully that will be staged down as well. I would like to see R -O a little further out. In this location it is in close proximity of several large commercial developments and neighborhood commercial I do feel is appropriate. It is a transition zone. Ostner: The other draw back to C-1, if it is not clear, I don't think C-1 is appropriate. With C-1 nearby it can all be absorbed as one big C-1 lot and it can be developed by right. When there are different zoning districts a developer who is going to absorb different lots has to rezone again. He has to either do a PZD or put more scrutiny if lots are absorbed and get to be larger, which I foresee as being probable. It is very difficult to sell and be able to develop a .8 acre lot. With the zonings different if this were developed R -O with all the C-1 next to it most likely we would see a PZD or we would see another rezoning where they were trying to straighten out their zones so they could develop which if it were a larger lot, would give a great opportunity to use the floodplain area for something that wasn't built. I am in favor of R -O. I think it is best for the city. I think it stops strip development and I think plugging this C-1, finishing out the strip is just throwing up your hands and saying we can't do anything to stop strip development. Vaught: If you look at the zoning map though it is not all C-1. It is all C-2. What we are doing is a step down and the only other C-1 it abuts is the little piece that we just saw, which is a similar size, all in the floodplain. It is surrounded by R -A behind it and C-2, a large auto salvage yard, which someday will be redeveloped I'm sure. These two at C-1 will more than likely combine with the adjoining C-2 and we are going to see it all again as some sort of development or rezoning or PZD probably. Who knows? It could be 20 years down the road. Like you said, any commercial development on that small of a site gets difficult. I don't think that we should set land use just to ensure that we get to see it again 10 years down the road. I think that we should establish what is a proper use for this piece of property if it were redeveloped. That is what we have to assume, that it will be developed on it's own. I think just as the piece next to it, C- 1 is proper, but I also know that you didn't agree with that at the time. Allen: I would like to call for the question. Myres: Second. Ostner: Please call the roll. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 93 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 04-1331 with a recommendation for C-1, Neighborhood Commercial was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 94 RZN 04-1332: Rezoning (J.B. HAYS, 373): Submitted by CRYSTAL GOEDEREIS for property located at 1760 STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 5.99 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -12, Residential Multi -family, 12 units per acre. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1332 for J.B. Hays Olson: This submittal was for property located at 1760 Starr Drive. It is zoned RSF-1 and contains approximately 5.99 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -12. This property was annexed as part of the island annexation that occurred last summer and at that time it was zoned RSF-1 when it came into the city. Staff has received numerous comments and concerns with the requested zoning from surrounding property owners. Most of those concerns were in the realm of density and compatibility, access and traffic concerns and such. The applicant proposes to develop this as multi -family residential with one access provided by Arapaho Drive from the Barrington Park subdivision to the east and possibly another access from Madison Drive to the north. The surrounding land use is primarily RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and some R -A property to the south. For infrastructure, streets, at the time of development Arapaho Drive would need to be extended and constructed to city standards to access the proposed property including right of way dedication, pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and sidewalks. The site has access to water from an 8" main to the east in Barrington Park subdivision. This water service would need to be extended to the property at the time of development. Additionally, the sewer would also need to be extended to the property at the time of development. Police response, it is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the traffic danger and congestion in the area. The load on police services, we already have concerns about excessive speed and increased traffic from the school on this road and this area is one of the most congested in Fayetteville. Given the community concern expressed from citizens in the area we do not feel that we can recommend the density required for this area. We do not feel that the current road system can handle the increased traffic generated from the proposed development. Staff does recommend denial of the requested rezoning to an RMF -12 zoning district. However, in speaking with the applicant, they have noted that they may be willing to change their request to a lesser density. I will let the applicant speak to that. Goodereis: Thank you Mr. Chair and esteemed commissioners. My name is Crystal Goodereis. I presently live at 1760 Starr Drive. We are the ones who submitted the application, myself and JB Hays. We have since had a meeting with the P.O.A. of Barrington and we have decided to change it to a RSF-4. That confirms all the land use that is on the 2020 Plan. It would Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 95 also alleviate the congestion. It would alleviate the problem with the police response time and over bearing them. We do recommend that we change our application to a RSF-4. In so doing that we would also recommend that we would have our