Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held in Room 219 of the City Administration Building at 5:30 p.m. on February 14, 2005. Items Discussed ADM 05-1400: Southern View PZD Consent ADM 05-1375: O'Charley's Sign Appeal Page 5 PPL 05-1368: University Village Center Page 11 PPL 05-1377: Hancock Estates Page 13 CUP 05-1364: Childers, pp 323 Page 15 CUP 05-1369: North Street Church of Christ, pp 362 Page 18 ANX 05-1365: Wilkins, pp 245 RZN 05-1366: Wilkins, pp 245 Page 25 ANX 05-1370: Hall, pp 644,645,684 Page 29 RZN 05-1371: Hall, pp 645,684 Page 46 RZN 05-1378: Goff/Hall, pp 644 Page 53 RZN 05-1372: Mailco USA, pp 678,717 Page 56 RZN 05-1374: Cornerstone/Futrall, pp 402 Page 64 Action Taken Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 2 Members Present Candy Clark Jill Anthes Loren Shackelford Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo James Graves Christian Vaught Christine Myres Members Absent Staff Present Staff Absent Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the Monday, February 14th meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Happy Valentine's Day. We are going to take the roll Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Comm Ostner: Shackelford: Allen: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: ssioners present. Thank you. The first issue is the approval of minutes from the November 24th, January 13th and January 24th meetings. Do I have a motion? I will make a motion that we approve the minutes as stated. I second. There is a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 4 ADM 05-1400: Southern View PZD was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at the northeast side of West Sixth Street and the I-540 corridor. The request is to approve an extension of the approved Southern View II PZD project. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is ADM 05-1400 for Southern View II PZD. It is an administrative item. If we could have the staff report please. Allen: It is on consent. Ostner: On the consent agenda is the item previously stated, do we have a motion for approval of the consent agenda? Anthes: I will move for approval of the consent agenda. Ostner: Would anyone like to speak to this issue before we vote on it? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: I will second. Ostner: We have a motion and a second for the consent agenda. Is there discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Consent Agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 5 ADM 05-1375: O'Charley's Sign Appeal, pp 212 was submitted by Ryan Kring for property located at 8467 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.26 acres. The request is to approve additional wall signage and an additional band of LED lighting. Ostner: The next item is under old business, ADM 05-1375 for O'Charley's Sign Appeal. We do have a report for this. Morgan: O'Charley's restaurant is located at the corner of Steele Blvd. and Shiloh Drive. It was approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2003 and at this time it has been constructed and a Certificate of Occupancy for this restaurant has been issued. The location of this restaurant is near the 1-540 and 71B bypass and is therefore, located in the Design Overlay District. Within this Design Overlay District there are certain requirements for signage. The development is allowed a maximum of two wall signs, one per street frontage and one monument sign. The applicant at this time is requesting approval for a third wall sign on the northern elevation in lieu of placing a monument sign on the property. The applicant is also requesting approval for additional green LED lighting on each wall of the structure. With regard to the wall signage, the Design Overlay District does restrict the number of wall signs placed on this structure to two wall signs maximum. This property is located at a very visible intersection and staff finds that because this structure is so very visible from the north the applicant has requested therefore, to approve, requested approval of another wall sign on this northern elevation. A monument sign could be placed at this northwest corner of the property to give equal visibility as a wall sign would do. However, due to existing utility easements along this north and west property line location of a monument sign in this location is not possible. Staff finds that the proposed wall sign does meet the ordinance, or the spirit of the ordinance. With regard to the accent lighting, the amount of the LED lighting was discussed at length during the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission consideration for approval of this restaurant, it was staff's recommendation that the LED lighting be wrapped around the entire structure. The location of this restaurant is very visible and staff finds that there are no unique circumstances to the location of this structure which would cause for the additional lighting. Therefore, staff recommends approval to allow placement of three wall signs on the structure as proposed by the applicant in lieu of placement of a monument sign on the property and staff recommends denial of the additional band of green LED lighting on the structure. We find that the additional lighting serves no additional purpose on this well lit structure. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation please. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 6 Krink: My name is Ryan Krink, I'm with Site Enhancement Services. I'm the national sign agent on behalf of O'Charley's. As has already been pointed out here, we are talking about the O'Charley's on 3467 N. Shiloh Drive. This property is located on a hard corner of North Shiloh Drive and Steele Blvd and it also has an access drive behind the north elevation of the property, which our customers can locate the property with that and access it directly to our parking lot. I don't know if you have enough copies of the color renderings, but if you look at the handout provided you can see that this property currently only has two wall signs, as was pointed out, and our third wall sign is the same square footage and the same orientation as the current existing two wall signs. The additional band of LED is going to be similar to the one that is already existing. It is simply going to go below the letters to highlight the O'Charley's. I realize that you must make your decision based on some criteria. The first one being that special conditions and special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved which is not applicable to other land, structures or property. As mentioned before, this property is located on a hard corner with an access drive which provides direct entry to O'Charley's parking lot. Due to it's position on these major thoroughfares and the fact that we can't have an existing freestanding sign because of utility easements, we are asking for your approval of an additional wall sign in lieu of that. The second criteria is that literal interpretation of the provision of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the same terms of the ordinance. For the wall sign, I think we pretty much know what the situation is with that. You can't put a freestanding sign there because of a utility easement. With regards to the bands of neon, currently, Logan's Roadhouse, which is along the heavily used trade corridor of North Shiloh Drive currently has the same lighting that we are asking for. They have a band of actual neon, then their sign and then another band of neon. We are proposing something similar to that except we do not use neon, we use LED, which is a new technology in signs that has only recently been used. Approval of our proposal would give us two bands of LED and three signs total. Currently on the existing Logan's Roadhouse they have two bands of LED and three signs total. We are just asking for the same opportunity that they have been given. The third criteria is that special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. These conditions are in no way the result of the applicant. When O'Charley's chose this location they based it on the fact that they could have high visibility and they could have adequate signage to provide a way finding pool for their customers to locate to their property. If you look at the site plan on the last page of the art renderings you will notice that as motorists are traveling along Steele Blvd., there is not enough visibility for them to make safe maneuvers to access the access drive and enter the parking lot. This forces the drivers to go all the way up Shiloh Drive and to negotiate through a heavy intersection. Our proposal Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 7 will eliminate that. The fourth criteria is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other land, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting this variance will not confer any special privilege to O'Charley's. As we have already mentioned, other properties are currently allowed three signs and two bands of LED or neon. We are simply asking for the same criteria that they have been given. The fifth criteria is that the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variances and the variance is the minimum amount of relief to make reasonable use of the land, buildings or structure. Approval of this variance is the minimum amount of relief O'Charley's requires for this property to meet it's matching zoning potential. Standard throughout the country we use two bands of LED and some type of orientation of three signs or four signs, depending on how many major thoroughfares we are fronting. This is just to help us stay consistent with our other properties throughout the country. Approval of our additional band of LED banding and wall signs will complete the sign program for this location. The final criteria is that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Design Overlay District and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have already spoke about how the additional wall sign will help in traffic safety. It will promote good traffic safety by reducing the amount of time that drivers have to spend on the road and reduce the amount of maneuvers that they may have to execute such as U turns, double backs or having to navigate through busy intersections. Approval for the wall sign will allow us to use the access road and the motorists will not have to go up to that forward intersection of Steele and Shiloh and negotiate through that. O'Charley's utilizes two bands of LED as a majority, when I say majority I mean 90%+ of their properties. These bands do not blink, flash, scroll, have any animation or they are not using for an attention getting device at all. They are simply architectural details of the building which tie in our signs to our sign program. Tonight we have demonstrated justifications and satisfied all of the criteria for approval of this proposal. This property is located on a hard corner with exposure to two major thoroughfares as well as an access drive to the north of their property. Without adequate exposure to motorists traveling along Steele Blvd. they cannot safely locate the property. This not only robs the business of increased revenue but robs the community of the increased valuable tax revenue. Tonight we respectfully ask for your approval Thank you very much. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public for any additional comment. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions or comments. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 8 Shackelford: You mentioned that your requested second band would underline the O'Charley's name, would that band encompass the entire building or would it only be on one or two sides? Krink: It would be like the existing band. It goes all the way around. It actually doesn't go under the word O'Charley's because the light it would kind of reflect back and forth so we have stopped it on either end where the O'Charley's signs meet. It really, they are not bright. They are not detrimental to the public. They are the same thing as what Logan's has Actually, at the Logan's property along with the additional bands of neon, they have what looks like fluorescent lights to highlight that on top of that. We are just asking for this small relief to stay consistent. It would mimic exactly what the drawings show. Clark: Krink: As I'm looking through my information I note that when this was first proposed O'Charley's did not want to even run one band around the whole building but it was staff who interjected that that would be more consistent. Why was that omission made when this proposal first came before the Commission? If you look down where it says on the first page building style, prototype 5. O'Charley's is really experimenting with different prototypes based on different situations. It is based on what shopping plaza they are in, what speed limit of the road is, how many roads they are fronting. They build different building designs based on that. When they first submitted these designs they had prototype 5 and they submitted them like that but they didn't realize how important that additional band of LED would be to accent the property. It really looks like almost a bare wall. It doesn't really tie any of our signs into the whole program. I think they realized that mistake after they submitted. This was the original prototype 5. The majority that we use are prototype 1 and 2, that is where the corner of the building is actually the entrance, not the front facade. Based on that, we put two signs on the front there. Prototype 5 is the flat front entrance design. That is something that O'Charley's has just started doing. I think it was an error on their part but they are realizing and they are asking for your relief tonight. Vaught: Do you currently have any photos? We have some photos of the existing structure, do you have any photos with the second band? Krink: No, because the second band is not on yet. Vaught: In any of the locations. Just so we could see visually what it looks like at night. Krink: No I do not. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 9 Shackelford: A question of staff. As I drove home the other night thinking about this I kind of looked at the other restaurants in this area as I envisioned them from I-540. You notice a pretty significant amount of neon on Fire Mountain, what used to be the Ryan's building, on Logan's and even on Dixie Cafe. I assume that all of these properties are in the same Design Overlay District and were built after the Design Overlay District was put in place. Can you shed any light on those approval processes? Was there any sign issues or any sort of waivers that had to be made on any of those developments that were built in this same district? Shackelford: Most of those developments, you are correct, are within the Design Overlay District in the Steele Crossing Development. You may remember that the Fire Mountain Hot Off the Grill restaurant did come through with some signage requests and waivers in that area for certain things. I believe it was more about monument sign location. The other developments, as per the Design Overlay District requirements, are required to come through the Planning Commission as a condition of being within the Design Overlay District and the Planning Commission makes the determination of whether the sign packages presented with those developments are conducive to what our standards call for. Probably the most evident sign or lighting in this corridor is the Logan's. As the applicant stated, they do have two bands of LED or neon lighting surrounding that. In hind sight, had staff known exactly what that would've looked like, we do not feel that is necessarily appropriate for the Design Overlay District. In looking at our findings, it is one of those things where when you look at the elevations you have to make a judgment call based on what you see on a piece of paper as opposed to what it looks like in reality. We feel that this is a very visible location. In counting the lighting on the south portion of the structure, the primary entrance, there are at least fourteen lights already that light either awnings or features on that structure. We find that additional lighting requested doesn't really serve a purpose and meets the Design Overlay District criteria. Anthes: Just to elaborate on that for Commissioner Shackelford, we did have quite a lengthy discussion at Subdivision Committee about the Fire Mountain location and felt that some additional lighting was warranted there just because of the unique placement of that property on sort of a dead end road that when they built the structure was supposed to go through on the Master Street Plan and then was removed from the Master Street Plan and that we made it clear at that time that we believed we were setting no precedent with that approval. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 10 Allen: I drove by the site last night and I find it personally very visible. I think it is appropriate that you have the sign but I don't think one error necessitates another error so I will move for approval of ADM 05-1375. Ostner: I have a motion. Shackelford: Clarification on that motion. As stated, your motion would approve the placement of a third wall sign in lieu of a monument sign on the property but would disallow the second line of LED, is that correct? Allen: Shackelford: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: That is exactly right. I will second the motion. There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 05-1375 as recommended by staff was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 11 PPL 05-1368: University Village Center, pp 599 was submitted by Steven Beam of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at the southeast corner of 15th Street and Beechwood Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 7.45 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat for a commercial development with three lots proposed and one lot to be used as detention. Ostner: The next item is PPL 05-1368 for University Village Center. If we could have the staff report please. Shackelford: This subdivision is a commercial subdivision request. The subject property contains approximately 7.45 acres located at the southeast corner of Beechwood and 15th Street in South Fayetteville. Adjacent developments include the Crowne apartments to the south and the Tyson Indoor Track Center and Baum Stadium to the north. The applicant proposes to create a four lot commercial subdivision for future development within the existing C-2 zoning district. The site is currently vacant, a large field primarily, with access on 156 Street and Beechwood. A tributary to the Town Branch Creek is the eastern boundary of the property and the location of most of the existing tree canopy, floodway and of course, floodplain. As part of this Preliminary Plat water and sewer lines will need to be extended to serve each of the lots. Right of way has been dedicated in this area. It used to be a state highway and more right of way was taken at that time than was required by our Master Street Plan. We will essentially go off the right of way that is existing. There are no interior streets or drives proposed at this time and connectivity to adjacent properties will be evaluated at the time of specific development. Just as a side note, staff does expect along with the Crowne Development Large Scale that the development will need to connect south into Crowne Drive to provide that connectivity. Staff is recommending approval of PPL 05- 1368 with fifteen conditions of approval. Item one, Planning Commission does need to make a determination of appropriate street improvements tonight. Staff is recommending improvements of Beechwood and 15th Street 18' from centerline with pavement, curb and gutter, 6' sidewalks and appropriate storm drainage prior to signing the Final Plat. That would match the improvements that the Crowne Development did put in with their Large Scale. Item number two, assessments shall be made as each of the proposed tracts develop for the cost of the future traffic signal at Razorback and 15`h Street. These assessments will be based upon the use proposed and the traffic generated once development does occur. Direct access to Beechwood and 15th Street, those are both collector streets, shall be limited to the two entrance drives proposed along with the future indirect access to the south through Crowne Drive. This is to help with access management along this collector street. I believe most of the conditions are self explanatory but if you have any questions feel free to ask. Planning Commission February 14, Page 12 Ostner: Beam: Ostner: Vaught: Pate: Vaught: Beam: Shackelford: Trumbo: Ostner: 2005 Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. My name is Steven Beam, I am with Crafton, Tull & Associates here representing South Fayetteville Investments. University Village Center, as Jeremy said, is 7.45 acres. Four lots, three of which will be developed at a future time and one of which would be reserved for detention. If you all have any questions about the particulars I would be happy to answer them. Thank you Mr. Beam. Would anyone from the public like to speak to this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions or motions. Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval? We do not at this time. Is the applicant in agreement with all the conditions? Yes. As we looked at this at Subdivision level it looks like it is a pretty straight forward development. This is an area of town that is very exciting to see all of the growth that is happening. Not very many people thought ten or fifteen years ago that we would be seeing a development this wonderful in this area. With that being said, and the fact that these lots, we will look at them again as a Final Plat and again as they develop as Large Scale Developments, I will make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1368. I will second. There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1368 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 13 PPL 05-1377: Hancock Estates, pp 323 was submitted by Art Scott for property located at Salem Road and Rupple Road, north of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 15.20 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 47 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Morgan: The next item is PPL 05-1377 for Hancock Estates. If we could have the staff report please. The subject property contains approximately 15.2 acres. It is located between Rupple Road and Salem Road. Clabber Creek Phase I is located to the west of the property and Salem Heights subdivision, which is currently under construction, is located to the north of this subject property. The applicant is proposing to create 48 lots with 47 single family homes. The property was recently annexed into the City of Fayetteville in August, 2004 when all islands were incorporated into the city and was zoned RSF-1 at that time. Subsequently, the applicant processed a rezoning to rezone the property RSF-4. The adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Salem Road, a collector, to the east and Rupple Road, a minor arterial, to the west. The applicant is providing connectivity to adjacent streets as well as adjacent vacant property to the south. Staff is recommending approval of this PPL 05-1377 with fifteen conditions of approval. Of which, condition number one, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. At this time staff is recommending widening Salem Road to 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalks. Rupple Road improvements along the property boundary have been installed at this time with the exception of a 6' sidewalk. Staff recommends the construction of sidewalks at the right of way with the grade to be approved by the city. In regards to condition number two, Planning Commission determination of off site assessments. There are several improvements that are being done in this area with regard to street improvements as well as future bridge construction and water line extension. Staff is recommending an assessment for those improvements. The exact numbers, which are mentioned in your staff report, have been changed or modified somewhat and a new memo has been passed out for you. I will defer to the Engineering Division with regard to any questions in regard to these assessments. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. O'Neal: The point of clarification on the assessment is for a bridge south of Mt. Comfort on Rupple Road. There is an error in the report with 50% it says Rupple north and it should be Rupple south. Ostner: The amounts are the same, it was just the delineation? Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 14 O'Neal: That is correct. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Scott: My name is Art Scott, I am with Project Design Consultants here to represent Mr. Hancock on this project. The applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and they do understand the changes that were made. We were made aware of that before this meeting and so they are in agreement with all of those and we are just here to answer any questions you all may have. Osmer: Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I want to thank the applicant for adding the requested connection to the west to meet our street connectivity requirements and other than that, if you are in agreement with the conditions of approval, I would move for approval of PPL 05-1377. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is that motion including the specific determinations included in the first and second conditions? Anthes: Yes, per staff's recommendations. Shackelford: Tree mitigation, are you anticipating planting trees in this location or paying the fee in lieu? Have you guys thought about that? Scott: A combination thereof. We are going to work that out with the Landscape Administrator. We are going to plant some street trees and pay some fees. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1377 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 15 CUP 05-1364: Childers, 524 was submitted by Barbara Childers for property located at 480 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned RMF -24, Multi Family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately .27 acres. The request is to approve a tandem lot. Osmer: The next item is CUP 05-1364 for Childers. Morgan: The subject property is located north of Huntsville Road within the Norwood's Second Addition. Two parcels being parts of Lots 10 and 11 under common ownership combine to create the .27 acres of property located within the RMF -24 zoning district. This property is adjacent to two streets, Kinsor Street and Wood Avenue. However, neither of these streets have been constructed at this time. The property is accessible by way of an alley along the south of the property running east and west between Wood Avenue and Barton Avenue. For a lot to be developed as a single family residence within the RMF -24 zoning district the lot shall have 6,000 sq.ft. of lot area and 60' of lot frontage. This lot, as it is, does not meet this criteria because it does not have any lot frontage on an approved public street. As such, this lot may be approved as a tandem lot defined in the Unified Development Code as a lot which does not have the required frontage on a public street and which is located behind a lot or a portion of a lot, which does have frontage on a public street. Staff is in support of granting a Conditional Use for the development of a tandem lot located on Wood Avenue and Kinsor Street. The result of this action will be that this property will be developed as an additional single family lot within an already existing residential neighborhood. With regard to findings, staff finds that granting the requested Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. It will allow the subject property to be developed in harmony with the adjacent surrounding properties. The amount of traffic and noise proposed with this request will not significantly increase, as it will only allow the addition of one single family home to this neighborhood. This property was platted with the intent for single family use and development. However, streets were not constructed in this area and have limited future development of this property. Access to the property will be provided for the required parking spaces. Two off street parking spaces are required for a sidewalk coordinator has reviewed this request for a Conditional Use and has recommended a fee in lieu of construction of sidewalk in this location due to the lack of existing street frontage. The applicant also will coordinate with the Solid Waste Division for appropriate Solid Waste pick up. Therefore, staff does recommend approval of the Conditional Use subject to a total of eight conditions. The applicant has, at this time, reviewed these conditions and has signed the conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 16 Childers: I'm Barbara Childers, I'm the property owner. What I'm proposing to build back there is a 767 sq.ft. log cabin house nestled inside the trees back there to use for rental property. I agree with all of the conditions of the city. I don't know exactly what you want me to say about it. I would just like to have a nice little home back there. I have deer that come back there. I don't want to disturb them. I don't want to cut down anymore trees than I have to. Moving it back further off the road is to accommodate the conditions of having the lot moved back and combining the two lots together I think is an even better idea. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to this CUP 05-1364? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Staff, have you heard from any neighbors in the area? Morgan: We have responses from three neighbors, two of which are in favor of this request. One of which had several concerns with regard to traffic and has submitted a letter, which is included in your staff report. Clark: How many home owners are back there? Morgan: At present there is one home, Ms. Childers' home, located to the south of the lot and there are no homes located to the north. Clark: How many folks did you notify as immediate property owners? Morgan: Four. Clark: Ok, I'm just trying to get it in perspective. Ostner: My question about the neighbors was going to this neighbor who was worried about traffic. Does staff feel that traffic is going to be a safe situation if the Conditional Use is processed? Pate: Yes. Our findings indicate that the alley and street sections that we still use today, the alley is essentially for vehicular access. This lot in effect, does not have frontage because the street in front of it has never been connected. For instance, the homes that do front onto Huntsville Avenue all use this alley for access. I believe Solid Waste also utilizes this alley to serve the residents there fronting on Huntsville Road as well. I know from another application that was processed in a nearby vicinity, the Planning Commission did tour through this alley with the bus and it was quite safe in my opinion driving the bus. Shackelford: I'm a little confused on condition of approval number three, a new access drive shall be paved a minimum 25' in length, is that length or width? Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 17 Morgan: That would be length. We would assure that the width of the private drive to the home would satisfy any emergency vehicle requirements in order to provide emergency service to this area. Shackelford: It has to be built from the intersection of the drive to the intersecting right of way. It is rare that we put a minimum length figure in there when we are trying to build a road between two destination points so I was a little confused by that. Pate: That is actually part of the findings, part of the requirements for a Conditional Use for a tandem lot so that a standard driveway will be constructed even though it does not have frontage onto a street. That is part of the standard findings within the packet. Shackelford: I find everything to be in line with staffs findings. I will make a motion that we approve CUP 05-1364 subject to all stated conditions of approval. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there further comment or discussion? Anthes: Because we have a lengthy report in here that talks about cars blocking drives and that sort of thing, can you state for the record and for anyone watching, what the recourse people have if that is happening in their drive lanes. Pate: I believe part of the recourse has already been taken. No parking signs have been posted in this alley so that traffic trying to move along this alley would not be impeded by parked traffic. The best way would be to call the Police Department to report it if a vehicle was impeding traffic in that location. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1364 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 18 CUP 05-1369: North Street Church of Christ, pp 362 was submitted by Hight - Jackson Assoc., PA, for property located at Mount Comfort Road, west of I-540. the property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 16 acres. The request is to approve the use of a church (Use Unit four) in a RSF-4 zoning district. Ostner: Shackelford: Ostner: Pate: Our next item is another Conditional Use, CUP 05-1369 for the North Street Church of Christ. If we could have the staff report please. At this point I would like to recuse from this item. Thank you. This property is located at 3225 W. Mt. Comfort Road west of I-540. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 16 acres. The applicant is requesting a use which is a Conditional Use, Use Unit Four, Cultural and Recreational Facilities, for a church within the RSF-4 district. As I mentioned, this 16 acre site is located east of the future Salem Road on the Master Street Plan and south of Mt. Comfort Road. The site is situated between Mt. Comfort Road on the north and Hamestring Creek on the south. It is currently occupied by farm land with single family homes along Mt. Comfort Road. The proposed site for this church is actually comprised of two separate tracts under different ownership. The eastern tract, as shown on your site plans, is owned by Middleton, that is about eight acres and was created as a tandem lot in 1988. As such, this tract is restricted to one single family dwelling unit unless combined with another tract with adequate access and street frontage. The applicant has proposed to combine this with another tract that does have frontage on Mt. Comfort Road. This tract of land to the west is approximately 8.15 acres, owned by the Dockery's. Based on staff's research, this tract was created prior to 1985 without city approval. The current property owners also own an adjacent parcel of land with 120' of frontage onto Mt. Comfort Road. Based on city ordinances, if two lots with continuous frontage and single ownership, each do not meet the requirements for lot widths and area, lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel. Part one of staff's conditions for this project is that an additional 20' of frontage be gained for this project to be processed as a Large Scale Development. As I mentioned, the applicant is requesting approval for the use of a church in the RSF-4 district, which does require a Conditional Use Permit. The actual design of the structure has not yet occurred, though a conceptual site plan has been submitted for general review. The applicant is proposing a church, as stated in some of their correspondence and their site plan, to serve approximately 600-800 vehicle at full build out. This program calls for an auditorium, administrative offices, educational classrooms and multi-purpose facilities. Also submitted are anticipated hours of operation, which is a seven day Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 19 schedule with evening and morning services as typical of most churches today. Detention is also shown to control storm water runoff from the development and is anticipated. Again, that has not really been designed, it is more for your information as a general area. All parking for this development will be required to be provided on site. The reason I'm going into some more detailed information, is although it is a Conditional Use and we are not actually looking at the development, we do want to ensure for the applicant's benefit that this project could work on the site. As I mentioned, all parking is to be provided on site. As it is currently submitted the amount of use would not be supported by the amount of parking required. Therefore, the amount of use for this particular project will have to be decreased. Access to the site is proposed in two locations on Mt. Comfort Road. Based on the traffic generated from the church two points of ingress and egress that meet city codes are required. These points of access are to be evaluated for site distance, conformance to city specifications, design standards and location at the time of development. Staff is recommending approval of the use of a church in this RSF-4 zoning district. There are a number of findings. I will go over a couple of those for you. As I mentioned, the frontage issue does play a part in this as part of the Large Scale Development there will need to be a minimum 70' of frontage before this project could be processed through our LSD review. Also, offsite street improvements will be necessary on Mt. Comfort Road based on the amount of traffic impact imposed by the use. It is anticipated, depending upon the timing of the development, that staff will recommend typical street improvements to be in the form of an assessment for this development. We are seeing, the street committee currently is working on prioritization of Mt. Comfort Road and Rupple Road as part of our overall comprehensive street improvement plans and you will likely see many projects along Mt. Comfort be recommending assessments, much as we saw the project before so that a comprehensive plan can be put together and done all at the same time. As I mentioned again, off street parking areas, as proposed in the concept plan, do not currently meet the city's minimum requirement and at the time of development staff will be recommending at this time, approval of the church use with the condition that the amount of square feet proposed be adequately served with appropriate parking