Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:30 p.m. on April 11, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEM ACTION TAKEN FPL 05-1387: Persimmon Place, pp 438 Approved Page 3 CUP 05-1438: Lot 83 Copper Creek II Tennis Court, pp 61/100 Approved Page 5 PPL 05-1431: Hickory Glen Subdivision, pp 403 Approved Page 8 LSP 05-1439: JB Hays, pp 373 Approved Page 13 PPL 05-1437: Hays Estates, pp 373 Approved Page 13 RZN 05-1423: Edwards/JED, Inc., pp 285 Denied Page 23 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Christian Vaught Alan Ostner Audi Lack Christine Myres Jill Anthes Nancy Allen James Graves Candy Clark Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas David Whitaker Brent O'Neal Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 2 Ostner: Welcome to the April 11`h meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Trumbo being absent. Presentation of Award to Commissioner Shackelford from Director Dumas. Ostner: Before we begin the meeting I would like to introduce our new officers, the Vice Chair is Jill Anthes, the secretary is Nancy Allen and I'm your chair, Alan Ostner. Our newest member tonight is Mr. Audi Lack. We would like to welcome you. The first item is the approval of the minutes from the March 14th and March 28th meetings. Do I have a motion for approval? Anthes: So moved. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 3 FPL 05-1387: Persimmon Place was submitted by Dave Jorgensen for property located at Persimmon Street, west of 466 Street and east of Broyles. The property is zoned RSF- 4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 58.01 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 154 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The first item on the agenda is FPL 05-1387 for Persimmon Place. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: The applicant requests Final Plat approval for a residential subdivision of 154 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF-4 and subject to a Bill of Assurance. The property that is adjacent to Persimmon Street to the south and 46th Street to the east. Broyles Road, a collector street, bisects the property and like 46th Street, which is located to the east, provides access to Wedington Drive. There is a Bill of Assurance that specifies several requirements for installation of screening, as well as fencing around the subdivision and entrance features are being installed by the applicant at this time. A condition of the Preliminary Plat required that the features stated in the Bill of Assurance be installed prior to Final Plat approval. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission modify this approval so that the Planning Commission can approve this tonight with the condition stated in condition number one requiring that all of these requirements be completed prior to signing or filing the Final Plat. Water and sewer have been extended to this property. Right of way is being dedicated in compliance with the Master Street Plan. It is my understanding that they have received a final inspection and all punch list items will be completed prior to recordation of the Final Plat. Parks fees in the amount of $85,470. Mitigation is also required for trees. Staff is recommending approval of this Final Plat with a total of 17 conditions of approval. Most of those conditions are standard conditions with regard to payment of fees and final comments. The reason that you are seeing this Final Plat which is normally seen at Subdivision Committee, is because of the condition of approval on the Preliminary Plat approval stating that the developer had to install of the requirements stated in the Bill of Assurance. Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates, I'm here representing the owners tonight. The original condition, we were under the understanding that the Bill of Assurance items were to be completed before signing the Final Plat but unfortunately, it wasn't interpreted that way so that is why we are here asking for a waiver. We are currently working, the fence is 75% done. All of those items will be completed prior to signatures on the plat. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on FPL 05- 1387? Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 4 Anthes: I move for approval of FPL 05-1387. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Graves: Is that with the provisions for the Bill of Assurance? Anthes: Conditions as stated, I believe that is covered in condition number one. Ostner: Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve FPL 05-1387 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 5 CUP 05-1438: Clabber Creek Phase II Tennis Court, pp 61/100 was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. for property located at Lot 83 of the Copper Creek Subdivision Phase II. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.49 acres. The request is for approval of a tennis court and associated parking in the RSF-4 zoning district. Ostner: Morgan: Our next item is CUP 05-1438 for Copper Creek II, if we could have the staff report please. On February 3, 2005 the Subdivision Committee approved the Final Plat for Copper Creek Subdivision Phase II. One of the lots within the subdivision was designated at that time as common area or open space to be maintained by the POA and it was their intent at that time to request to construct the tennis court on this lot. A tennis court is under Use Unit 4 and it does require a Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission in order to establish this use within the RSF-4 zoning district. The applicant requests approval of a 7,700 sq.ft. tennis court to be served by parking with four light poles to illuminate the tennis court after sunset. The intent is to have hours of operation to 9:00 p.m. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the POA. Surrounding properties at this time, most of which are not developed since it is a new Final Plat, many of the lots have not been developed at this time. With regard to findings, staff finds that granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest with proper controls in place to limit potential detrimental impacts associated with tennis courts. Staff also believes that the establishment of this recreational use would benefit the residents of the subdivision. The applicant is currently proposing parking for this use directly off of a local street and staff recommends that a driveway be provided in order to ensure safe ingress and egress onto the right of way. On street parking is also allowed and staff recommends and encourages use of on street parking for those using the tennis court. Four light poles are proposed which will illuminate the tennis court. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downwards away from adjacent properties and utilize fixtures with a maximum height of 20'. With regard to screening from adjacent properties. Staff is recommending in favor of screening. There will be a 10' tall chain link fence around the tennis court and staff recommends screening to the north and west adjacent to the single family homes. The other sides of the lot are adjacent to right of way. Staff recommends approval of the requested Cultural and Recreational Facility, Use Unit 4 in the RSF-4 zoning district on the described property subject to a total of nine conditions. The applicant has signed the conditions of approval. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Could you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 6 Moore: Ostner: Moore: Ostner: Moore: Pate: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services in Springdale. This really goes back to the Final Plat. Lot 83 was always supposed to be a tennis court lot. We had to make it a lot for title. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. At this point I will open it up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to CUP 05-1438 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I understand condition number six, it says maintenance of the proposed tennis court is the responsibility of the POA. Where is the ownership? Is that also the POA? Yes, that is correct. That is spelled out in the Final Plat I'm assuming? It would be in the covenants. I would assume a separate deed would be filed at the courthouse showing ownership by the Property Owner's Association and the fees collected with the development typically are applied to public improvements, such as this. A tennis court, a swimming pool, etc. Staff, I'm a little confused about what we are specifically recommending for the parking. In the findings on page 2.5 we talk about a driveway off of the street and then we also talk about on street parking being allowed and encouraged. Are you saying that the required parking can be accommodated by only using the on street parking or do you want both or what are we asking? What staff is not supportive of is this head in parking backing out into this primary east/west connection within the overall subdivision area. This is the primary entrance to this area, this subdivision as well as other subdivisions in this common area. What we would recommend to meet development requirements and have a situation where parking is located on site, the two spaces are required for a tennis court with a handicapped accessible space be on site and be able to exit the parking area in a forward motion. We are also encouraging, just for public knowledge, that even though sometimes covenants disallow parking on public streets, it is the ownership of the city and it is encouraged and allowed in this area to alleviate some of the parking concern. That was really the point of that comment. I definitely agree with that assessment about encouraging the on street parking. Mr. Moore, have you thought about how you are going to redesign this? Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 7 Moore: Anthes: Moore: Anthes: Moore: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Clark: Pate: Clark: Moore: MOTION: Clark: Anthes: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Yes. What I was planning on doing is rotating that parking 90° and then I will have enough room for a drive and the parking in there also. You will enter the site and so people will be able to pull out in a forward motion? Correct. Will you be providing the four spaces then or just the two? Four spaces. Is staff ok with that? I believe so. As long as it meets our development requirements. Thanks. I agree that the changes in the parking are necessary. Does the recommended motion spell that out clearly enough? I am not seeing that it really, they have to meet parking lot standards and parking lot standards mandate that you pull out head first? That is correct. That is what we are inferring into that and you are ready to do that Brian? Correct. Having said that, I will make a motion that we approve CUP 05-1438 with the recommendations as stated. I will second. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1438 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 8 PPL 05-1431: Hickory Glen Subdivision, pp 403 was submitted by Art Scott for property located at the northwest corner of Wedington and Lewis Street. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 4.12 acres. The request is for approval of a residential subdivision with 17 lots proposed, one of which will be utilized for detention. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1431 for Hickory Glen. Pate: This property is located at the northwest corner of Wedington and Lewis Street in Fayetteville. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately four acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 17 lots, 16 of which will be developed with single family homes. Directly adjacent to the south is Wedington Avenue, which is a four lane arterial, a state highway. It is obviously, a primary factor in the design decisions of the property and access management policies of the city. The applicant has chosen a unique design, not unique to the City of Fayetteville but not commonly used, to utilize access from rear alleys in this situation with a one street access. I believe the initial request was to do a cul-de-sac and then look at access off of Wedington. Staff was not in support of multiple curb cuts off of Wedington in this location, especially this near a street. As I mentioned, Wedington is a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. Right of way dedication is required on both of these streets per the Master Street Plan. There was public comment taken at the Subdivision Committee which emphasized existing drainage problems in this area. Some of which have been alleviated by some of the city's work in that area recently. Also, the applicant's engineer and some of the neighbors actually had a dialogue there in which I hope they worked out a few of those drainage problems as well to the best of their ability to control off site drainage problems. There will obviously also be detention required. This subdivision is in the northwest corner of the property to which drainage from this development of course will go. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with 13 conditions. Planning Commission determination is required for street improvements, as with any development. Staff is recommending widening Lewis Street to 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb and gutter pavement and 4' sidewalks at the right of way line. The Master Street Plan sidewalks along Lewis and Wedington shall be constructed prior to Final Plat and then all interior sidewalks may be guaranteed. Just a quick change to that, I will defer to Engineering for any comment, I think it was a mistake that the 6' sidewalks were located at your right of way line along Wedington Drive. The State Highway Department recently improved that area within the last couple of years and the 4' sidewalks typically meet that requirement for access there. Unless there is more information that I'm not aware of, I believe that will be removed and the standard 4' sidewalk will be the recommendation to tie into that. Of course, all work within the State Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 9 Highway 16 right of way shall be properly permitted by the AHTD including any grading or drainage work in that area. Item number three, for those lots with access from interior alleys, curb cuts shall not be allowed onto other streets including Wedington. Essentially, no additional curb cuts onto Wedington in this area or Lewis. All curb cuts for the development will be contained within the street system of the development. Lot four shall be an unbuildable lot utilized for the purpose of storm water detention and maintained and owned by the POA. Payment of $8,880 for 16 single family units for parkland dedication and the planting of 39 2" caliper trees on site is also required to meet tree preservation requirements. I would ask the Planning Commission to consider one final recommendation that did not make it to this draft. It is a technicality essentially to meet ordinance requirements. The plat shall be revised to reflect the minimum frontage, bulk and area requirements for the RSF-4 zoning district. A couple of lots shifted to make the alleys wider to accommodate Solid Waste requirements for space and got a little smaller than the 70' they need to be by a couple of feet. Those just need to be modified. I have advised the applicant of the situation and he seemed amenable to meet those ordinance requirements. Ostner: Will the applicant please introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Scott: Hello, I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants here to represent Mr. Brittenum for the development here this evening. It is 16 units in RSF-4, a little over four acres, it will meet the zoning requirements and we are requesting your approval. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to PPL 05-1431 please step forward and give us your comments. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Price: I'm Dolores Price and I own the property south of where this is going to be. As you mentioned, there are a lot of drainage problems. Some of have been fixed by the city but not entirely. I'm working with Sid still yet on that project that went through there. The rain just came last weekend as well as last night, I have a lot of water standing. I think we have between me and Mr. Brittenum, I think they said that they can help me with that by putting something there to direct the water somewhere else. I have no objection if they can do that. I also think they were going to bring a sewer line over that I might be able to hook onto. When I built there 38 years ago there wasn't any sewer line. I was able to have a septic tank but it is going to be feasible for me now to have sewer, that would be nice to have. I have no objection so far with what I see that they are going to do. There is a lot of water and with that many houses, there is going to be a lot more that comes off and as long as they have made way for all of this to go and Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 10 I think they have, as long as they have, and I don't ever have to come back to the city to ask for anything again, then I will say that it is ok. I would like for you all to take into consideration that I've lived in this area for 38 years. I have begged the city to put in what they just did. I was hoping for something that will be better and I'm hoping still yet that it will be. Thank you for your time. Ostner: Are there any more public comments? We will close it to public comment at this point and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. If I could ask you Mr. Scott about the drainage situation she might be talking about. Can you shed any light on that issue? Scott: It appears that a portion of the northerly part of this project drains towards her property. There is an existing drainage easement that the city used to put in that storm drain system. Inside that drainage easement we intend to grade a small swale that will take just the water that is on those lots there, the rest of it will be intercepted by the street and the storm drain system. Just that that is on those lots is directed to our storm drain detention pond. That looks like it will be a pretty easy fix. Ostner: Thank you. Vaught: I wasn't at agenda. Condition number three, stating that those lots will have alley access, should we specifiy those lots or is that sufficient? I know which ones have alley access but a lot of them with alley access also have some road frontage. I didn't know if we needed to be more specific and spell it out? Pate: I believe the applicant understands the condition. At the time of Final Plat of course we will see this and that is the document that gets filed so it is important obviously, to have it on that document. As I stated earlier, we can change that condition if you feel more comfortable with stating specific lots. Vaught: What do the Commissioners think on that? Just looking at this, I assume lots 8 through 13, that their frontage is on Wedington Drive, is that correct? Does the State Highway Department limit curb cuts on those lots? Pate: No, that's really the reason behind that comment and the notes here on the site plan stating "lots taking access from alleys shall not be allowed a curb cut onto any street." Essentially, we could modify the condition to state that no curb cuts shall be allowed on Wedington or Lewis. That would probably catch everything. I would also like to clarify that the ones that do have frontage on a street we would rather see on the interior street and we Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 11 would also rather see on the alley if at all possible. That's the purpose of having rear access. Vaught: I'm not opposed to change that just so it is clear to allow no curb cuts onto Wedington or Lewis. Ostner: If condition number three read Lots 8 through 13 with accesses from interior alleys, etc., etc. Vaught: I think if you just said no curb cuts would be allowed on Wedington or Lewis, it would cover it all. Ostner: Are there none that have access to Lewis? Vaught: No, even Lot 14, which faces it, has an alley that runs behind and beside it and Lot 1 specifically states will have access to the interior streets. Ostner: Since that northern street is not an alley, I would recommend just adding a condition of approval that simply read there will be no access onto Lewis or Wedington. Vaught: Are we amending or are we adding? Ostner: I think we just added Condition #15 to be the clearest. Vaught: To the applicant, is that acceptable to you? Scott: Yes it is. Anthes: I have a question for my own information. Mr. Scott, do you know what percentage slope is the steepest part of this site? Scott: The southeast corner of Lot 13. Anthes: Do you know what percentage that is? Scott: We have a note that says it is greater than 15% but let me check it here real quick. It appears to be around 16% or 17% just from scaling it here. Anthes: I guess I would like to ask the Tree and Landscape Administrator, the tree preservation plan that you have in your notes, does that take care of these slopes in your opinion? Pate: I'm not sure I understand the question. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 12 Anthes: Pate: Anthes: MOTION: Vaught: Ostner: Clark: Ostner: Anthes: Scott: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: We are talking about a 16% or 17% slope in that corner, which is an area that is over our 15% that we have been discussing with other issues, I was just wondering if there is erosion control and does your tree preservation plan take that into account and if you are satisfied with how that bank will be maintained? The tree preservation, on C5, a portion of that fencing will actually act as erosion control fencing to maintain that slope in that area. Lot 13 has a slope greater than 15% so that will require a grading permit for that single family home construction by city ordinance. Whoever constructs Lot 13 will actually have to get a grading permit whereas, the rest of the lots likely will not because they do fall under that threshold. We will see that again for that individual lot as well. That's helpful. Thank you. I will make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1431 with the stated conditions and addition of 14, which shall read "Plat shall be revised to reflect minimum frontage, bulk and area requirements for the RSF-4 zoning district." And the addition of Condition 15 which states "No curb cut access will be allowed on Lewis or Wedington." Affirming the staff's recommendations for street improvements in condition number one with 4' sidewalks that are constructed. I have a motion for approval. Is there a second? Second. Is there further discussion? One additional question for the applicant. I want to thank you for facing the homes on Lots 8 through 13 to Wedington. Is 14 going to face onto Lewis? Yes. Is there further discussion? If you could call the roll please. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1431 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 13 LSP 05-1439: JB Hays, pp 373 was submitted by H2 Engineering for property located at 1760 N. Starr Drive. The property is zoned RSF-1, Residential Single Family, one unit per acre and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, containing approximately 25.27acres. the request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 19.82 and 5.45 acres. PPL 05-1437: Hays Estates, pp 373 was submitted by H2 Engineering for property located west of Barrington Park Phase II. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 5.45 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 18 single family Tots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSP 05-1439 for J.B. Hays. Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for a tract which is 25.27 acres. It is located east of Starr Road and west of Barrington Park Subdivision Phase II. The applicant proposes to split this property into two tracts of 19.82 acres and 5.45 acres respectively. The latter is zoned RSF-4 and is proposed to be subdivided into single family lots which I will get to in a short time. This is the third and final Lot Split permissible for the subject property. Water and sewer mains are accessible to each of the proposed tracts. Right of way being dedicated with this Lot Split includes 35' from centerline of Starr Drive. This is a collector street on the Master Street Plan. As well as 50' adjacent to the southern portion of the proposed Tract "2" to allow for future construction of Arapaho. Staff is recommending approval of this Lot Split with a total of six conditions of approval. Of which require right of way dedication and some small revisions to the plat prior to recordation. Osmer: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Would you please introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Hern: My name is Kip Hern with H2 Engineering. We don't have any exceptions to the conditions of approval this evening and I will be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Hern. At this point I will open it up to the public if anyone would like to speak to LSP 05-1439 please step forward and give us your comment. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Anthes: Staff, this would the be the third and final split that would be allowed on this property. If there is something about the configuration of the split that the connectivity could not be made and there might be another way to do it if the lot was split differently, can they process a Lot Line Adjustment or some other mechanism that we can look at a different way to subdivide Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 14 Pate: this property and allow two ways in and out if this has already been processed? Yes. If, for instance, this Lot Split is approved as shown and recorded at the County. A Property Line Adjustment in the future could adjust that property to some other configuration. Anthes: I will just state for the applicant, I feel like a 809' cul-de-sac is really too long. My concern here with this and the next item is that we don't know whether we are going to be allowed access because that is a City Council approval item. I feel like there is a way to split this property differently and achieve your development with a much shorter cul-de-sac if that connectivity is not allowed and it could be reconfigured a different way. I was hoping to hear what Jeremy stated, that if we needed two points of access you could actually adjust the lot line. I just wanted you to know why I made that statement. Ostner: This item is in conjunction with a Preliminary Plat entitled Hayes Estates. Anthes: Can we hear this together or not? Ostner: We can talk about them together, we need to vote on them independently but they are interrelated. Anthes: I would ask that we do that. Ostner: I think that that is appropriate. Vaught: Why aren't we dedicating the 50' right of way for the whole Arapaho Drive boundary to Starr Drive? Pate: That will allow adequate access for this particular Lot Split and connectivity to the west, the right of way will then be dedicated. When we proceed with the following Preliminary Plat then we will utilize that right of way area for development of this property. Vaught: My question is why don't we go along Tract "1" as well all the way to Starr Drive? Pate: We did look at that. With 19.8 acres there is a number of different configurations that actually could potentially pick this Arapaho Drive back up to meet with the street to the north and west of Starr Drive in a better configuration as opposed to just along the south of the property. There could be some lot yield, for instance, along that portion so we felt at this time it was more appropriate just to have the minimum requirements for a Lot Split, waiver of Preliminary Plat requirements and go with that at this Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 15 Hern: time. Should this property develop in the future, if it ever does develop, then we can look at a better means of connection at that time. As a note, we did dedicate the 35' along Starr Drive along the west side of the property for not only Tract "1" but also Tract "3" as well, which is outside of this particular Lot Split. Ostner: If we could have the staff report on the accompanying item, I think it would be nice. We are going to vote on these independently but if we could discuss them together I think it would be helpful. Morgan: Hayes Estates is the Preliminary Plat proposed for the 5.45 acre tract, which is proposed to be subdivided from the overall tract. The applicant requests approval for an 18 single family lot subdivision in this location. The applicant is proposing to extend Arapaho Drive along the southern property of that tract as well as construct a cul-de-sac to the north at this time. The plat reflects an 809.47' long cul-de-sac. Staff is investigating the possibility of dedicating city property to the north of this property in order that right of way may be dedicated and a street constructed at the developer's expense to connect to Madison Drive. At this time the Parks and Recreation Board have heard this proposal and on April 4`h voted to approve staff's recommendation that a street be connected to Madison Drive to provide a secondary means of access to this property. Otherwise, all 18 lots would be accessing through Arapaho Drive through Barrington Park subdivision. Should the City Council approve this dedication it will be the developer's responsibility to construct the street. Our condition of approval number one reflects this recommendation that staff has made and states Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a cul- de-sac length. Staff recommends dedication of city property to the north for a 50' wide right of way and construction of a city street including sidewalks to Madison Drive at the developer's expense. The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to recommend to City Council that the street connection be approved and that right of way be dedicated across existing parkland to connect the proposed street. If the City Council does not approve the recommendation, staff recommends in favor of a waiver to allow the construction of a dead end street greater than 500' in length. In addition to that condition, there are several standard conditions. Condition three requests that the Planning Commission determine whether to grant a waiver from the 100' separation of a permanent water surface from the finished floor of proposed structure. There is an existing pond just to the west of the tract which is requested to be developed and those structures will be closer than 100' to that pond. Engineering at this time is recommending approval of this waiver request. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. Ostner: Would the applicant like to state anything else about this Preliminary Plat? Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 16 Hern: The intent here obviously is to get the Lot Split approved this evening and then carry this forward onto City Council, which we think we will have a tremendous amount of support for the connectivity. Staff is recommending the solution. The developer, although this will be an additional expense, is willing to do this because he is trying to be a good neighbor to Barrington Park. We are asking for approval for both the cul- de-sac and the recommendation going to City Council. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I am going to open it up to public comment for the Preliminary Plat, PPL 05-1437 if anyone would like to speak to this item we can go ahead and hear your comments now. Seeing none, I am going to close it to public comment and bring that back to the Commission as well. We have under discussion two items, we need to vote on them separately. Commissioners? Clark: When will the City Council hear the request for the street? Pate: The agenda request going to City Council after Planning Commission is Friday, it takes about 25 days to get to the following meeting so it would be about three weeks from now. Anthes: For clarification, a question from Engineering. Am I reading this correctly to say that the reason that you are in support of this waiver request is that there is a dam that would break before the water ever reached the level of the homes? There are notes in here to the effect that you are in support of a waiver request for the level of the water within 100', that is because there is a dam associated with the pond that would break before the water reached the homes? O'Neal: I believe the applicant is going to improve the spill of the pond. Hern: Yes Ma'am, the adjacent pond for the subdivision will be utilized as our detention facility. We are going to improve the spillway structure to that facility to over detain. It is being designed to where it will hold a certain 100 -year flood elevation. In addition to that though, we have got the breach elevation of the dam and it will be held above that with our adjacent structures. All of our homes are perfectly safe. Anthes: That makes sense. Another question of staff then, I believe this is the piece of property we heard quite a few comments on when we were looking at rezoning. It is next to Barrington Park correct? Pate: This is one of those. There were two requests on this overall larger piece of property. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 17 Anthes: Part of the neighborhood concern was points of ingress and egress to this development? Pate: I believe so. From my recollection, most of the comments were from the density requested with the original request. The original request for this particular piece of property was RMF -12. The Barrington Park residents directly to the east were not happy with that request and staff was not in support of that request either. At this meeting that request was changed to RSF-4 and proceeded forward to Council and I believe it was unanimously approved there. Anthes: My major concern is that I remember those discussions and the request for RSF-4 which seemed to be more compatible and I think was in line with staff's recommendations. My main concern at this point is what if City Council denies the dedication for the Madison connection? I really believe that an 809' cul-de-sac is really too long and on top of that the two points of connection are beneficial to the residents, the new residents and the surrounding residents. That is why I'm particularly interested in the configuration of the Lot Split. If the Madison connection was denied, there would only be one way to develop that with one point of ingress to the new development. However, if the Lot Split was reconfigured there might be a way to then head west with the second point of egress. The cul-de- sac length would be reduced and probably come close to or within our city standards. Because it is kind of a cart before the horse thing and we are not quite sure what the City Council is going to do, I'm pleased to hear that there would be a way to process the Lot Line Adjustment. I'm not inclined to provide a condition of approval that would allow the waiver request. Goodereis: My name is Crystal Goodereis, I'm J.B. Hays' assistant. As Mr. Ostner knows, he was present through the City Council of all of this. A lot of the discussion that was heard was on the 1.59 acres, which was the dental clinic which we withdrew and we permanently tabled. Barrington, when we met with Barrington's POA, they were very much in favor of a cul-de- sac because if you go back to the very beginning over a year ago, the developer, J.B. Hays, originally tried to make this connectivity from day one. We were told that this was Park ground that could not be purchased for 20 years and that a right of way was not ever going to be on the table. That was part of our concern. The second part was let's look at Starr Drive. We were told that Starr Drive is not feasibly ready right now at this time and won't be until it becomes a collector street. We have a school emptying out there. They also stated, I need to tell you that staff have been great to work with and all of them, Planning, Subdivision Committee, the whole nine yards, but the reason that we chose not to do the Starr is because Planning would rather see it connect up, swerve around and connect up to Cherokee to alleviate pressure from the school, Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 18 so we don't have three driveways, two from the school and then one connecting out. Barrington was very concerned about this connecting to Starr because they felt like that it would then be a cut through, a cut through from everyone on Hwy 265 that needed to get over to Crossover or Starr and then especially avoiding all of the traffic coming down Mission in the morning with the school traffic. Barrington was more inclined to want to see the cul-de-sac than they were to see connectivity to Starr. There was a lot of issue which would permanently table, because, as we said before, there is no further intent to develop the ground anymore. That is why we withdrew the 1.59 request for an R -O because it just wasn't feasible to have the neighbors upset when we are not planning on developing that ground. To answer some of your questions Ms. Anthes, those were some of the issues that were on the table that we tried to address over a year ago. It wasn't anyone, it was all in hindsight because that ground had just recently then been given to Parks Board, back in October, which was a day late, a dollar short. Prior to that, before that, this could have all been a moot issue and we could've went to the city and got a right of way and been done and not have had any of this happen. That's why I'm asking for granting of the cul-de-sac right now. As a citizen who lives on Starr and will continue to live on Starr, Starr is not ready right now until it turns into a collector to handle the traffic because it wouldn't just be my 18 