entrance in through Arapaho and not have to worry about Madison which is one of the things that Barrington had wanted done. We would have a future stub out to the west for future land use going out towards Starr. I am not going to take anymore of your time. I graciously appreciate you being so patient with us. I will be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public for public comment. I would just like to reiterate that the proposal is for RSF-4. Davidson: My name is Jay Davidson. I represent the Barrington P.O.A. First of all, I would like to thank Crystal and Dr. Hays for cooperating with us and I do have some additional letters for staff. The majority of the letters are in opposition to the RMF -12. We are very pleased with the RSF-4 designation and again, as it relates to the Madison connectivity, the proposed residential development will go down Hartford which goes through the Barrington Park subdivision. Madison, I do not believe is possible. I believe it is a dedicated park so that wouldn't be possible. I just want to appreciate our appreciation for Dr. Hays working with us. Thank you. Ostner: Once again, I would like to note that this is a land use issue and any development would have to come forward as a Preliminary Plat and go through the whole process again where we talk about Arapaho and Madison. Is there any other public comment? West: My name is Deborah West, I live at 3511 Madison Drive and I had left some letters and people who were not able to attend signed them opposing the rezoning. I just wanted to give these letters, there are about 59 signatures and 35 letters. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further public comment? I am going to close off the public comment and open it up to the Commission. Commissioners? Shackelford: I would like to thank the applicant and the neighborhood association for working together, I think RSF-4 is much more appropriate than the RMF - 12 based on the surrounding land uses. Staff, I assume would be in favor of the RSF-4 zoning designation. I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council RZN 04-1332 with the specific recommendation of RSF-4. Myres: I will second. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 96 Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Call the roll Renee. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1332 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 97 RZN 04-1333: Rezoning (J.B. HAYS, 373): Submitted by CRYSTAL GOEDEREIS for property located at 1882 N STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 5.73 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Ostner: The last item on our agenda is RZN 04-1333 for JB Hays. Olson: This is another portion of the same property that was brought in with the island annexation. This property is zoned RSF-1, it is located at 1882 Starr Drive. It is approximately 3.35 acres and currently there is a dental office that exists on this piece of property. It is an existing non- conforming use right now with the RSF-1 designation. The applicant is requesting a zone change to R -O, Residential Office to bring this dental office into conformity. Staff has received some comments and concerns from surrounding property owners. Most of these include the type of use allowed with the zoning request. The possible future expansion of the current facilities, access with the parking, buffering and screening and things of that nature. The surrounding land use again, is primarily RSF-4 and R -A. However, at the corner of Mission and Starr Drive there is an R - O designation with an existing bank facility there. This site has access to Starr Drive. At the time of any future new development this street would need to be brought up to current standards along the property frontage. It does have access to public water. It has access to public sewer. The police department is of the opinion that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density nor create an undesirable increase in police services. For this rezoning request staff does recommend approval for the R -O designation. Goodereis: My name is Crystal Goodereis again. This is a little bit of a different nature of a beast. What we are dealing with here is we were forcibly annexed. The dental clinic has existed for over 16 years. It has always been there. What we have done is we have segregated that part out and said we needed to make it R -O. I live at 1760 Starr, which is probably two stones throw away from the dental clinic. Currently right now we have our animals out in the front pasture. The ground is not going to change, the use or anything else. What we are doing is protecting our rights, if it went vacant, as you just heard a discussion, for six months or so that we could still use it as a dental clinic or whatever we deem necessary in that space. Starr is also slated to be a collector road, which means that it is going to be a 70' wide road. In doing so, it would take out a lot of the parking for the front. Therefore, that is why the R -O designation for further up for parking for the dental clinic is necessary. We don't see any problems with it. We are not planning on changing that as long as I live at that property there will be nothing developed in the front of it. All we are going is bringing a non-compliant into compliance which we were forcibly Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 98 annexed to do so. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Ostner: I will open it to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this rezoning request? Long: My name is Larry Long, I am the president of the Starr Drive association. We are a long standing association of about 60 homes that obviously, go along and around Starr Drive. I did not bring all of the letters and emails but my neighborhood association has met both face to face and electronically and I guess all of us can be very thankful that I didn't bring all of those tonight to read to you. In fact, I will try to be brief. I can give you the essence and you are just going to have to trust me that I'm an honest person. They were strongly and uniformly opposed to any type of development in our neighborhood that is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. We felt that both of these proposals on this property were indeed inconsistent with the character of our neighborhood. Our association was honored to come before this body about 10 years ago on another proposed development in our area. You were kind enough to listen to us for almost an hour and a half as we made presentation after presentation and engineering studies. It all came down to does this property fit? Is it compatible with the other homes and the properties in the area? The commissioners voted overwhelmingly that it was indeed, not. It was denied. The truth be known, either one of these proposals tonight are far less compatible than this one that was denied 10 years ago by this body overwhelmingly. However, we are not against the RSF-4. We think that is fine and we are happy to invite that type of development. We expect it. Our primary concern is with the R -O designation. To expand anything that is commercial smack dab in the middle of a residential, almost rural neighborhood, for those of you who may or may not have visited our location, is probably inappropriate. Driving by there the other day I saw 12 cars in front of the dental clinic. To be honest with you, I was unaware that it was a dental clinic. I thought it was a facility that manufactured dental apparatus so I would like some clarity on that and what is allowed in the R -O designation. I think it is our opinion that if you are going to have this type of property and expand it, this would be a two, almost three fold expansion of a property that already has 12 cars working in an apparently light manufacturing type of environment. Are we talking about 50, 60 or 100 cars in the near future? These of course, are our fears. Would there be another location in Fayetteville somewhere, a light industrial area, an empty mini mall that might be more appropriate for this kind of an activity. We understand that there was a dental office, Dr. Stanberry did operate there for many years but that was a dental office with one, or for a short while, two dentists were there. It was very, very light activity. Perhaps this whole discussion is premature. It invites a Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 99 PZD. We certainly want to know what is going to happen before anything transpires. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Long. Is there further comment about this rezoning issue? Hopmann: My name is Cheryl Hopmann, I live at 3551 Madison Drive. I have a question about two concrete structures that were started that are directly behind my house, about 10' from my fence and go the entire width of my property and onto the properties on both sides of me. My question is just how do the zoning decisions that you are going to make tonight, how do they affect those structures? Will they be completed or will they be left as they are? That is my question. Ostner: I will try to get to that when we close the discussion. Marx: My name is Ronnie Marx, I live in the 1600 block of Starr Drive with my family, which is barely two blocks from this proposed change. We believe that this thing is properly zoned single family one and should remain that way. The dental office did not pose an issue for us when it was a dental office. I don't know what it has transpired into today since it has new ownership but in the past as a family dental thing it has not been an issue. I don't see why a family dental place can't continue to exist with this zoning. We believe that this is correct. It is right smack in the middle of single family and we are very concerned with R -O and what it could bring in the future with new ownership of the property or even this ownership of the property. People change their minds. As you mentioned earlier, things change. That is what we are concerned about. Almost seven years ago we were drawn to this area because of large lots with the houses. We had a little breathing room, a place for our kids to play baseball in the front yard and things like that and we believe it should remain that way and ask that you please tonight let this remain the way it is. Thank you very much. Yang: We live at 3437 E. Madison Drive, right behind the dental office. We are glad that the dental office was eventually annexed into the city because in March when they first moved in there was a lot of noise. We found out there was nothing that we could do at that time because it was in the county. They wanted to build an internal driveway coming up north of the house which comes against our property. For some reason they abandoned it because I think the water storage kind of cut it off. This summer when they annexed, we had a lot of concerns, the same as Larry mentioned. Once we rezone that into R -O it kind of opens up a new avenue for a lot of things. The irony of that, if we don't approve that, if we oppose it what difference does it makes? They are grand fathered in as a dental office so it doesn't matter if you approve or disapprove. I do not know. This is a fundamental question I have regarding what we can do Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 100 into making a difference. I guess that would be a fundamental issue for the development. Also, I think if we have no commercial development at all and no office expansion particularly coming towards the north, which is our property because there is not much room there anymore. Also, I would like to find out what they are going to do with the north part of the internal driveway. I hope that they can simply abandon that because it