as determined by city code. Staff does find that the proposed church is compatible with adjacent residential properties and other properties in the district and will serve the surrounding residential properties. Granting this Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest. Surrounding properties are in large part being developed for residential use. The addition of a church in this area will be able to serve and be surrounded by the future population of the surrounding areas. Staff is recommending approval of the requested church use in the RSF-4 zoning district subject to ten conditions of approval. I have gone over some of those. Item number one, Conditional Use approval shall not be construed to guarantee Large Scale Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 20 Development approval. This project, of course, will have to come back through the Large Scale Development process. Item five deals with exterior lighting which is always an issue with non-residential development adjacent to residential development. Staff has placed conditions on that to limit excessively bright or glaring light that would be injurious to pedestrians, vehicles or adjacent property owners. Item number eight, a detailed landscape plan shall be provided at the time of Large Scale Development. Staff finds that this being a non-residential use adjacent to residential uses, a buffer is required a minimum of 12' wide surrounding the development to screen access drives, parking areas, detention areas, buildings, etc. There is more information in your packet as well. With that, I'm open for any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jackson: My name is Gary Jackson, I'm with Hight -Jackson & Associates, the architects that have been engaged by the church. We have seen the comments for the Planning Commission and I have a couple of items that I would like to address. There are probably 20 some church members in the audience tonight indicating perhaps the urgency and why this request is coming to you as it is. We are asking for the Conditional Use Permit as is presented to you, for the eventual relocation of North Street Church of Christ. This relocation will probably most likely occur in phases beginning with a multi use building and then the additional phases to follow. The anticipated relocation will take several years to occur as you might suspect. The size of the auditorium as in your report, and the staff's report, I'm sure was taken from one of those phase colors indicating 34,000 feet in the auditorium. There will not be nearly that much square footage when it comes through Large Scale Development. There are a lot of auxiliary use spaces around that. The auditorium will seat at the initial phase 600 with probably a mezzanine at this time that would be unfinished, that might seat another 200. The maximum seating capacity for this church would be 800 people in it's final finished out stage. That should require in normal church planning guidelines, we have looked at it both from your city ordinances, and we will comply with your city ordinances, the most restrictive, but that should require somewhere between 350 and 500 parking spaces depending on what that actual square footage turns out to be. We anticipate the actual square footage of the auditorium to be no more than 18,000 to 20,000 sq.ft. It could be as low as 14,000 sq.ft. The design has not been done. The other thing that is of course, of concern to the church is the lot that has been purchased depending on your approval of the Conditional Use has a 50' access and we have heard and listened to the city's requirements of 70'. I don't know the owner's position, they are here tonight, somebody will speak to that if you would like to have them do so. Mark Mahaffey is probably the one Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 21 that will address you in that area. Obviously, that does not lend itself for an easy purchase if you are under that kind of requirement going into the negotiations for sale. That concerns us. The third thing that concerns us is the lack of a sign of any kind out on Mt. Comfort Road. We believe that can be handled at a variance hearing at the appropriate time. A small monument sign would be very advantageous for that drive and what we refer to as a flag lot that goes back into the main 16 acres. Other than those concerns we have read the other conditions and will comply with all of those. I will answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Thank you. We will probably have some questions in a minute. We are going to open it up to the public at this point. If anyone who is not part of the presentation would like to speak at this time we will hear your comments. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for questions or comments. Vaught: The drawing that we have in our packet shows two drives and I just want clarification on exactly what we are looking at. I know our maps have one drive and the drawing that we have is two drives. Myres: It is an access easement. Pate: Based on our county assessor maps there is 50' of frontage for the western tract. Vaught: Which is the 48.6'? Pate: Correct. To the east they are showing an access easement to access Mt. Comfort as well. This eastern tract was created with an access easement as a tandem lot to allow a single family development, one single family home on this lot. Again, once combined with another tract of land that does have adequate frontage, that requirement is not necessarily so. At that point we are looking at the minimum 70' of frontage. The applicant does have the option to apply for a variance to the Board of Adjustment. At this point staff is recommending that 70' be located with this property given that there are requirements for screening and buffering from adjacent property owners along this drive as well. Vaught: So you are looking for another 20' in the 50' area? Pate: That is correct. At this time the home owner to the east there, which I believe the applicant mentioned is here, also owns this western tract with the 50' of frontage. For the purposes of development our code requires us to look at these two tracts as tracts in combination. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 22 Ostner: Just as a reminder, this is not a Large Scale Development. We are really talking about usage and how it adapts to it. Trumbo: Staff, have we had any comments from the neighbors? Pate: Our staff did call some of the adjoining neighbors to see if there were any comments, we have not received any. Primarily due to the fact that it was a large use on this property. There was some initial curiosity about what was going on but to my knowledge there has not been any vocal opposition to this project. Anthes: I generally feel like a church is well suited in a residential area. The one question I have though is about condition of approval number five, regarding your lighting for the project. That is the thing that tends to create bad neighbors between large uses and large parking areas and adjacent residences. Can you just tell us a little bit about what we can expect to see? Jackson: Yes. In recent years we have done St. Joseph's Catholic out on Starr Road and we are very familiar with that ordinance and the down light and the over spill. Our proposal here would follow those guidelines. I believe we will have electrical engineers that will be involved with the project and we will be concerned about spillover and see that that is kept to the very bare minimum. I believe we can meet your ordinance based on our experience with the other project, for sure we were able to meet it there. That was a large concern of the neighbors. To my knowledge I have not heard any complaints that we did not comply. Vaught: Staff, condition number ten does not mention anything about a variance being processed. Is a variance available to allow for a small monument sign in the RSF-4? Pate: It is not. Vaught: Basically, there can be no sign except for wall signage? Pate: That is correct. In the RSF-4 district signage is extremely limited and it is essentially a limit of one on site wall sign not to exceed 16 sq.ft. of display surface area that is permitted. Under our current sign ordinance there is not the ability to process a variance through the Board of Sign Appeals or even the Zoning & Development Administrator. Vaught: That is my main concern is the ability for people to find this site being it is flagpole site and you can't put signs by the street. I do feel that it is appropriate for the area but this piece of land is a little difficult. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 23 Ostner: Does this Board have the ability to grant that? Pate: It does not. Jackson: That concerned me obviously and I may need to be informed. There are some monument signs just east that I believe are in the same zoning. One of them happens to be for a church. Vaught: It is set up on the street isn't it? Jackson: Yes, the church does sit there. There is a monument sign in front of that church. Vaught: I believe it is zoned P-1 correct? Pate: That is correct. Vaught: It is not RSF-4 which is a Conditional Use. Pate: That is our institutional zoning district that does allow for additional signage requirements. A church is allowed by right in the P-1 zoning district. Ostner: Which would be an option to ask for completely rezoning this piece of property to P-1. Williams: There is one other option. In the sign ordinance it reads "In districts where signs are not otherwise permitted non-commercial signs are allowed to the same extent as a real estate sign." I think that is where you have a fairly small sign, you could reproduce what you normally see a for sale sign up, we have allowed in our statute for commercial signs not to have any preference over non-commercial signs and of course, a church sign is not commercial. You would be allowed one sign that would be not bigger than a standard real estate sign as stated within the code, which I think is only 8 sq.ft. non -illuminated. Jackson: This would be a private drive, would a street sign be allowed identifying the name of a private drive? Ostner: That is a good question for staff. I'm not sure. Pate: I'm not sure how our 911 Coordinator would address that. Again, this Conditional Use does not limit the signage anymore so than what is currently required by ordinance. I guess if the concern is that with approval of this Conditional Use tonight that it is going to limit anything to a signage by the conditions written here, this is just straight out of our Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 24 Clark: ordinance books as currently shown. There are a couple of exemptions, most of them are non -permanent. They would include bulletin boards like Mr. Williams noted, real estate area type signs, are things permitted in these types of zoning districts as well. Those are typically not your monument type signs however. Why didn't you request rezoning to P-1 where you could have the monument sign? I have no problem with the Conditional Use, I'm prepared to vote for it but it just seems like you are not going to get your monument sign and I don't think you want a sign that looks like the church is for sale sitting out there. A monument sign is definitely what you need so it would seem like a P-1 rezoning would accomplish everything. Jackson: I think in this particular situation time was the determining factor because there is an option that is fixing to expire and the feeling was at the time that going through the rezoning process would be a more timely matter. Anthes: We have looked at P-1 zonings and they haven't always been successful because of the other uses that a P-1 zoning would allow. Jackson: I would not like the signage issue to hang this thing up. We need to move forward. Vaught: I don't think any of us are necessarily opposed to the Conditional Use, it was more let's get the information out there so you understand what you are getting into. MOTION: Trumbo: I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 05-1369. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1369 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 25 ANX 05-1365: (WILKINS, 245): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE ADJACENT NORTH BOUNDARY OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PHASE I. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.00 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 05-1366: (WILKINS, 245): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at EAST OF SALEM ROAD, NORTH OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 10.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Morgan: Our next item is an annexation request, ANX 05-1365. The subject property contains one ten acre parcel. It is located south of Kinwood Hills Subdivision and north of Crystal Springs Subdivision Phase I, which is located in northwest Fayetteville. At this time the property is currently vacant and located within the Planning Area. The applicant does propose annexation of this property into the City of Fayetteville. Currently this site does have access to Salem Road. It does not have access to public water or sanitary sewer however. The location of this property is approximately 2.7 miles from Fire Station #7 with a seven minute response time. As for police findings, they have found that this annexation will not substantially alter the population density. With regard to our findings, staff finds that the annexation of this property staff finds that the annexation of this property will not create an island of unincorporated property and will not exasperate problems created by the extension of peninsulas. The property does not consist nor define subdivisions nor neighborhoods. However, future plans do include residential development of this property. Development regulations within the city will ensure appropriate development of this property. Annexations are automatically zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The property owner has requested rezoning of this property from R -A to RSF- 4, which is the next item on the agenda. With regard to findings for rezoning of this property, staff finds that the proposed RSF-4 zoning for a single family residential use is compatible with adjacent and nearby single family residential land use. The General Plan does designate this area for a residential use and the proposed RSF-4 zoning is compatible with this. There is also sufficient infrastructure as well as Master Street Plan streets located in this area to support density of a RSF-4 neighborhood. The Fayetteville Police Department also finds that the zoning of this property will not result in the appreciable increase in the level of traffic danger and congestion in the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested annexation as well as the rezoning to RSF-4 of this property. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 26 Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Milholland: Melvin Milholland, Milholland Engineering representing the developers of this site and the owner also. I think staff has covered it very well. This is adjacent to the city limits. This is in the growing area, the northwest part of town and it fits the long range planning of the city there. We respectfully request this Commission to approve the annexation and rezoning both. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the audience if anyone would like to speak to the Annexation or Rezoning. Bailey: My name is Jeff Bailey, I live on Gypsum Drive, which is adjacent to this property. I am representing the Home Owners' Association in Crystal Springs and we are in favor of this annexation. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Bailey. Is there anymore public comment? If you could please come to the microphone and give us your name. Orioles: I am the Home Owner's President of Crystal Springs, my name is Kate Orioles, we are in favor of annexation but we would like to maintain a working relationship with the land owner so that we are apprised of everything that is going on. That would be great. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anymore public comment? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We have had a presentation on the annexation and rezoning. We are going to vote on them separate. First up is the annexation. MOTION: Shackelford: I concur with all of staff's comments and am pleased that the property owner's association is also in support of this. I will make a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 05-1365 as stated. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Clark: I have some questions for staff. In the annexation guideline policies it has stated since I began on the Commission that when you annex you cannot create an island or a peninsula yet I'm being told that extending a peninsula is not a bad thing. We are not exasperating anything. That seems like a qualitative argument. If the peninsula is there we keep building on to it, when does it become a problem? Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 27 Pate: Clark: I think it becomes a problem, not to get ahead of myself, but in a situation like in items later tonight when you have a piece of property that is almost entirely surrounded by city property and you are essentially moving through county property to access other parts of the city with emergency service response having problems with those types of situations. We feel because the property to the north is developed as a single family subdivision, the property to the south is developed within the city as a single family subdivision, that this does not create a problem in that regard. So it is just consistency with surrounding developments? I am really struggling with this, I guess I am looking a little further ahead, I'm not struggling so much with this annexation but we have formed an annexation task force that I still haven't seen a report from, do we know when that is coming? Ostner: Not yet. Clark: O'Neal: I am still asking the same questions I was asking before the task force was formed. Another question about this one, I am noticing that there is no sewer or water that will need to be extended when development occurs. Will capacity for those lift stations still be fine given development? Water is adequate in the area. The sewer is just going to be, this development is just north of the main trunk line when it comes through that is going to open up quite a bit of the capacity. Right now in that area I don't believe there is a capacity issue. Clark: That satisfies my questions on this annexation. Pate: I would like to add to that for your information. The Subdivision Committee will be seeing the Wastewater Treatment Plant Large Scale Development at our next Subdivision Committee meeting this Thursday. It is obviously, in process. I wanted to let everyone know as far as the timing goes on that. Anthes: I have a question for staff that pertains to emergency response times and how this piece of property might be served. In looking at this property I'm wondering if it is going to be feasible for us to ask for a connection to Kindrel Drive when it comes through development, would that actually help response times? The reason I'm wondering is if this long sliver doesn't come in and we haven't provided for any connections, there is really only access to Salem Road. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 28 Pate: Just in looking at that, Kindrel Drive is platted as a cul-de-sac there. As part of that lot it would take the property owner here purchasing a part of that property owner's lot to allow a connection to the north. We do anticipate Raven Lane, this applicant has met with the Ward on a number of occasions speaking about projects in this area. Raven Lane, if you look at page 7.10 is a master street plan collector street that would connect north and south in this general area. Anthes: Thank you. Vaught: I would like to make a comment on the annexation taskforce. I believe they have submitted a report to City Council and the ball is in their court. I believe this is an area that they targeted for annexation on the taskforce if I'm not mistaken. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? We have a motion and a second. Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1365 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1366, the tandem item. We have already heard the presentation from staff. Would the applicant like to add anything for the rezoning part of his presentation? Milholland: I'm just here for questions. Ostner: I will open it up to the public again if anyone would like to speak to the rezoning we can hear you now. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: As stated earlier, with the proposed annexation that comes in as R -A, obviously, in my opinion and staff's, RSF-4 is much more in line with the other development in this area so I will go ahead and make a motion that we recommend RZN 05-1366 for RSF-4 on this property. Myres: 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 recommend approval of RZN 05-1366 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 29 ANX 05-1370: (HALL, 644,645,684): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 2577,2216,2844,2822 DEADHORSE MTN. ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 235.38 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Ostner: Our next item is ANX 05-1370 for Hall. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: There were a couple of handouts, one was passed out by the applicant, staff has not had time to review what that is. The other is a graphic that the Planning Commission asked for, hopefully it has most of the information of the request here tonight. The next three items are kind of in concert. We are obviously dealing with each one individually. One is an annexation request and two are rezoning requests. One of which, is part of the land up for annexation and part of which is already zoned R -A to the east. This property is located on several addresses on Dead Horse Mountain Road. The property is currently in the Planning Area and contains 235.38 acres. West of the property is the West Fork of the White River. That basically comprises the annexation boundary to the west. It is southwest of Goff Farm Road. The property is almost completely bordered by property that is already within the city limits based on some rough calculations, approximately 78% to 80% of the property is entirely surrounded by city limits currently. The only exception being the south boundary that is adjacent to the Planning Area about 1,450'. The 235 acres consists of four tracts owned by separate individuals. The attached Exhibit "A" on page 9.18 was prepared by the applicant in an Order signed by Judge Hunton best represents the tracts in question, as well as this graphic, which I did pass out which references each one of these tracts A through M, all of which are under discussion tonight. The property is currently agricultural in nature with several single family homes located. Surrounding property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, with the exception of the property to the west which is zoned I-2, that is the Industrial Park. There is a portion of that Industrial Park area which is zoned R -A as well, that is the Combs Park area. As you are well aware, the subject request for annexation is very unique and has been the point of discussion for staff and the applicant since early 2004. Initially, the applicant approached staff regarding a proposal for a much smaller tract, that which is to be developed in the future. Staff advised the applicant on more than one occasion to approach the remaining land owners within this almost surrounded area in the county in order to bring the entire area into the city limits at one time. This would thereby create a more reasonable city limits boundary in this location. The applicant subsequently did approach many of the land owners with offers to petition and request to annex the property. Several of the land owners have joined this petition to annex. However, unfortunately, all were not willing to do so at this time. As a result, the request to annex the subject property will create two Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 30 islands of country property that are completely surrounded by the Fayetteville City Limits. I have identified these two islands as the west island and the east island. The west island is a remnant tract of property who's ownership, unless Mr. Milholland has new information, ownership is relatively unknown. The last origination goes back to a patent issued by President Martin Van Buren in 1838 and future assigns or heirs we have not been able to locate at this time. That is the portion of property located here, most of which is in the floodway of the West Fork of the White River. The east island is made up of nine separate parcels, most of which are occupied and lived upon. Several of the owners of these parcels were willing to join the petition, however, based on state law I believe Judge Hunton ruled that several of these could not join this particular petition. It is within this island that at least two property owners were approached and who would not join the petition. It is staff's intent to follow through with the city's adopted policy of annexing islands in this process, much as all of the other islands were annexed into the city this past summer. Staff does not intend to establish a pattern of recommendations to annex islands as stated in the adopted Annexation Policy. However, the subject request does present a unique situation that we find pertinent and real in relationship to the findings within the staff report. With regard to those annexation guiding policies by which we recommend or do not recommend annexation requests, staff finds that, of course, as I mentioned, the requested annexation will create two islands of unincorporated property. The property is almost completely surrounded by city limits. Public service providers and emergency personnel are currently required to access portions of the city by traveling through the county in this area, much as was the case with several of the islands that were in the city previously. As I mentioned, not all property owners were willing to annex voluntarily at this time. Though the applicant did prepare surveys for all of the parcels in question and approached the land owners on multiple occasions. The proposed annexation area is adjacent to the city limits along the north, south, east and west boundaries. The request does not extend the city limit boundary any further south than the current limits already do reach. This area does not divide neighborhoods. The property follows the river to the west and incorporates primarily agricultural and undeveloped land. Current conditions result in a response time of approximately seven minutes for fire protection from the existing Fire Station #5 and the future potential Fire Station #3 on Huntsville Road. The property does have access to water along Dead Horse Mountain Road. It does not have access to sewer at this time. Sewer would need to be extended to serve the development on this property if it is within the city limits annexed. Obviously, floodplain and floodway are associated with the West Fork of the White River located along the western boundary of this property. This environmentally sensitive area would be best protected by city's ordinances in staffs opinion, which is only required if this property is annexed. Development may not occur in the floodway. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 31 Therefore, it is our finding that the maximum potential development could not occur on this property were it to be rezoned all RSF-4 for instance. Staff is recommending this annexation request. At the time that the owner desires to subdivide the property there will be obviously, submittals required for review for proposed subdivisions. This would include assessments potentially for the current bridge on Dead Horse Mountain Road that is in disrepair and a proportionate assessment would be made of this developer. An assessment area has been identified and maps have been created and located within the Planning Division identifying areas potentially, like we saw earlier this evening, Rupple Road bridges for potential impact to that area. The access to this property is either to the north through Dead Horse Mountain Road that accesses directly to Hwy. 16 or to the south as we traveled on the agenda tour last Thursday, you could go south out into the county and then back into the city through the industrial park area. Adjoining neighbors have been identified of the annexation request on many different occasions including legal ads and display ads submitted with local newspapers prior to Planning Commission. Staff's finding is that the annexation of this property ultimately will create a much more acceptable boundary for the City of Fayetteville allowing for an area almost completely surrounded by incorporated city limits to become part of the city. Again, the request does not extend the city limit boundary further south than the current limits already do reach. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. At this point, would the applicant like to make a presentation? If you could please introduce yourself. Milholland: I am Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the applicant. As Jeremy stated and provided plenty of documents, we have been working on this project, city staff and my clients and several people with the neighbors, for about nine or ten months since we started. We tried to have the best advice we could get to make this properly for everyone. He stated that my client spent 2 1/2 to 3 'h months working with the people in the neighborhood to make this annexation a uniform one. We also talked to Kit Williams, the City Attorney, several times on some of the issues that are listed in your report. We feel like this is a great addition to the City of Fayetteville. It actually lays just to the west of Stone Bridge Golf Course. It is a good area for a neighborhood to develop and people to live close to town. It is a major highway, it is a beautiful site. We respectfully request that you annex this in and rezone it. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Milholland. At this point I would like to open it up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please come forward, introduce yourself. We try to get people to sign in. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 32 Smith: My name is Tim Smith, this is my wife Elizabeth Smith. Just for a matter of record, she was only contacted one time in regard to the annexation. There is a great concern, our property is a part of this whole area and she has only been talked to once. We live at 2640, it would be northeast of the property right there at the curve as Dead Horse curves. This has not been an on going conversation with the people in the actual area. Her concern is the property she is on because she is not in favor of annexation. Smith, E.: My name is Elizabeth Smith, I'm a property owner at 2640 Dead Horse Mountain Road across from the area that they plan to subdivide. My concern is the traffic and the noise in the area, what it is going to do to that and what is going to happen to those of us that will be an island and not annexed in. Ostner: Thank you. We will try to address those comments. Is there any further public comment? Baltz: My name is Carol Baltz, we are in the island. Probably the reason we are in the island is we couldn't get any answers. You have asked more questions here tonight and got answers to them than we did. We asked what are you going to build on the property, how are you going to handle the traffic, if you go out there between 6:00 and 8:30 in the morning you can't get on the beautiful Huntsville Road from Dead Horse Mountain Road or Stonebridge Road. It needs a stop light there more than we need to be annexed in. I dearly love Jeannie Hall and I understand what she is doing. We are neither for nor against but we would like to have some questions answered. We were called and we were tried to be intimidated. We asked questions and got answers like "We don't know." We want answers just like you want answers. I'm neither for nor against. I don't want to be an island. I would like to have sewage. I asked will we get some services? They said "I don't know." When you can tell me then it is ok but we just asked questions that we got no answers to and just like the lady behind me, we were more cohered than we were talked to and tried to be encouraged and shown the good and the bad. I would like to be in the city, I would like to be a part of you because I would like to make some decisions. Thank you. Rogers-Verser: I'm Deborah Rogers-Verser and I don't think anyone has been in the valley longer than me except for the Halls. I am not opposed to Jeannie selling her land. I'm not opposed to that part of the valley being annexed into the city. What I'm opposed to is that there are others of us in that area, and I haven't been talked to either. I am south and east of Jeannie Hall and I am bordering Dash -Goff. I have on the north side of me the golf course inching in closer and closer and now I have 10 or 15 acres on the corner south of the Halls that may be on the next agenda, it is between the two "S" curves. Our concern is after 50 years you are looking Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 33 Hall: across this beautiful valley and it is no more. My concern is that the farm across from us, the Oliver's farm, they are unable to physically get here because he can't go without a walker and his wife is not in real good health. Their daughter is here but they are the property owners. We don't want to be in the city. We want to stay in the country. We want to stay in the county. We have a lot of land, we have a lot of taxes and we would have a great tax increase if we were annexed into the city. That is not on the agenda tonight but the concern is that it might be soon. My concern also is that when people come before you and say they have talked to the neighbors, I feel misrepresented, because no one has come to us and asked us how we felt about it except the Halls. That has nothing to do with us if she wants to sell her land. That is fine, I understand that. If they want to annex that land into the city that is fine, that doesn't concern me. What does concern me is that we are being pushed and pushed and pushed. My eighty acres that sits on the little rocky hill across from the 100+ acres that belongs to the Olivers is gradually being threatened. We are concerned at what point do we have a say so anymore. We don't want to be annexed into the city. That's my concern. Hello, my name is Jerry Hall. I have lived on the farm there for 48 years. To me this is just another example of excellent agricultural land being lost to urban sprawl. In more progressive cities such as Portland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado, there are urban growth boundaries with some sort of limits to the sprawl. Developers have more incentive to infill and revitalize on the interior of the city. This need has been addressed recently by the Downtown Master Plan, which I was involved with a little bit. With no limits to Large Scale Developments in rural areas resources are constantly being sucked into new growth areas trying to build new infrastructure to catch up with the sprawl. Problems with Large Scale Development at Dead Horse Meadows is the access, there are a number of problems, the north slope of Dead Horse Mountain is steep and that is the main access to Hwy. 16 East. When it snows or ices it is very treacherous. Two of my kids totaled their cars on that slope last winter. The bridge, which has already been mentioned, needs to be rebuilt. All of the road there has no shoulders and people are constantly sliding off into the ditches and sometimes miss the bridge all together and go into the river. I've driven by there and seen the back end of a car sticking up out of the river. The alternate accesses are through two residential neighborhoods so if anything is ever done to that road or that bridge everybody is going to be driving through River Meadows and Roberts Road. The other way through the industrial park is about a three mile detour. Already at Hwy. 16 East there is a major bottle neck with the intersection. Actually, people back up there for about a mile every morning. I have to take kids to school every morning and the only way I get on the highway is somebody lets me into the line. It backs up for people trying to get into that intersection on Hwy. 265 and it jams up from on past where I get on at Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 34 Stone Bridge Road all the way to Hwy. 71B. I see more subdivisions being built all the time out in that area that aren't finished yet. If this all goes through and there is a Large Scale Development on our farm then that is going to be more traffic to be dealt with. Along with the agricultural land that will be lost to development there. There are a lot of wetland areas and wildlife areas. There is a herd of deer, there is a beaver colony, ducks, geese, lots of different kinds of fish. There is a swamp area on the farm that has spring peepers, like so many, you can hear them from about a half mile away in the spring and summer time. I am assuming all of this is to be filled in and covered over, obliterated, for a subdivision. There are three springs on the farm and many seep spring areas along a spring line that parallels the river. There is also issues about this area has a lot of archaeological significance. We find artifacts in our gardens and things that I have dated back to 5000 b.c., grinding stones, hoes, stone tools. In more historic times, there was a main road that crossed there in the times before there was any bridges. You can still see where it went down by the river. My great grandmother told me there was a boarding house down there. Nobody has ever checked into these things or it has never been brought to the attention of any agencies. The history of the area must be recorded and the historic sites mapped before any changes are authorized. The wetlands must be delineated and plans for it's protection must be made before anything is built. My daughter made a point, there is already a River Meadows and not all of the houses are even sold. People pollute the river thinking it is their dumpster and it won't have the beautiful color of water that it has now. All of the people will fish in the pond and all of the fish will be gone. I put some pictures on a website, can I pass out the web address for the website? Ostner: Sure. Is there further public comment? Hall: Thank you Jerry Gene. I'm Jeannie Hall, I own the large portion of the land that we are talking about tonight. My family, of course, at least a part of them, as well as myself, are concerned and feel sad and what have you as far as moving ahead into the future but I am for annexation into the city. Ostner: Are you part of the petitioner tonight? This is your property? Hall: This property, the main part of it is mine, yes. Ostner: Ok, if you could just hold on. We are trying to hear from people who aren't petitioners. Hall: Who oppose? Ostner: They might not. Just not you. We will get to you. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 35 Hall: I'm for it. Ostner: I promise we will get right to you if you will just hold on. You are going to have the floor in a minute. If anyone else from the public would like to speak. Erf: Good evening, my name is Jeff Erf, I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road. I just wanted to make a couple of points. I frequently ride my bicycle in that valley on Dead Horse Mountain Road and so I have some attachment to it. It is sad to me to see that whole area begin to be developed because it is a nice rural character and the city is losing that at a great pace. That is too bad. Riding my bicycle, I notice that before and after the bridge there is a sign that says Road Closed when Under Water. I don't know if you are aware of it or not. Jeremy Pate mentioned something earlier about the bridge. There have been some issues previously with that bridge and with the road. This may not be the appropriate time to bring it up but I would strongly encourage you all, I guess maybe it is going to be at the Subdivision Committee level, or a Preliminary Plat I guess comes before you, cost sharing make sure that you put aside some money from the developer to pay for improvements to that bridge and road if necessary. Just one statement that Police Department had some comments on the project. This annexation will increase our response time to calls for service because this property is on the outer fringe of our current service area. I think that is a nice way of calling the project sprawl. We do recommend that the road system be improved on Dead Horse Mountain Road to accommodate the increased traffic and emergency response. That is an issue. The city, I think, a lot of times ends up subsidizing a lot of this kind of development on the outskirts of town and it would be nice to make the developers pay for some of it. I have a little bit of concern about the islands that are being created, although they may or may not be significant. Last July or June the City Council may have had some public hearings and they annexed a bunch of islands at that time. I am not sure how this all fits in with the annexation task force but it would be nice to see a review of how it compares to the report. I guess City Council has it. I guess that is all that I have to say. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Erf. Smith: Tim Smith again, I wanted to make very clear that I have no issue with the private property owner's rights, that individual's rights to sell that property. Our main concern is annexation into the city. If she wants to sell as a county property and subdivide it and so on and so forth, that is fine. We are very concerned about county property. What she wants to do with her land, that is her private property, that is her business. Thank you. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 36 Leach: Robert Leach, I live directly across from 2577, my mother owns the property. We are against the annexation. Her right is her right and everything that Jerry Hall said about the bridge that has been under water three times in three and a half years. The roads, heavy equipment will not work. It does take 15 minutes to get out on the highway, that is only if somebody lets you out. That is between 6:00 in the morning and 8:30 in the morning, and I have even been stuck for 15 minutes during church time. We are against it. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Leach. Is there any further public comment? At this point I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. If the applicant would like to speak you are free to now. Thank you for waiting. Hall: Thank you very much. As I was saying a while ago, the main part of this property belongs to me as far as the Hall's property. I understand my son's concerns. Mine are likewise. But I also feel like it would be nice to see Southeast Fayetteville enhanced, developed, a lot of things to be done there, and this could be an opening for that as far as this particular area. I know there would be traffic problems as we have everywhere nearly within this city. I also know that the bridge will have to be at some time or other dealt with. I feel like that also is something that will fall into place. As far as I'm concerned, I'm for annexation and I am asking that you consider it very seriously. Thank you very much. Milholland: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I heard some statements of concern from several and I would like to say a couple of things. Number one, there is not anyone in the annexation route that we were dealing with that had 80 acres. I don't know where that 80 acres is unless it is on down south of this property. We didn't try to contact them. It wasn't planned to do that. The only ones that we were trying to plan to contact were the ones that were immediately across the street from Ms. Hall's property. I think there are about eight or nine tracts in there or something like that. We are very familiar, my client and I and the applicant, are very familiar with the things that were brought up. Sewer and water extension or improvements, is always something that you have to contend with at the Preliminary Plat stage and design stage. We understand that. We have already addressed it. From our standpoint as engineers we know we can handle that. We have talked to the city on some of that. Also, we always, usually every time you have a Preliminary Plat come through that is not a Preliminary Plat we have to address the issues of traffic and we feel that the expansion and infrastructure and so forth. In the case of this bridge, we understand that it is there and we understand that we will be addressing it during the Preliminary Plat review. The one thing about it as far as access onto Hwy. 16, it is just like Hwy. 62 was towards Farmington at one time. Hwy. 16 West, which at one time was much worse and Hwy. 265 going north. But Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 37 Allen: Pate: if you don't have a demand money will not be spent nor appropriated for such improvements. This should be a plus as far as some assistance at some time in the near future to help that bridge be improved. I hope the neighborhood understands that. It has been sitting there for a long time with nothing done to it, even with the golf course there. This should help bring about a thought process on how to handle that situation. I appreciate your time. Thank you. I had a question of staff. Since this annexation would create islands and the policy of the City of Fayetteville is not to create islands. I wish you could explain, I guess I'm just not clear on what set of circumstances makes this situation unique enough to go against our own policy. Page 9.9 in your staff report includes items 11.6(a) through (t) which are all annexation guiding policies. We take all of these into consideration and make findings based on all of those guiding policies that are set forth in our General Plan 2020. The General Plan 2020 will be revised this year. It is time to update that and we anticipate some of these policies probably will change based on what we have seen and heard from both the Planning Commission and the City Council in the last few years. In which direction, I'm not sure what that will go if we will get more details with regard to what policies we look for. This is what staff works off of in looking at any annexation request. As you mentioned, Item A, annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or a peninsula. As you know, staff put a whole bunch of work and time into getting rid of all of the islands that the city has created in past decisions. Mr. Williams, I don't if you remember, I believe there were thirteen islands that were annexed this last year as part of that request. Williams: There were four separate ordinances and many, many separate parcels as you remember. Pate: That is not a situation that we would ever like to get into again. That was over a long period of time. As I mentioned, our first reaction was to the applicant, No. Go back to all of the other property owners that are within this area and contact them and try to get them into the annexation request as well. We find that fulfilling that goal of annexing this overall 80% surrounded by city property is within the best interest of the city. Again, the city does travel outside of the city limits to access other properties that are within the city limits, much like the islands. One of which is under consideration tonight, the R -A piece. The property directly adjacent to this is developing as you know with the Preliminary Plats that you have seen with the Stone Bridge Meadows Golf Course. The golf course is very near to this area. The west island is something that property ownership is very difficult to determine at this time and by law, this applicant could not Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 38 Allen: Pate: request for that to even be annexed. The eastern ones are trickier, as I mentioned at agenda session. There are individual property owners, we know those property owners. It was unfortunate to hear that at least one of the applicants had only been contacted once, that was unfortunate to hear tonight, but I know that this applicant has been working, has come back to us on several different occasions, provided us with surveys of those properties and petitions to annex for each one of these to attempt to get them all into the City of Fayetteville. We feel that this area should be within the City of Fayetteville limits. Again, it does not extend those limits any further south than the City of Fayetteville limits already go and Ms. Allen, I entirely agree, it is not a situation that we will set a precedent. Staff's recommendation will not be to create islands like this in the future. I think that there has been significant effort however, on the part of this property owner and other property owners, at least two others that we are aware of, to not create that island and we find at this time that circumstances are unique and that we are willing to support that. I guess I wonder if significant effort means that that exception should be made. Just because the significant effort was made. I still am not real clear, I'm sorry to be slow about this, but I'm not clear why this is an exception, why it is alright to make an island here and not there. In most cases when staff is approached with a request that would create an island we have the same exact response. You need to incorporate that other property that is between you and the city for instance. In most cases those are successful. In all cases actually, that I've dealt with, we've been successful. This is the first island in the two years that I've been here that I'm aware that the city bas created. I am not sure how long before that that there was another. Again, we go off of these policies as a guide book. I don't think any one of these is the essential most important one. It is obviously stressed because they do create areas and pockets that you would pass through. City services could not respond to that area. County services potentially would and there is that question. That is why our intent is to follow this up with a request to go to the City Council for these islands to be annexed subsequent to this property should it be annexed by the City Council. Allen: Thank you Jeremy. I will relinquish the floor to other people who have questions. Clark: Why wasn't this annexed with the islands? It has city on three sides. Pate: The 1,500 feet is the factor that would not allow it to be annexed with the islands. It technically has to be completely surrounded to become an island. That is staff's findings, this very much functions like an island, it Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 39 just has 1,500 feet or so between the river and the property that is not within the city limits and therefore, would not qualify for that island. Clark: How many families are we talking about who do not want to be annexed into the city? Pate: I believe the applicant would be better versed in answering that question. Milholland: I think including Ms. Hall there was nine. The others across, you should have a map with those, one of them that wanted to come in could not come in because the state law requires you to be adjacent to the existing city limits to be annexed in. After this goes through we will go back and bring them in. I understand that there is another owner that has said that they would like to come in also so there is thirteen and some of those parcels are owned by the same person. My client could probably tell you more about it. H and I are owned by the same person and J and K are by the same person. That is where some of that is at. I know that we did a petition, researched all of the title documents along with Mr. McDonald and another firm that made efforts to cover and talk to each one of these folks. A lot of them signed the petition. We did a petition first at the recommendation of the city to try to get others to come in. We weren't really trying to bring in all of Ms. Hall's property in. We were just going to bring in the part that he wanted to develop, which would have left rural land all the way around the property we are developing, it would not have left the islands technically. Staff recommended that we try to talk to these folks and see how many would come in since it is kind of a bottle neck that everybody is in. That is what we did and spent several months trying that. Those that were not contacted, there was definitely an effort made to contact them. I know that personally. Mr. McDonald is here and Ms. Hall and I'm sure that they can speak to the same. I am sorry that the other gentleman is not here that worked on this. I hope that answered your question. There was a lot of effort that went into it. Nobody had 80 acres that we contacted, so they must be on down south because they weren't part of this unique where it is a bottle neck there that they are boxed in. Vaught: When I look at this there are a few things. First, these are guiding policies they are not ordinances and I think we have to look at them in total not one specific item to kill the annexation. One of the main things to me is the fact that we are not extending the line south and are kind of flattening the line off for the city. I think that is something important. The city is already servicing small sections south and parallel with this property, the other, which goes to a number of concerns that we have heard over environmental concerns. Currently the land is in the county and a number of these areas with these unique features, I feel that that would be better served for that to be in the city. That is in the staff report as well. We have much more stringent guidelines, grading ordinances and rules on Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 40 Pate: where you can build and where you can't build because there is a lot more review process. I do think that that would aid in protecting some of those areas that are sensitive. Of course I have concerns about Dead Horse Mountain Road and those are all things that we will look at down the line with the subdivision. Not just adjacent to this property but on north of this property with the bridge and also the Hwy. 16 intersection, which are all items that we will address in the future. If I may respond to at least a couple of concerns that I wrote down. Mr. Vaught is correct, if this were developed, and we anticipate it would be whether it was in the city or not, it would be by septic along side this river. We would be looking at either a treatment package type plant or an individual septic system type of system. That is a big concern both environmentally and with regard to development should this in the future in ten years or fifteen years become a part of the city as annexed then there is the problem with, as we have seen in the past, properties that are on septic systems that are directly adjacent to sewer systems. Floodway and environmentally sensitive lands to the west, part of that developed property could not be developed because it is within the floodway of the river there. Then the areas that are within the floodplain are best regulated, or at least our ordinances are enforced within the city, through the city's ordinances. Outside in the county we have very little with regard to regulations for that area. As Mr. Erf mentioned, staff feels it is very important for the applicant to know that assessments and/or road improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road and the bridge there will be forthcoming with any development on this subject property. To go back to something Mr. Milholland spoke to, with regard to the original application. There was originally, not a formal application, but the applicant did approach staff with a parcel of land that is not located within any of the legal descriptions here now that would not create islands. It would essentially be a portion of the omitted of this overall area that would not create any of the islands that we have been speaking of that I'm aware of tonight. We felt that getting more of this property within the city limits and not having this part of Section 26, just leaving that out because it is not developable, that would be a situation where if it weren't an island and it is never going to be developed, it is not likely going to come within the city limits. We felt it was more important to have those lands annexed whether they are going to be developed or not. That is part of impotence Ms. Allen was speaking of. When we came about with the original request we felt it was more important to get to a place where staff was more comfortable recommending this application as opposed to creating a legal description that would be developed but that would really not solve any problems that we have in this area. Graves: I would add that this was also an area that the annexation task force looked at and requested be annexed into the city in their report. For a number of Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 41 reasons, because it is an area that is being developed and because it is in the general vicinity of where the new treatment plant will be and for the reason that Mr. Pate already stated, that we have emergency services that are crossing out of the city into the county and back into the city in order to service this area already and we are providing services in that area. For that reason, this is an area that we felt should be annexed. Shackelford: I am going to concur with what Commissioner Graves and Commissioner Vaught have said. I too served on the annexation subcommittee and this is an area that we looked at. Quite honestly, this was just a technicality away in my opinion from being included in what the City Council did last year. I think that it makes a lot of sense given the expansion. There is no expansion of the city limits outside of where the boundaries already are and the fact that this property is already 80% surrounded by city limits for this annexation to go through. I understand the concerns and complaints. This is the same type of growth pains that we have had on Hwy. 265, Hwy. 45, Hwy. 16 and all of the other directions that the city has grown. A lot of that growth has been in the six years that I've been on this Commission. I can say for sure, that this development although it seems difficult at this time, will lead to infrastructure improvement that needs to happen in this location. A prime example is there was very little road to Rupple Road and Salem Road and those areas when I started on this Commission but obviously, we are all pretty proud of the development that has happened in that area out there to this point. With all of that being said, with the fact that staff I feel has made their point, I understand the concerns about the overall guidelines and not creating islands, the island to the west is somewhat of a technicality. The island to the east is a concern but this property in my opinion is going to develop. As somebody who has built and lived in these boundary areas on basically all sides of these growth areas, I concur that the development options for this property to develop within the city limits are much nicer than the options for county development given the environmental concerns of the property, given the location of the property. There were many areas, just in the boundary areas, that we have seen development on county property that has enraged local home owners for development that wouldn't be allowed there if it was within the city limits. I think it makes a lot of sense. I quite honestly, would have liked to have seen this peninsula addressed a year ago but I understand why it wasn't and think we have an opportunity to do so now. I am going to go ahead and put on the floor a motion that we recommend approval of ANX 05-1370 based on all of staff's comments. Vaught: Pate: I will second. I have one question. This graphic that was just handed to us, tract M is included in the annexation, is that correct? It is on our maps. That is correct. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 42 Anthes: I was trying to reconcile the graphics on page 9.31 of our staff report with the graphics that we were handed. I just wanted to be clear that we are looking at tracts A, C, D, and M for annexation and we are omitting B and E through L, that is the island, is that true? Pate: That is correct. Officially on page 9.18 is the map that is referenced by the Order from Judge Hunton which includes A, C, D and M and excludes all others that are lettered there. Anthes: A second question is that we do have a direction within our General Plan 2020 to annex environmentally sensitive areas. I'm looking at the map 9.30 that indicates floodplain, floodway and river. That seems to be, the portion of land that is shaded as Section 26, is that true? Pate: If you reference page 9.30, these maps we don't have digitally unfortunately. We don't have that detailed survey information. This is a map that has been superimposed on our parcel maps here. The river there is noted as a floodway, which is part of Parcel 26 in the floodplain of course. Probably the following item number, that is the best way to reference that. The subject property on page 10.15 shows the same map with a little bit different delineation showing the next request, which is a rezoning of the property. Essentially, west of that line would be floodway, some floodplain and the river. Anthes: I guess my question is, and I might be getting ahead into the rezoning portion of this request, but they are sort of together in my mind. It looks like they are requesting annexation in Section 26 and 25 but only the rezoning to RSF-4 in Section 25. Pate: That is correct. Anthes: Because a substantial amount of this property is in floodway, which is undevelopable, and floodplain which is environmentally sensitive. I am wondering if Tract A was drawn in such a way that it doesn't take into account the characteristics of the entire property and as a convenient way to get higher density in that area and not deal with the sensitivity of the other piece of the property. To me it looks like this is one parcel. I am confused. If we were looking at 25 and 26, which I guess is A and M and we were looking at development rights on that property and we are looking at rezoning, a large portion of that property would be unable to be developed to an RSF-4 so we would maybe be looking at a different zoning designation that would be appropriate for this entire piece of property. When I am looking at just looking at A as if it is somehow not part of it then we are allowing a higher amount of density to be built on that. I don't understand how that split is occurring because I don't believe that split occurs in the land. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 43 Pate: I think you are entirely right. The rezoning request is based on a legal description as defined in likely a deed that follows the section lines. The overall annexation request, should this entire 235 acres be under request for rezoning as well, would obviously, with RSF-4 yield many more units although if you take out the floodplain and floodway, it would probably reduce some of those units. The request right now is to leave that Section 26 as R -A, Section M as R -A and only Tract A be rezoned to RSF-4 so that would be the only potential really for that type of development. If we are looking at a subdivision we would only look at the legal description that has been created there. Density numbers will be on the Section A that is within Section 25 as opposed to the entire 235 acres. Is that where you are going? I'm not sure if I answered your question. Anthes: It does. It also makes me question the rezoning request and that's because I'm looking at development pressure and compatibility with surrounding uses and that sliver of A being a much higher density than the adjoining parcel seems to be problematic to me. While I agree that we, as a city, would like to check development in the environmentally sensitive area and that we do have sort of a strange boundary to our city limits, therefore, I'm inclined to support the annexation. I'm having a real problem with the rezoning request to that density. Vaught: On R-2, what's the minimum lot size? We have RSF-4 and then RSF-2. Pate: RSF-2 requires a 100' lot width minimum, 21,780 sq.ft. of lot area minimum. Vaught: It requires basically, just under half acre lots? Pate: That is correct. Vaught: Typically when you calculate zoning, even though it is at a lower zoning, you could do the whole site as RSF-2 with a lower density. We have honestly never seen a proposal come through with anything other than RSF-4, that is why I was asking. Typically you could still load all of your density on 'h of your project. Density is calculated for the whole site though. Ostner: It is the lot size. Vaught: We have never seen that. Clark: What we are making is just a recommendation to the Council so this is going to the Council regardless. I am troubled by this annexation. Although, on one hand I see the benefits of bringing land into the city to Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 44 be rezoned and follow city zoning as it is developed as being a good thing, I am troubled by the face that we are violating our own guidelines. Yes, I know they are only guidelines but since April I've been told we do not want islands, we do not want peninsulas. As a matter of fact, we just took care of all of the islands with a great assurance we wouldn't face this issue again. Now we are creating this issue and I realize that the word unique is a very interesting word and it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I am going to vote against this annexation for the simple reason that I want the City Council to make a policy. I want them to make a choice. If they decide to do it that is great. It is their policy making prerogative and that is their duty. I feel like if I vote for this annexation I am violating a policy that says you don't create islands and you don't create peninsulas, although exasperating peninsulas is a fine thing. I don't understand that either. I will be voting against this annexation and I hope that the Council will at least discuss the policies of the guidelines and when we are redoing the 2020 Plan, maybe you could give us more clear guidelines to lead us as we face the annexation. I also would encourage the Council to look at the annexation task force report and make some recommendations on it. If we are going to annex to our boundaries great, we know that and we can proceed accordingly. I don't know that that is a good thing or if that is a bad thing, we haven't discussed it, but I think that it is time that we do and get some clear cut leadership and guidance. For that reason, I'm going to respectfully vote against this annexation simply because I think it violates our procedures and I'm not buying into the use of the word "unique" on this one. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Graves: I would just add that with respect to the guidelines the reason that those are not ordinances and are guidelines, is to be flexible. That has been stated time and again in these discussions about annexation. I would also point out that if you review each of these guiding policies I believe every one of them are met with the exception of A. With respect to A, it says that we are to annex existing peninsulas, which is what this is. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Graves. Myres: I call the question. Ostner: I will second. Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1370 was approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Allen and Clark voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 45 Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 46 RZN 05-1371: (HALL, 645,684): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 2577 DEAD HORSE MTN. ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 125.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1371, the tandem request. Pate: As I mentioned, this request is in tandem with the annexation request. It contains approximately 125.5 acres of the preceding annexation request. It is probably best visualized on page 10.16 and the maps that staff has created for you. It is a rectangular piece that fronts onto Dead Horse Mountain Road currently. The property to the north is zoned R -A and to the east is also R -A as well as properties within the county. Zoning districts within this one mile radius, one mile from this property, include I- 2, the industrial park, R -A and RSF-4 as well as land in the planning area to the south. The property is currently agricultural in nature as I mentioned with a few existing single family homes. Nearby development, just to the northeast and east include the Stone Bridge Meadows subdivision and golf course and the city's industrial park across the river to the west. The applicant, staff anticipates, intends to develop this property for single family residential use. The applicant, therefore, is requesting that the property be rezoned from R -A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre as noted. The RSF-4 allows for a range of residential density from zero to four units per acre and a development pattern that is compatible with much of the residential development within the City of Fayetteville. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. We feel that future changes or additional development on this site will be best regulated by the city allowing for a uniform and consistent development pattern. As I mentioned, currently the site does have access to Dead Horse Mountain Road, which is a minor arterial. That street will need to be improved with any future development. Additionally, development on the subject property has a high likelihood of accessing the substandard bridge on Dead Horse Mountain Road north of the property as it's primary means of access towards the center of the city. While staff recognizes that there is another means of access into the city, this is likely the primary means to get there. Specific street improvements and other offsite improvements will be evaluated based on the development proposed and the ordinance requirements. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not substantially alter population density and thereby, undesirably increase the load on police services. Actual travel time, again, does not increase beyond which is already served. Basically, this is due to the fact that city property already exists in this area and there are developments in the ground or being constructed in this area. The response time is approximately seven minutes to this property from Fire Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 47 Station #5 and potentially the future Fire Station #3. Staff finds that the zoning for RSF-4 is compatible with adjacent and nearby single family residential use. However, the R -A obviously, that is not developed currently, would essentially be incompatible were it to never be developed. Staff feels that this land is under pressure for development and is developing at a rapid place as the Planning Commission sees routinely with subdivision developments. Development at this density adequately supports and is served by extended city infrastructure at the cost of the developer. As we mentioned, and as some of the public comments before noted, sewer, water line, street improvements and bridge assessments, that is the responsibility and cost of the developer should future development occur on this property. The proposed zoning is justified in order to promote orderly and consistent development patterns making use of existing infrastructure as well as that infrastructure that is extended. The same water lines and the same sewer lines, the same size of lines would support four units per acre or two units per acre, or seven units per acre every one is supported essentially by the same type of development and infrastructure improvements in that area. Obviously, street improvements and bridge assessments, things of that nature, are based upon the actual development proposed and the number of traffic generated. Traffic will, of course, increase on all adjacent streets in this area, as we are seeing with development. Dead Horse Mountain Road is a primary means of access into the city either north to Huntsville or south to Black Oak Road and Armstrong Avenue. I too, ride my bicycle quite a bit in this area, I was out there on Sunday and I will likely miss the agricultural nature of it as well. However, in staff's findings we found that this property is developing and it should with a consistent pattern that we see with the surrounding areas. Currently the streets are improved with paved roadways and shoulders to county standards. The Fayetteville Police Department does find that rezoning this property will not result in an appreciable increase in the level of traffic danger and congestion. However, they do recommend street improvements, which again, is what staff would likely recommend with any development on this property. With those findings, staff is available for any questions. Ostner: Milholland: Ostner: If the applicant would introduce yourself and tell us about this project. Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering. We concur with the staff report and feel that this property is situated in such an area that it would make a nice residential neighborhood. All of the things that were in the report we concur with and respectfully request that the Commission forward this to the City Council tonight. Thank you Mr. Milholland. At this point I am going to open it up to the public again. If anyone would like to speak to this rezoning request please Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 48 Anthes: Vaught: Shackelford: Anthes: Shackelford: Milholland: Shackelford: share your comments now. Seeing none, I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. As I am looking at orderly and consistent development patterns I'm looking at a situation where we have park property, we have a river, we have adjacent floodway and floodplain, which are obviously, going to stay in a more rural pattern. We have the county that is a rural pattern. We have developed properties, the island properties, that are a rural development pattern. When I look at orderly and consistency I see where is the transition zone between the rural transect if you will, and the higher density developments that are happening around the golf course. To me I find that the transition zone occurs on this property. Therefore, it looks to me like an RSF-4 zoning is too high. I also think that it was convenient to leave out the western part of the property so that that would not be factored into the calculations and give us an effective RSF-2 zoning, as Commissioner Vaught pointed out, an RSF-2 zoning over the property by leaving that out. Therefore, I think that I'm content to leave it R -A or look at a lower zoning but I will not support an RSF-4 in this area. In response to that, if the whole site was RSF-4 they could actually go a little greater than RSF-4 on this piece if they were rezoning it all. What I was thinking that if you did RSF-2 across the whole site they could've tried to load all of their density on one side, which I feel would be more dishonest than including just the part that they want to develop. An 8,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size in RSF-4 you could fit more than four lots on an acre. I would also like to point out that I disagree with the statement about conveniently leaving out the other part. This property is actually split on a county section line, which is probably the most logical split of a property legal description that we've seen. I think that probably this goes back for many years and that there hasn't been, I don't think, surveyed out with this property different. It goes back to the original legal description that is on the section line. I think that is an unfair statement to say they conveniently left out part. I think it is a different legal description. I thought I saw a hand drawn line that is not in line with the property line. I could be mistaken. Let's ask the applicant. The section that is rezoning the western boundary, is that the section line? If I understand your question, is the request for rezoning the west boundary, is it the section line? Yes it is. Thank you. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 49 Anthes: I was reading the map on page 10.15 a little incorrectly then because I was looking at that hand drawn line and then the parallel line to the east of it and was reading that as the section line. I appreciate you pointing that out. I still think that section lines though are hard lines drawn by people in landscape and that they don't necessarily reflect what's happening in the ground and in the topography. To line up a row of houses along that hard edge and not provide the transition to the more rural area does not seem to me like an orderly and consistent development. Thanks. Ostner: I would tend to agree that if the western boundary were different and acknowledged the floodplain, which is pretty well noted, if you drive out there it is pretty clear where the edge is and all of our maps show where it is. It seems unfortunate to me that a random line on a map would be the boundary of our rezoning request. I am puzzled and it doesn't seem like an orderly system. It is too orderly on the earth that is not quite so perfect. Vaught: I feel like we are going into things that we really shouldn't. For one we don't know what will come through with the Preliminary Plat. For all we know the developer could be buying all of this land and isn't trying to rezone the floodway because they don't want to mess with it. They know they are not going to develop it. To me the best use for that would be some kind of conservation easement. We don't know the developer's intent and I feel like in some of our comments we are trying to get to that without even talking to them and I don't feel like that's fair. I don't know what the developer's intent is or if they even have comments on that yet. To me it makes more sense not to include the floodway in a rezoning request to RSF-4 because it can't be built. That makes less sense to me than only doing the portion that could be rezoned. That is what I look at it as. The floodway and the floodplain encroach on the area that we are rezoning to RSF-4 so obviously there can't be a hard line of houses on that boundary. There could be some in there, I don't know. We don't have that before us. To me I like only zoning the part that is going to be developed to RSF-4 and leaving the rest R -A since it is unbuildable anyway basically. When I am looking at these lines on the map I'm sure if they could they would line up their zoning with the floodplain probably but you can't just draw a random line. You have to use your property boundaries. If that is what the developer is buying that is what they can rezone, they can't rezone the rest. Ostner: Yes, but it is our duty to look at rezoning requests and if it seems compatible. That includes the edges and the parts that were left out, which it is very clear that they are leaving out the floodplain, which is logical. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying the edge of the developed area, if it followed the land instead of a compass shooting straight north it would develop differently. It goes back to the old discussion, people come Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 50 here from out of town and say gee, your subdivisions are straight lines that way and straight lines that way. They don't do that in other towns. They curve it around topography and our rules don't exactly dictate when that will come into the process. Tonight is one example where it starts to create straight lines. I'm probably in favor of this rezoning. I'm not excited about it being developed on due north south lines on the compass. Vaught: I understand. My point is I don't think it can be, because the floodplain, which is un -developable, does encroach into this property so there is some topography that is going to limit development on this site. They can't line their houses up with that west boundary line, it is floodplain. That was my point. The fact that they left that piece off makes sense to me and I don't know that it is necessarily my concern since whoever owns that piece isn't asking for it, I'm only looking at this one piece. That was my point. I do understand and I agree, straight lines on a map aren't necessarily the best thing. Milholland: I believe I understand that the conversation is why we used a straight line and didn't follow the 100 -year floodplain. That map is not correct, it is about as flat as carpet out there, there may be a little bit of a grade out there but we have to go out and take the Corp. of Engineers or the Floodplain Map and find the actual 100 -year floodplain, and I assure you it won't follow that curved line that smooth. As a matter of fact, we have already got a good portion of it located and it doesn't follow that. The reason that we asked for annexation along that line which does not include, there are four things on your floodplain map. You have the river, the tributary, then you've got the floodway, which no one can get in unless the Corp. of Engineers allows you to, and then you have the floodplain, which there are some ordinances that allow you, and also some regulations by FEMA which will allow you to straighten up the back of the lots and you can fill a little bit to straighten out some lines. It is called a LOMR,(Letter of Map Revision) you resurvey it, you turn it into FEMA, they see it and it goes before the Corp. and the city and it is just for the purpose of straightening the line out behind some houses. It is done pretty commonly. As far as this line right here, it does not depict anything very accurately as far as accuracy. We like to have something we can work with and know we aren't going to be out there restricted to measuring off a black line on a 1,000 to 2,000 scale when you can't really find it in here. If you look real close, I think that you will find that there is as much dark land left on this farm, as there is white area. You have the river, you have the floodway, the floodplain and then you have the area that is going to be developed. You are going to have close to 50% of this property untouched. If it is rezoned it still won't be touched unless it could be done very efficiently and cost effectively. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Milholland. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 51 Anthes: Ostner: MOTION: Shackelford: Graves: At the risk of repeating myself, I just want to clarify, it is not really the straight line that I have an issue with and I'm certainly not thinking that they have a development plan in front of us that shows us that at this point. What I'm worried about is the jump from the park land to the un - developable parcel and this parcel's adjacency to that and then to the large, rural tracts to the south that have had people speak to those tonight and whether it is right to jump immediately to RSF-4 at this land or provide a transition zone. To me this looks like a transition zone and that is what my main comments are geared towards. That is where RSF-2 might seem more logical. Obviously, I'm in support of the RSF-4 zoning in this area. If you look on the one mile radius map to the northeast of this property we have seen in the last 12 to 18 months some significant development of RSF-4 property and I personally have seen a very high demand for this type of development in this area. I think that you are going to see over time most of this area develop in an RSF-4 nature which is kind of a standardized development scheme for our growth areas in the City of Fayetteville. Two things, first of all, if you develop less dense I think it is going to cause even more urban sprawl because more people are going to want bigger places and are going to move further and further out. The second thing, as we have seen in the other areas that I mentioned earlier, when we talked about rezoning this in the Salem area on Wedington and some of the other areas where we wound up developing into the County, the RSF-4 zoning worked in those areas and the development kind of caught up in that area. Plus, we are going to be asking the developers in this area to pay through assessments for the infrastructure improvements and quite honestly, you need the density of the development to pay for the infrastructure improvements that will be needed in this area. Given that, and the fact that there is a lot of natural green space in this area, given the floodplain, the floodway, the golf course and everything else that is not going to develop in the near term out there I think that even an RSF-4 zoning in this area is not going to fill as dense given the overall green space if you look at the picture in whole. I think based on those facts, the assessments and the development that is going to occur, the fact that we need to probably be somewhat dense in our development so we don't continue to sprawl and the fact that there is a substantial amount of green space in that area that will offset any density in this area I am going to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 05-1371 to the City Council with an RSF-4. Second. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 52 Osmer: There is a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there any further discussion? Vaught: I would also like to point out that this area is also increasingly close to our Fayetteville Industrial Park, which is always an interesting transition from that to residential. That is something to consider as well, for me it is at least, as well as the rest of Commissioner Shackelford's comments. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Vaught. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1371 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Clark, Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 53 RZN 05-1378: (GOFF/HALL, 644): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE S SIDE OF HWY 16E, W OF DEAD HORSE MTN. RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 15.12 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1378 for Goff/Hall. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This is in relatively the same area if you look on your maps on page 11.16 or even on the graphic that was presented, it is the blue area just to the west in the "S" curve as one of the citizens mentioned earlier. This property is within the City of Fayetteville. It is currently vacant. It is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The applicant is requesting a RSF-4 zoning district. The property to the northeast is developed as the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course, probably best seen on page 11.18, the private open space designation. It is directly northeast of that property. Properties to the north are developed with single family homes and to west and south are primarily vacant with some single family homes on larger lots. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning. It consists of 15 acres. The Master Street Plan street, Dead Horse Mountain Road, does go through this property which will require quite a bit of right of way dedication per our Master Street Plan in order to develop this property. Staff finds that this proposed RSF-4 is compatible with adjacent and nearby single family residential land use. The General Plan designates this area for residential use which is compatible with the proposed RSF-4 zoning. Development at this density adequately supports and is served by existing and extended city infrastructure at the cost of the developer. With that, I'm available for any other questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Milholland: Melvin Milholland, Milholland Engineering. This tract of land is adjacent to the Hall property, which you all just acted upon at the southeast corner and to the east is a small tract of about 15 acres that is already in the city limits. My client has also, and we plan to make those two tracts together. RSF-4 sounds good, I assure you it is hard to get four lots per acre out of the land by the time that you take the streets out and the dedication of some of the things that the city requires and existing roads along side it you don't end up with four lots an acre out of it. It has to be real, real small lots and most everyone now is building, I've been here 32 years plus and I remember when the average home was 1600 to 1800 sq.ft. for the average consumer. Now the average consumer is between 2000 and 2400 and it is hard to put four of those per acre I assure you. Very few of the lots are ever 70' or 8,000 sq.ft. Most of your developers, with the price of Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 54 land and price of construction, you are going to end up with around three at the most, probably less than that, 2.75. Thank you. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the audience. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Pate: I did want to mention something. The Stonebridge Meadows subdivision there is developed right around 2.3 units per acre just in comparison. Mr. Milholland is correct, with most of our RSF-4 zoning we are seeing between 1.8 and 2.6 dwelling units per acre developed. That is sort of a typical development density that we are seeing. Anthes: What the developer and staff just said seems to support that we need an RSF-1 rezoning. If we are developing an effective development of RSF-2 on those properties then maybe that's what we should be asking for. I again have the problem with the transition as stated in the previous application and feel like this is a comparable piece of property and will vote the same way. Thanks. Shackelford: I too see very little difference in this property and the property that we just recommended rezoning on other than I feel the exact opposite as she does and I do support the RSF-4 in this location. I think that that is the appropriate zoning given the type of growth that is going on in this area and what I anticipate will grow out there in the future as well. The same song, second verse. I'm not going to make the same argument I made last time. All of the statements and comments that I made apply to this property as well as the other property. Given that, I am going to make a motion that we recommend RZN 05-1378 at an RSF-4 designation. Vaught: I will second and I will say that the problem with RSF-2 is the minimum lot size. With that size you are probably not going to get two units per acre, it might be 1.5 or less per acre. Anthes: It is a transition. Allen: I will vote the same way again, no again. Part of the reason is I think that this is something that the council needs to see that there is a difference of opinion on the Planning Commission, they need to look at that and give us some direction. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further comment? We have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll? Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 55 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1378 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Clark, Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 56 RZN 05-1372: (MAILCO USA INC., 678-717): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at S. SCHOOL AVENUE, E OF HWY. 71 AND N OF WHILLOCK STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.536 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: Morgan: The next item is RZN 05-1372 for Mailco. The subject property contains approximately 2.536 acres. It is located along School Avenue, east of School Avenue, south of the on ramp to Fulbright Expressway. This property is a bit unique. There is quite a bit of floodway and floodplain associated with a creek along the northern property line. It is also zoned both C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial adjacent to School Avenue and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre to the east of that portion zoned C-2. The portion zoned C-2 is designated on our Future Land Use Plan as mixed use and the portion zoned RSF-4 is designated residential use on this plan. Staff has met with the owners of this property in the past to discuss development of this property and at that time informed the property owner of this split in zoning. A Large Scale Development was subsequently processed and when staff reviewed these plans we discovered that a portion of the development was within the RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, zoning district. The applicant was informed of this and advised to look at the possibility of aligning all of the development within the C-2 portion of the property. Soon after discussions the applicant did submit this rezoning request to rezone the RSF-4 portion of the property to C-2. The applicant does intend to develop the property for commercial use. With regard to findings, staff found that the proposed C-2 zoning for the subject property is not consistent with the Land Use Plan and planning objectives as well as policies set forth in the General Plan 2020. The property requested to be rezoned is designated residential and is also surrounded by property zoned RSF-4 to the north, east and south, as well as developed for this purpose at this time. Staff finds that extending the C-2 zoning east is inconsistent with the development and use of this property. We also find that it is appropriate for commercial use to be located adjacent to School Avenue. This is a major thoroughfare along which these types of compatible businesses already exists. Extending these development rights into a residential area may create a new sense and is not consistent with the guiding policies for residential areas as stated in the General Plan. Staff finds that there is sufficient property available to develop a use allowed within the C-2 zoning district and to enlarge this zoning district on this property is not justified nor appropriate in this area. The property is accessible with regard to access to this property, it is accessible to School Avenue and this is a major arterial street. Traffic generated by commercial uses is typically substantially greater than that resulting from development of single family residential Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 57 units. Therefore, rezoning the property to C-2 may increase the traffic on School Avenue. The Fayetteville Police Department determined that the rezoning would not substantially alter population density in this area. Also included in the staff report are further descriptions of available infrastructure and police comments and fire response times. Staff is recommending denial of this rezoning request based on these findings. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Clark: My name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting and I'm representing Mailco on this project. Ken Shireman is also here and he is the project architect and he has a presentation that he's going to present to you. I will turn it over to him. Shireman: I am Ken Shireman, the Project Architect for Mailco USA. I couldn't help but while I was sitting through this meeting look at the City of Fayetteville goals for 2008 and the guiding principles. We want a strong, diverse, local economy. We want planned and managed growth, a natural beautiful city, our mountains, our hills, our open green spaces. A diverse growing local economy. Revitalize South Fayetteville I think that we are contributing to all of these factors. If this C-2 zone were large enough to do what we wanted to do I wouldn't be here tonight. I wouldn't be wasting my time and your time either. It is absolutely not large enough to do what we want to do on this site. If we can't extend this zoning we can't give any assurances that Mailco can grow on this site. We could cram the development, the initial phase, Phase I, on this C-2 zone on the front part of the site. But we could not plan for anticipated growth on this site. That is really why we are here. I want each of you before you vote tonight to ask yourself what is the future of South Fayetteville. We are talking about revitalizing South Fayetteville. It has started. We have got Walgreen's out there, we have got the University, we've got the Mill District. It is happening. We want to be a part of that and we can be a part of that, we just have to have some help from this Commission tonight. I see everybody got the packet that we brought in today. Mailco is a presort bureau. What they do is they meter and barcode outgoing mail for the U.S. Post Office and they price this mail for about 350 commercial accounts in North Arkansas. They bring in money from all of North Arkansas into the economy of Fayetteville and they can do this here in Fayetteville. Mailco is owned and operated by a Fayetteville family and have been performing this service for 16 and a half years and their business has grown until they are literally busting at the seems and becoming almost an indispensable part of the U.S. Postal system. The current C-2 site that is designated is not large enough to accommodate this facility. Aerial photos that we have looked at at the previous facility there, there was something on that site, I'm not sure what, but the C-2 zone that Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 58 is shown on the front part of this site did not accommodate the previous use. It may have been a junk yard, I don't know what it was. When Mailco bought this site, I understand, I didn't find out until later that the previous property owner was under citation to have the site cleaned up. I contracted with two separate contractors and we cleaned that site up and we spent over $13,000 on this site hauling junk, trash, debris. We have destroyed the building slabs, foundations and I've gotten people in there with track hoes. We have had people walking down that creek with garbage bags picking up that thing. We paid for the disposal of over 80 tires. We hauled off approximately 50 truckloads of debris off of this site. Part of the reason that they bought this site was because the natural environment that the rear part of this property offers. It is relatively untouched. It is in a wooded state and they want to keep that rear portion of the property in that state for use by the employees. We want a picnic area out there, a place for outdoor cooking, volleyball, a place to play basketball, for use by the employees. They want the creek left in a natural state for the natural barrier there. We had to destroy a lot more vegetation than we wanted to clean it up. We did not destroy any trees. I just think that this is the future of South Fayetteville. This is a quite business, it is a quality business that benefits all of us. In that packet you will notice that I have a letter from Charlotte Smith, a neighbor of their current facility. It is basically tell us how great of a neighbor they are. I have personally talked with Wanda Easterling and Eric Coleman and on that map it shows that another owner owns a portion of that property, they have since sold that property to Eric Coleman, I've talked to him. Neither of these people objected to this rezoning and I don't see either of these people here tonight so obviously, if they objected they would be here. I have personally talked to them. I can't personally find any objections to the rezoning on this site. I understand that staff s report states that extending the C-2 zoning may constitute a nuisance to the adjacent property owners but I can't find anybody objecting to it and with us wanting to leave what amounts to the back 174' of this site in it's natural state I fail to see a nuisance factor coming up here. The biggest problem that we have on the site in needing this is the expansion that Mailco plans. If the anticipated needs arrive in North Arkansas than they think, we will be processing more mail here than they process in Little Rock. This Commission can approve this rezoning based on the fact that this rear portion of this site, if Mailco develops the front part, is totally land locked. The only access to this site is through Hwy.71B. There is no other access. It is cut off on the north with a creek and it is surrounded by woods on the east side and houses on the south side. There are no other abutting streets and no way for streets to get to this site. This rear portion of the site is totally landlocked. It will be an island of property back there that Mailco wants to preserve in it's natural state for use by their employees and wants it to be a green space. They control the only access to this site and frankly, I don't think that anybody here in this room seriously believes that anybody is going to Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 59 come in here and want to build houses on this site. I don't think it is going to happen folks. It is certainly not going to happen as long as Mailco owns it I think you are going to be proud of this project if you will allow us to grow and I respectfully request that this Commission grant this rezoning. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have about Mailco. Obviously, if you approve this you will be seeing a Large Scale Development plan a little bit later. We have just put that on hold because we don't want to proceed on this site until we can give Mailco assurances that it allows them the expansion that they have to have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public if anyone here would like to speak to this issue please do so now. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: Pate: My business is located right over the hill and I've seen the cleanup that the proprietors have done on this site and it is commendable. It was in a state of total disarray and very embarrassing because 540 empties right out across from it. I didn't know who did it but I thank you for doing it because I think it has improved the whole area. To me this is an absolute. I don't understand staff's recommendation. I respect it but don't understand it. To me this is a no brainer. I think Mailco would be a wonderful neighbor to have along that strip of Hwy. 71. Right across the street you have Elkhart Products, right over the hill you have Standard Register, Cooper Power, which is about to go out of business. You have CK Tires, you have a lot of commercial structures right along that strip and they live compatibly with the neighbors that surround them. I know Mailco has been a good neighbor in the area that they currently reside at but it is time for them to grow. They are landlocked so I don't see a problem with the rezoning simply because I don't think that we are going to have any development go in right on the other side of the creek and I'm trusting that they are going to be good guardians of that environment. Unless staff has really got something that I'm missing here, I am going to support this motion for rezoning. Just a little bit of history on this. We have been working with this applicant for quite a while. It took some education and some research to allow this use here as a commercial use. It is very much on the line between a Light Industrial and a Commercial use. Through our research, we have determined that the uses that are proposed on this property are commercial in nature. Staff is not at all against Mailco going on this site. We very much support the development that they are proposing. As the applicant mentioned, they did submit a Large Scale Development and the expanse of their development extended over the C-2 zoning district. Administratively, the Zoning and Development Administrator can extend those zoning rights within at least 50'. That is something that we discussed in the past to help enable them to get their development on the Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 60 subject property. Within the existing zoning district is C-2 and within the General Plan Land Use Plan designation for this area is a mixed use area. The property to the east is wooded, it has floodplain and floodway on it as well with the creek that flows along the north property line. The applicant mentioned leaving 174' undisturbed. One of the things that we talked about initially in this process as well as the potential for a PZD on this site because it is adjacent to single family residential properties on large lots. It is also adjacent to commercial properties, some of which are in use, some of which are vacant. Those different types of uses tend to, especially when you are developing commercially, tend to need more of a transition zone. Especially when you are directly adjacent to single family residents and on the other side a very large commercial operation. Just to reiterate, staff is not at all opposed to the Mailco development. What we are looking at is more of a longevity of uses allowed in the C-2 zoning district adjacent to single family residences which include all of the uses you see in the C-2 zoning district on page 12.5 in your packet. The green space for use by the applicants can also be utilized if it is RSF-4. Essentially what can be put back there are parking lots and more buildings in that area. Again, I just want to reiterate that staff is definitely not opposed to this commercial development going in in this area, we have been working with them to meet commercial design standards and going through the process of Large Scale Development and look forward to their being there if that is possible. Vaught: Obviously, if Large Scale has been applied for a lot of engineering has been done, is that correct? Clark: That is correct. Vaught: Why didn't you guys pursue a PZD? Clark: My biggest objection to the PZD is once you get under construction, once you have your plan approved, the smallest little change brings you back before the Planning Commission and back before the City Council. You can't make changes to it once you have got it approved. That is the limitation over it. It provides some flexibility but it also creates some limitations and even though we may not be going to change anything in the first phase of this, if we come back with the second phase then we've got to go back through everything again and if there are any issues. It creates another hardship, another wrinkle for us. Vaught: Jeremy, what is the state of the new PZD ordinance? Pate: The last I was aware it was at Ordinance Review Committee. I'm not sure it has progressed beyond that. As far as amendments, we treatment PZDs much like we treat LSDs. If it is a minor modification, if it is minor Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 61 Shackelford: Shireman: MOTION: Shackelford: enough as determined by the Director that can be modified administratively. If it is a major modification the Planning Commission or Subdivision Committee has actually seen major modifications to those as well. I think an entirely new phase would precipitate a Large Scale Development at least. This is within the Design Overlay District anyway so it is going to require a Large Scale Development regardless of how much you expand. What do you anticipate the timing difference to be between Phase I and Phase II of the development of this property. I don't know. We think that this Phase I would accommodate their needs for a few years, at least a few years but not long term. It may be 5-7 years or it may be 10 years before they need Phase II. Ultimately they will need Phase II. What we don't know right now, the limiting factor is the technology with the bar-coding equipment. It is a very large piece of equipment, a very expensive piece of equipment. Right now they have one. When they have to add a second barcode machine they must have the additional. Right now we have where the bar-coding is done in our design right now as an 80'x80', 6400 sq.ft., and it will take another 80'x80' addition to the building. We are going to build all of the administrative space, all of the handling facilities that they need except the additional bar-coding, mail sorting room. They will need another 6,400 sq.ft. addition and that is why we need to push it back in order to accommodate that. I think it is going to be a few years though. I want to concur with Commissioner Clark's comments earlier with one minor exception. I do understand staffs determination given our guidelines that they are following, the 2020 Plan, existing zoning and the abundance of undeveloped C-2 property in this quadrant. With that being said, I would like to also state in my mind that Jeremy is doing his job with that recommendation, but I think one of the major reasons that the Planning Commission was formed to hear variances from those guidelines. I think this is such an occasion. I think this is one of the primary reasons that we as a Planning Commission exist. In my mind first of all, the property is in substantially better shape than it has been in many, many years and I think the applicant is to be recognized and appreciated for what they have done in that area. The second thing, we have to remember there is existing C-2 on this property. We are just basically being asked to expand the C-2 section to allow this owner to develop this property and have the ability to develop in the future. The RSF-4 as it exists now is land locked and quite honestly, it is in an area that I don't see ever developing as an RSF-4 given the location, given ingress/egress, given the fact of the topography, the floodplain and that sort of thing. One of the Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 62 comments that we heard was this is somewhat of a Light Industrial/Heavy Commercial Use, I think this is a great area for that as well. Last, but certainly not least, I think this would be another great piece to revitalizing South Fayetteville with a new development and new jobs, which I think is a very, very admirable thing as well. With all that being said, I am going to recommend RZN 05-1372 as C-2 to the City Council for the property in question based on those comments. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I have a question for staff. I just heard you say something tonight Jeremy that I hadn't heard us say before and I wondered if you would clarify it. The Zoning & Development Administrator has the lead way to allow something within 50'? Pate: Yes, it is something that is not utilized very often. By ordinance, with the interpretation of boundaries, the Zoning & Development Administrator does have the administrative right to extend, if it is on one parcel owned by the same person, development rights of either one of these zoning districts up to 50' to accommodate that type of development. Anthes: The most eastern end of the Phase II building, how far out do you think we are from the zoning line just for grins? Pate: On the graphic line that was provided to you, that zoning line extends down south, that is about 50' where the existing zoning is. The jog is about 50'. In research, I believe that is what occurred on this property in the past for the parcel to the north. Anthes: That is interesting. I concur with a lot of what Commissioner Clark and Shackelford said just now. The only thing I would say is that we would want to look carefully at the drainage and grading ordinances when looking at the parking lots and the Large Scale to go forward because we do have a sensitive area there. We are so close to the highway off ramp and looking at the compatible uses along that corridor, I don't have any problem with it. Allen: I'm a big advocate of revitalizing South Fayetteville and I think this is a very good fit. I do think that we need to think about the fact that we are talking about land use and we don't know that Mailco will always be there and the kinds of rights and the way the land can be used. However, I think that maybe this could be used as a precedent and this kind of development is what is going to be in South Fayetteville so I will vote for that use. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 63 Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? We have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll all the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1372 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 64 RZN 05-1374: (CORNERSTONE/FUTRALL, 402): Submitted by KIM FUGITT for property located at 1144 FUTRALL DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.53 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Ostner: Our last item is RZN 05-1374 for Cornerstone and Futrall. Pate: This property is located at 1144 Futrall Drive. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately a half an acre. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Primary use established in the overall area is commercial, office and multi -family residential in nature. Cornerstone Apartments exists directly to the north. The applicant would like to develop this single family home as an office for that overall development. As I mentioned, to the north is RMF -24, to the south is R -O, Residential Office, east is RMF -24, west is C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff finds those uses are compatible with the requested rezoning and recommends approval of this rezoning. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and give your presentation please? Fugitt: My name is Kim Fugitt, I am here tonight representing Lindy Lindsey for Cornerstone. I would like to thank you for spending Valentine's Day with me and fulfilling your civic duty. The property was purchased recently to potentially house a manage office for the Cornerstone Apartments. The property has commercial zoning to the west, R -O to the south and Multi - Family to the east and north. That is the intent of the purchase. Right now the management office is one of the apartments at Cornerstone and this property came up for sale and Lindy took the opportunity to purchase that for that reason. I have no multi -family to wrestle with you tonight or no box like structures to repel you and I would suggest that we have a fast and speedy acceptance of this so we can all go home and spend the rest of Valentine's Day with our loved ones. What do you think? Ostner: If you could make a motion, I think you just did. At this point I will go ahead and open it up to the public. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Shackelford: First, I would like to congratulate the applicant on being the last item on Valentine's and our condolences to your wife. With that being said, I am in agreement with staff's comments on this. I think that this is a viable rezoning so I am going to recommend RZN 05-1374 as an R -O to the City Council. Allen: I will second. Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 65 Ostner: I would just like to add that I'm in favor of this. It is a half acre, it is adjacent to RMF -24 on two sides, R -O on the third. It seems to be a good fit. Is there further comment? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1374 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 8:36 p.m.