homes that would be coming out there. That was what Barrington said. That's all that I have to pass on. That's why we ask. I can't speak for City Council, but I would hope that they would be willing to grant the right of way, especially since the Parks Board saw the need for it. The only reason that I'm speaking instead of Kip is because I did the rezoning so I was there for all of the wonderful "fights" if you want to call them, or whatever, but I was there from the beginning. I did the rezoning. Kip came in later so he didn't know how the history of the property went. That's the only reason we are asking for a cul-de-sac that long. Anthes: Parks has recommended approval of that dedication to Madison? Pate: That is correct. Planning staff did speak with the applicant's representative in talking about how to reduce this, obviously, with any waiver requirement we try to reduce it as much as possible to meet ordinance requirements, and continue with the approval process. We spoke about this situation at agenda session where probably a different property configuration and a street connection west to Starr Drive could alleviate some of that waiver request. We felt it was a little much to ask for an entire street connection to Starr Drive, even with a stub out in a different configuration, we would still have a dead-end street for all intents and purposes that emergency vehicles would have to get to the end of longer than 500'. We did approach the Parks staff and the Parks and Recreation Board to attempt to hopefully resolve those issues. Knowing Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 19 Hem: Pate: the property best, the Parks and Recreation Board did vote unanimously to support this City Council request. As per our typical process, the Planning Commission needs to vote and recommend something to the City Council and that is why it is the cart before the horse, but that is sometimes how it has to go with this process. They are looking for your recommendation as well as the Parks Board recommendation. We feel confident that it is a good recommendation, that it provides the city's policy of connectivity for both pedestrian and street connectivity. This area, this parks land specifically is not currently be utilized for parks purposes. There is a trail that could potentially go in this area that would not be impeded by the street connection either. We feel confident in our recommendation. One more comment. On the design of the cul-de-sac, you will notice on the very north end of the property, there is a considerable easement there that leads into the property. That in our mind, from a development perspective, is very good use of a cul-de-sac, as you shorten the cul-de-sac and with the prescription of the cul-de-sac with the subdivision to the east and with the pond to the west, any cul-de-sac that you bring back to the south will eliminate a number of lots. We did the best that we could to present something. We have 18 lots here, we understand that we are asking for a waiver, I don't know that that is really an unsafe situation. I would ask you again to consider approval of this particular design here tonight. Just to clarify too, our recommendation is that the City Council approve a street connection and this cul-de-sac not be constructed. That is our recommendation. Following that, should the City Council decide not to go with that recommendation, then it would be constructed as shown. I just want to clarify that emphasis is placed upon our recommendation to the City Council and then proceed forward with this request. Ostner: Just to clarify that clarification, that would only happen if we granted the waiver request. If we did not grant the cul-de-sac waiver tonight and it moved forward and the City Council did not grant the right of way request, they would need to proceed in a different fashion. Pate: Ostner: Whitaker: Ostner: That is correct. I have a question for the City Attorney. In the area of Lot Splits to what degree of latitude are we entitled? I think I understand our decision making processes on Preliminary Plats. I'm not certain what you mean what degree of latitude on a Lot Split. If a Commissioner were not pleased with the configuration of a proposed Lot Split, how would a Commissioner go about denying that Lot Split? Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 20 Whitaker: Clark: Pate: MOTION: Clark: Myres: Ostner: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Ostner: Roll Call: A Commissioner could, if they felt that it was not a proper configuration, they certainly could vote against it if they thought it didn't meet the criteria listed in the ordinance. Again, you always have to come back to that. You are restrained to the extent of the language of the ordinance which speaks to factors to be considered. I do not have that in front of me. I have absolutely no problem with the configuration of the Lot Split and didn't at Subdivision either. We agreed with staff that the right of way needs to be dedicated to make the connectivity but I understand Commissioner Anthes' argument that if Council decides not to that we will have granted a waiver for an extremely long cul-de-sac. Would it be possible on the first condition of approval to remove the last sentence that we don't give that waiver. We send it to Council with a recommendation that they give the extension. If they don't then they would have to come back for a waiver, would that be appropriate? That is. That is your call to make. The Planning Commission is given the discretion to recommend a waiver. That would make our intentions clear to the Council that we want this extension and give the developer more argument that it needs to be approved at that level to move ahead or they are going to have to come back to us to ask for a waiver. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 05-1439 as stated in the staff report. Second. Is there further discussion on the Lot Split? We are clear that if something does fall through with the connectivity, they can process a Lot Line Adjustment if we want to require a different configuration, correct? That is correct. It is an administrative request that does not come before any board. Thank you. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 05-1439 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 21 Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: Our tandem item, PPL 05-1437 is currently on the table. MOTION: Clark: I will then make another motion that we approve PPL 05-1437 with amendment to condition one to strike the last sentence and the Commission finding of fact on number three that we approve the waiver. All other conditions as stated. Vaught: What I don't want to see here is if the City Council doesn't approve the connection, they have to start over. That is not going to happen, they would have to just process a waiver request that would come through to the next meeting, what would be the process for the applicant? Pate: For the record, I would recommend that should the City Council not approve the right of way dedication and allow the street connection to come through, it could just come back to this body with a proposal that would meet the ordinance requirement if it is stricken as indicated. Also, for the record though, I want to make it clear that a Preliminary Plat would be approved with the Council approval of the right of way dedication so that it is very clear tonight what is being approved and what is not being approved. It is a little bit unusual in the fact that we are recommending approval of a Preliminary Plat, that is not unusual, that would meet