is coming up real close to the property and they have plenty of space south going down Starr Drive to expand. That would be our concern also is how they reuse the land and what will happen with this property. Taylor: My name is John Taylor, I'm a member of the Starr Drive association. I am here to tell you that Larry Long didn't lie. There is a large group of people that are opposed to this application. I am one of them. That area, as you all know, is a residential area. It is best as a single family home area. Those that have bought homes in the area and continue to live there believe that. I believe it as well. The staff did mention that there is R -O on the corner of Mission and Starr, that is almost Yz mile away to the north and it is on Mission, it only happens to be partly on Starr. Starr Road, as you all know, is primarily single family dwellings or agriculture. I request respectively that you maintain our single family neighborhood and reject the R -O application. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further comment from the public? West: I am Steve West and I live on Madison Drive. We bought our house a year and a half or two years ago. I know that there is an empty field behind us and I'm not fool enough to think that it is going to be like that forever. We were told that that is zoned for residential and so we rolled the dice on that. We thought that if they were to build something we expected houses. I never envisioned that there is a possibility that I might be looking back at an Appleby's or an insurance office. That is what really bothers me about this. It was zoned for residential and I would expect that it be kept as residential. Ostner: Is there further public comment? Seaton: I'm Tonya Seaton, I live at 1132 Huntington Drive. Our property is just south of the Starr Drive property that we are talking about tonight. I agree with everyone else here but I just wanted to be heard that this property has no business being zoned R -O. It is strictly residential. My concern, I don't know if anyone else mentioned this tonight, that is a scary road that we live on, Starr Drive. There is a hill right there where that property is if you have ever been out there. As you top that hill if there is some kind of office with lots of cars there, there are going to be some accidents. We need to consider that road there. We don't need anymore cars on it than what are already there. We have a school there now and I pray every day Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 101 that there is not an accident. Cars just fly through there. The police are right. They can't control it enough and they can't handle anymore businesses out there. They have no business to be in there. We just like it the way it is. Thank you. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak? I am going to close it to the public and talk to the Commissioners. I have a question for staff. These reports got a little mixed up at this point. Is this the report that I'm supposed to be reading where you all are recommending R -O? Pate: Yes. Ostner: If you could just shortly explain that. <Laughter in Public Forum> Pate: Staff's recommendation for this property, speaking with the applicant, it was annexed as an island and the City Council voted that the future land use plan does show this specific area to be residential. North of this is to be mixed use. Approximately 350' based on the scale of this plan is R -O property. Directly to the west of this property, adjacent to it was a property that was developed as a P.U.D. several years ago in the 90's as a two family residential development. South of this property is the St. Joseph's school that was recently constructed. There is an existing mixture of uses in the surrounding area. Granted, directly to the west there are single family residences. To the east, on this property proper there is an agricultural type of use. The other requested rezoning and Barrington Park subdivision to the east. Staff feels that the use is consistent with our General Plan and the Future Land Use Plan. Those the impotence for this request is to bring the use into compliance, obviously, we have to look at it further than just the use as we looked at the other request tonight. We believe that this use is compatible with this area. A Residential Office use does not necessarily dictate it has to be an office type of use. It can be purely residential, it can be single family residential, two family residential and we have gone over the other uses that would be allowed by right within the R -O zoning district. Just to reiterate, they would include single family dwellings, two family dwellings, office, studios, related services and professional offices. Allen: I would like to know if the applicant has met with the neighborhood association and tried to way lay any of their concerns in any manner. Goodereis: Mrs. Allen, I have lived on that road for a year and two months and I never knew they existed. I have redecorated, re -landscaped and everything else. We met with Barrington because we knew they were there. Honest as I stand here I did not know a Starr Drive association was Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 102 there. I met with the neighbors on Cherokee because I did know some of them so we have talked with some of them. As far as it goes with alleviating some of their fears, we are not planning on doing anything. First of all, Starr is on the future street use as a 70' collector. Before anything was done out there you would have to go ahead and improve the streets, as you have pointed out all night long. It is not feasible to do that. All we are trying to do is to bring a non -conforming use into a conforming use. I understand some of their concerns and I too share them. Allen: I think so often just conversation can take care of things and I just wondered if those efforts have been made. Goodereis: I did post my phone number at a friends house for anyone who had any concerns. Nobody called me. I did not know that there was an organized person nor did I know Larry Long or I assure you that Dr. Hays and I would have met with them the same as we did with the people at Barrington. We are not here trying to hide anything or say anything, we are doing it just exactly by the book as we were told that we needed to do it. We are certainly not afraid to hear comments or concerns just as we did with Barrington and we came up with what we think is an admirable solution to that situation. Allen: That wasn't my indignation. I just think that so often people's concerns can be tended to with some face to face conversation. Goodereis: I agree whole heartedly but I'm telling you standing here living for a year and two months at 1760 Starr Road I never even knew there was one that existed. Allen: Then I wanted to ask staff if this rezoning were pulled and they had a Conditional Use could you have a dental office there? Pate: Not in the RSF-1 zoning district. Vaught: What about the RSF-4? Pate: A dental clinic is located under Use Unit 12, Offices, Studios and related services, which is not a Conditional Use in either one of those zoning districts. Ostner: The compromise to me would seem to be a PZD which is not really being proposed. That is the juggling area between the residential and commercial that more angles are scrutinized. Goodereis: I agree completely with you Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, you don't have a non -development PZD. We are not developing any of it. Therefore, we Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 103 cannot defray the cost on something we are not developing. That is why we couldn't go with a PZD. We waited around and tried to wait, Jeremy knows I waited three months to submit this, but it is hard for us to even get insurance with a non -complying in a situation since we have been forcibly annexed into either the dental lab or anything. Insurance companies do not want to insure you when they are not sure that you are going to be able to rebuild. All of these issues have hit us head on too. The PZD, we would love to go with a PZD but we can't. We are not developing it. We can't do a conceptual PZD. We have to do an actual one. There is probably approximately 17 acres of this ground that is not going to be touched from RSF-1 because we want to maintain our grandfatheringship and be allowed to have our R -A there. If we change the zoning and go with a PZD we could get into a technical situation with that. Ostner: This is extremely difficult because I completely agree with the residents that the flavor is purely residential. I can also see staff's saying that there is a mixed use in the area. There really is. Starr Drive is a collector but it doesn't have to be expanded or built upon without a development proposal, not a rezoning proposal. Anthes: As we learned earlier this evening, as long as this business remains in operation without a six month lag in time in this zoning are they allowed to continue a business as this dental office or a similar use as long as the building is maintained and rented continuously? Williams: As long as they are continuing to use it, yes. However, this is the same sort of situation that Jeff Collins faced when be asked for a rezoning because he had built a structure that was a non -conforming use because we had made a mistake and did not have the land labeled properly. He has insurance problems, refinancing problems and things like that. That would remain although his business, as long as it continued, did not have a six month gap, could continue to operate and be grand fathered in as a non -conforming use. Anthes: I guess I don't see it the same as the Collins property because number one, this wasn't a zoning mistake and number two, I don't think it has the same sort of adjacency as that property. However, we do have a school that is right by there that has a large parking lot and a lot of activity and people coming back and forth. It is not absurd to think of neighborhood commercial centers around schools and that kind of thing developing as we have in other parts of town. I am kind of alarmed however, that whenever I look at this I see that it is nearly six acres of property. I think about how much development that would be allowed by right on nearly six acres if we rezoned out of hand. As staff pointed out, the R -O designation doesn't necessarily mean offices will develop but it would allow multi- family and right on the same piece of property we just stepped down a Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 104 request for multi -family zoning and said that was inappropriate, it needs to be single family. Vaught: I think it is only 3.35 acres, is there a typo in the report? Anthes: The report says 5.73 acres. Graves: It got corrected. Shackelford: Is it 3.35 or is it 5.73 acres? Olson: What has happened is the legal description that we were given earlier actually split the dental office and so the applicant came back with a new property description, which we have the right maps however, the acreage at the beginning is not accurate. Pate: It should be 5.73 acres. Just to clarify, Use Unit 26 is not an allowed right in this zoning district. Anthes: Duplexes or a mobile home park would be by right. Allen: If the applicant has no plans to build and the business stays exactly the same and is grand fathered in then I don't see the need to rezone. Goodereis: I guess Ms. Allen, the only reason that we have the need to rezone is our insurance issues and our assurance that if the clinic burned down we could rebuild it because right now under present zoning it couldn't be rebuilt. As Brenda Thiel pointed out, when we were forcibly annexed in we asked to not be annexed, to leave us alone. They couldn't do that. Then we asked that we please address these issues right then and there. The City Attorney may remember back, they would not do that for us because they said they needed to bring all of the bodies in as one zoning but if I had any problems I could always go through the zoning to get it rezoned and they assured me that that would be no problem because it is a non -conforming use because it has been there for 16 or 17 years. That is the reason. If it burned down tomorrow we could not rebuild, not even under the grand fathering clause if anything happened to it. We are just trying to bring it into the way that the city brought us in to be conforming with the property use. The reason that someone had a question about the 5.73. Dr. Stanberry owned both pieces of property, he did not acquire them from the same person. When he went to build his clinic the legal for the first piece of ground, the little bitty corner, the 1.59 that he had gotten, he just acquired that so that he could build his clinic. What he did is he built it right on the property line. It divided that dental clinic, as staff pointed out, exactly in half. All we did was make it a triangle. One of the reasons that we did that was to protect the parking. When Starr, not if, but when Starr Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 105 becomes a collector street that is on the future road map we will need the extra space up above for parking because you will alleviate our parking lot. There will be no place to go. We just took a rectangle. I believe staff included a map in that so that you can see exactly what we are proposing and how we are proposing it. When Starr moves out to that 70' collector it will take and cut almost all of the parking lot out so the parking will be forced towards the school. Shackelford: This map that shows the specific triangle that we are rezoning, I'm confused between 3.35 and 5.73 acres, what we are being asked to rezone. Here is where I'm coming down on this. I am in somewhat agreement that this is comparable to the situation we had in west Fayetteville where we had a zoning mistake. It is not a zoning mistake on this but there is a forced annexation. As I look at this property is it purely residential, probably not. Is it mixed use? It is getting to be that. Will Starr look significantly different in the future? Absolutely. It is designated to be a collector and this area of town is going to change. My concern is are we rezoning more of a node here to R -O than what we need to rezone? That is what I'm wanting to look at. Specifically what tract, this triangle that I'm talking about, I'm confused. Can you point me to a page? Trumbo: I see rectangles, I haven't seen any triangles. Goodereis: The confusion that you are having is coming from asking if it is going to the full boundary. No it is not. The boundary that it is set for is if you can see on the aerial pictures, where Cherokee is, what Mr. Jenkins surveyed out was a direct rectangle starting right approximately at the Cherokee line and heading north towards the end of our property. That makes a direct rectangle. It only goes back into the property approximately 200' and that just encompasses the back of the dam off of that part. It is just a plain rectangle. Allen: Could you just rezone an acre of it? Goodereis: An acre wouldn't encompass the dental clinic. It was on 1.59 acres. There you go again, we will still have the issue of the parking. That is why we did what we did. When Starr becomes a collector, as you can see from that aerial, Starr right there is narrow. When it becomes a collector it will take out our parking. We went straight up to Cherokee and made a straight rectangle and back down. Anthes: I'm looking at this and it looks like if we come out Cherokee Drive and come out straight and make a rectangle that Crystal is talking about the access to the existing house will go through this new tract of land. Would there then be an access easement through the property? Are we splitting that? I'm confused. How do we rezone just a piece of it? Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 106 Shackelford: By legal description. There are two legal descriptions associated. Goodereis: We are not wanting to change the rest of it because we will not get rid of the animals. We were forcibly annexed in. Therefore, we are keeping the animals. As I said before, the PZD is not an option. Trumbo: My question is why are you asking for over five acres to rezone just a small dental office? Goodereis: The dental office isn't so small. If you could actually see it you would understand. It is situated on the piece of ground in a pie shape, I don't know how else to better describe it. Therefore, it takes out a huge chunk right there. The almost three acres that it sat on before, that was divided completely in half. Therefore, we had to extend the boundary back further and go up. All we are trying to do is do this one time in order to get our driveways and everything in there for when Starr becomes a collector. We know that it is going to. We just don't know when. I can stand here as sure as I'm standing here and tell you there is no future development planned for that. Anthes: We understand that. You have to understand though that these land use rights convey with the property. You can sell this tomorrow and somebody else could have a very different idea. We have to look at that. Goodereis: I agree totally but you asked why we asked for that and that's why. When we went to get it surveyed we didn't want to pay for a survey. We were satisfied with just doing it with the property the way that it was, that wasn't an option because staff called me up and said hey, it is going right through the middle of the dental clinic, we can't divide a structure. That's when we had to pay a surveyor to come out and resurvey it and that is why the easiest option was to go with a rectangle. We had 24 hours to do that. Pate: Mr. Williams, I know that it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission nor the staff to require or request a Bill of Assurance limiting develop on this property. However, we would be happy to speak with the applicant to see if that is something that she would like to offer limiting development on this property. Williams: I wouldn't even want to suggest it. It is something that has to be totally voluntarily given. You just need to make a decision as the Planning Commission on what has been presented tonight by the applicant. Although you can change a rezoning request to a different rezoning you can't make it smaller. You can't do a lot split for them and say we will do part of it but not all of it. Keep in mind too that obviously, the City Council is going to make a final decision on this. You are just giving a Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 107 recommendation to the City Council and they will get to listen to the citizens again one way or the other and also Dr. Hays and Crystal also. I would encourage you, since it is almost midnight, to go ahead and make a decision on the request that has been requested tonight and if the applicant wants to change something in the interim by talking to the Planning Division they can certainly do that. I don't think we can do any changing for them. Anthes: I took a note here when one of the neighbors was speaking and there was something here about some additional structures that were under construction that were left incomplete. Is that on this property? Goodereis: Yes, it is on the property that is not being addressed. That is going to be a garage. It complied with and confirmed with the county at the time. We were told being as we were annexed in, that would not stop us from building. Anthes: That is not on this property? Goodereis: No. Anthes: That is what I was confirming. Shackelford: Based on the City Attorney's opinion and the fact that anything we do is a recommendation to an elected board that will make a final decision I am going to make a motion. As I stated earlier, this was a forced annexation that brought this property into the city. Also, as I stated earlier, I don't think rezoning is the responsibility of fixing non -conforming property. I think a rezoning is more towards the future land use of the property. The big question is is this a mixed use area or is this a purely residential area? There is basic argument for both sides to be made. Where I am going to come down is that the property has been used as a Residential Office in the past. There is mixed use in this area and it is on a road that is designated to be a pretty significant road in the future. With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-1333 with the specific designation of R -O. Vaught: I will second. Thank you for the citizens who turned out and held in there through a very long meeting. My encouragement would be to me this is in a way another policy decision we talked about earlier. Please contact your council members and let them know your feelings. This will all be addressed at that level as well. I would encourage the applicant to continue to meet with the neighbors and maybe find other ways to help alleviate some of the fears of what could happen on this property. I think there are other means necessary. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 108 Allen: You certainly know that there is a neighborhood association available now. Shackelford: I would also like to add for the record that part of the reason I'm making this recommendation, the property has a pretty significant easement through the middle of it to meet the existing house and there obviously, would be a lot of off site improvements that would be required. I think that if this property were to develop prior to Starr Drive being improved it is going to be somewhat cost prohibitive. I think we are somewhat lucky by the situation that the infrastructure or lack thereof is in such dire need that likely if any development happens on this property it will be years down the road when I think that this part of town is going to look significantly different. Allen: Commissioner Shackelford, I wondered other than the school, where you are seeing this mixed use from driving out there I am not aware of where it is. Shackelford: The P.U.D. across the street, the multi -family uses, obviously, the school. Ostner: The P.U.D. is not across the street, it is further down. Shackelford: I think the school is primarily. Vaught: The P.U.D. is directly across the street, look at the map and also the R -O on the corner of Mission and Starr. Tr umbo: I am going to vote against this based on Use Unit 11. This is significant acreage to me and Use Unit 11 allows manufactured home parks and even though I don't believe there is anything planned here and there is nothing underhanded, that is not an appropriate place for that use and for that reason I am going to vote against this and let the aldermen fight it out. Ostner: I am going to fall on the nay side of this. I don't think R -O is quite appropriate here. I know we have a P.U.D. across the street. It looks like a residential P.U.D. to me. Just because it is a P.U.D. to me does not make it mixed use enough to warrant the uses that come with this R -O zoning district in this particular space so I am going to vote no. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1333 failed by a vote of 3-5 with Commissioners Graves, Trumbo, Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion is denied. Planning Commission December 13, 2004 Page 109 Ostner: With a rezoning request I have seen the option for a different zoning. Williams: The petitioner can appeal to the City Council or look at a different zone. Ostner: Are there any announcements? We stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 12:10 a.m.