ordinance requirements. However, we would just like to make clear for the record for the applicant and for everyone in the public listening, or for City Council reading these minutes, as they look at the right of way dedication, if they choose not to recommend that right of way dedication, that it would come back to this level and a configuration that we could look at. We would need to work with the applicant to make sure that time is not lost. Time is obviously of the essence, but we would need to make sure that all lots meet minimum requirements. We might see a Property Line Adjustment, we might see a situation where if it is the same configuration with a 500' cul-de-sac, we would be looking at pretty large lots along the east side so we just need to make sure that those all meet ordinance requirements. Vaught: To follow up, do we need to include language in condition number one stating that should City Council deny the dedication, the applicant will return to the Planning Commission for review of waiver request or new lot configuration? Pate: 1 would recommend adding a condition, number fourteen, stating should the City Council deny the right of way dedication, this Preliminary Plat Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 22 shall return to the Planning Commission for approval or denial, and we would look at whatever configuration at that time. Clark: I incorporate that into my motion. Ostner: We currently have a motion for approval of PPL 05-1437. On the first condition of approval we have struck the last sentence. I am going to read the way that condition currently reads. "Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for cul-de-sac length. Staff recommends dedication of city property to the north for a 50' right of way and construction of a city street, including sidewalks, to Madison Drive at the developer's expense. Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that this street connection be approved and right of way be dedicated across the existing parkland to connect the proposed street. That is condition number one. A finding of fact in the affirmative for condition number three, the determination of a waiver from the 100' separation of a permanent water surface. The addition of condition of approval number fourteen, should City Council deny the right of way request, this Preliminary Plat will return to the Planning Commission. Pate: In condition number one it is a 40' right of way as opposed to a 50' right of way. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1437 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 23 RZN 05-1426: Edwards/JED, Inc. Development, pp 285 was submitted by Melvin Milholland of Milholland Engineering for property located at the future extension of Raven Lane, north of Mt. Comfort, east of Salem. The property is zoned RSf-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 19.35 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -12, Residential Multi -Family, 12 units per acre. Osmer: Our next item is RZN 05-1426 for Edwards JED Development. Morgan: This subject property is located north of Mt. Comfort Road west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is a portion of a larger tract zoned RSF-4 and it is currently undeveloped with no access. The majority of the surrounding properties were annexed in August, 2004, at the time that the City Council incorporated islands into the city limits. Crystal Springs subdivision and Holcomb Elementary School are located northwest of the subject property. Hamestring Creek and the golf course are located to the north of the property and surrounding properties. The nearest developed property to the south is Bird Haven Terrace subdivision located approximately 1,300 feet south of this and developed for single and two family use. The applicant intends to develop the property for multi -family use at a density currently three times greater than the RSF-4 zoning district would permit. The proposed zoning would allow for a maximum density of 12 units per acre for RMF -12 zoning resulting in a maximum potential of 232 dwelling units in a predominantly single family area. Staff has received several comments from adjoining property owners and have included many letters, as well as a petition in the staff report. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request based on findings stated herein. The development of this property with the zoning proposed would be inconsistent to that of the surrounding properties and will result in a spot zone, which is against city policy. While the property directly adjacent to this proposal is either golf course or vacant, staff finds that a rezoning request at this density is not compatible with the surrounding properties and find that a PZD may better suit a higher density proposal along the golf course by incorporating buffers, screening, etc. and limit the density more appropriately than an RMF -12 proposal. With regard to findings, we have received reports from the Fire and Police Depaitinents. Fire reports that the subject property is located 2.2 miles from Fire Station #7 with a response time projected at six minutes at full development. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that the rezoning will not substantially alter density and thereby, undesirably increase the load on police services. With regard to the General Plan, the Future Land Use Plan does designate this property as residential. Staff finds that the proposed zoning for multi -family use at 12 units per acre is not compatible, as I have previously stated. We do find that the proposed zoning is not justified nor needed at this time. The current zoning district will allow for residential development at a density compatible with Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 24 Osmer: Milholland: surrounding areas. Staff finds that there is not a lack of multi -family units currently in Fayetteville. The immediate vicinity does not currently have this type of dwelling though there is nearby property zoned for multi- family housing already. The additional density will create a significant increase in the amount of traffic in the surrounding areas. Installation of significant infrastructure will be required at the time of development of the property to provide sufficient ingress and egress to the property. Assessments for improvements to Mt. Comfort Road are also anticipated due to it's unimproved state and primary means of access to this property. There would be an increase in population with this rezoning. Currently at the RSF-4 zoning designation a maximum 77 single family residential dwelling units would be allowed. With the proposed RMF -12 zoning designation a maximum of 232 multi -family dwelling units would be permitted. Based on these findings, staff, therefore, is recommending denial of the requested rezoning. Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the developer and client tonight. JED, Inc. are the developers. They were one of the first developers out in this area in the territory along Mud Creek. Crystal Springs Phase I adjoins this new school, which they actually donated land for. Crystal Phase II and III are in the process of being constructed now. We have worked with the city to make connectivity over to Deane Solomon Road in that phase. This is actually Phase IV of this project which started back in the early 90's. This property was annexed into the city at that time. Knowing we had to cross the creek we planned for connectivity to Raven at that time when it wasn't even on the Master Street Plan. Since then, the Master Street Plan has increased that to a collector, which will go through the existing subdivision to the south and to this particular development. Whether it is developed with any multi -family or all single family, it is still a collector. It crosses Mud Creek to the south of this development and then goes on through Phase III of Crystal Springs and that has been dedicated and the street is being constructed at this time and it is planned to go on out up to East Salem Road. There is a lot of history behind this. Over a decade of history in planning this and developing it. The golf course has been there all of this time and we have made some swaps and purchases and things with the golf course. We are requesting for Mr. Edwards, the client, he felt like just the golf course, it is almost ''A mile up to Bird Haven Subdivision. The golf course wraps around the east side and also the south side. There is a creek on the south side. Across that creek there is a subdivision east of there that is developing now, Phase II, III and I of Crystal Springs. The only thing that we are even touching with this development would be Bird Haven to the south, which is almost '/o mile of residential single family between this zoning proposed and the existing subdivision. We initially Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 25 before we submitted application, requested a meeting with the Planning Department. Mr. Edwards made it very plain to me and wanted to know if they would give support. We did meet with them. We don't know, but we feel certain that we had their support for a PZD at that time. Being isolated as it was, we felt like there might be an opportunity to use this zoning and still not be adjacent to residential. As far as Raven, I noticed in some of the petitions that were signed, it stated over and over that there are children playing in the streets, walking the dog and things of this nature. I don't feel that is safe for any street no matter where it is at. It is a dangerous thing to do even if it is a cul-de-sac. Your Master Street Plan calls Raven to be a collector street. Whether we put single family in all of this or a mixture of single family and multi -family, Raven was built out to carry a lot of cars. I know the people in the neighborhood don't want to hear that but I didn't make that choice. This Commission did and the others that planned it. It will be a major collector one day. I think we have already heard the data put together by city staff on how many more cars there will be. We feel that the distribution of the traffic could go either way, to the north or south and tie into East Salem which eventually Raven will do that. What we would like you to do is to give us some input tonight on whether you feel this is appropriate. I tried to justify why we feel it is appropriate, it is isolated. The golf course is the only thing that is touching it other than development by JED, Inc. themselves. We would respectfully request your consideration, your thoughts. Mr. Edwards would like to do this if possible. We realize this is sticking way out there but he has built these projects before in other towns nearby and has been very successful. As far as the comments about the utilities, it says that sanitary sewer is not available, sanitary sewer is available. As a matter of fact, when we did Crystal Springs Phase I we ran water, improved it from Mt. Comfort to Raven and all the way across this property. The street is still in the same location. It does cross the creek and goes into service Phase I, III, II, also the school and some of the areas that are developing at this point in time ten years ago. As far as sanitary sewer, the pump station that is out there, JED, Inc. paid for. We designed it, I designed it, and we have a letter on file that that pump station, and force main that feeds back up through this proposed development here into Raven and discharges into a manhole in Raven and then the sewer mains through the subdivision at that time 10 or 11 years ago, was actually improved to carry the capacity that was needed for all the land that they owned at that time, which included this 80 acre tract. There is a letter on file that the city says should they use the capacity of that pump station in the future that they would at the time they came in for a development, they would provide this developer capacity without any additional charge because he did pay for the original for his own development when no other development was out there. In addition to that, the developer did pay in that lift station and the force main and some of the gravity and grading to the south for capacity to the school. They donated that to them as well as the land. That is on Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 26 record. There has been a lot of planning in this. I know that there are a lot of signatures on here. I am not sure if the folks signing this petition understood that it is going to be ''A mile down this pasture before this zoning takes place if it is permitted. If they are here tonight I would like to make sure that they understood that. It will not in any way at all come against them. If anyone loses, it would be the client himself or the developer himself, because he has residential adjacent to it on the south, west and north. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Milholland. At this point if we could hear public comment, if anyone would like to speak to this Rezoning request, RZN 05-1426? Please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Stocker: Hi, I'm Kathy Stocker, I live at 2848 W. Quail Drive. I have already sent pretty much everyone here letters stating my opposition. I did have a map that I received from the Planning office that I showed people when I circulated the petition so they are aware that it does not butt up against our subdivision but to say that it won't impact us is, I don't know what to say about that. Obviously, the traffic created from this proposed rezoning is going to impact us a lot. People are going to come down our street and they can't get out on Mt. Comfort right now so it is going to back up and they are going to go through our neighborhood to go to Woodlark to try to get out on that way, there is no other way out. Mt. Comfort, there has been no work done on Mt. Comfort. I saw in the paper that they are trying to get a bond issued so evidently there is not funding right now for Mt. Comfort improvements. We enjoy a low crime rate in our neighborhood and when you put that many people in apartments near our neighborhood I believe that we are going to have an effect from that. There were very few people in our subdivision, as you can see, we have a very small subdivision, there were very few people that did not sign the petition. Most of the places that didn't were there were just some elderly people that didn't want to sign, they were for it. As you can see from the petition, most of the neighborhood is represented. I urge you strongly, like the people in the petition, to deny this rezoning. Noise??: I'm Richard Noise??, I live at 2862 Meadowlark, which intercedes to Raven. First of all, with all due respect, our grandchildren play in the street. The reason that they are in the street is because we don't have adequate sidewalks. I really don't care what he builds back there but the minute you open that up to our subdivision it just changes the whole dynamics. Traffic is bad right now, like she said, getting out in the morning. I invite each one of you to come over between 7:00 and 8:30 and imagine what it would be like if Raven was a through street. I think we just need to step back and look at this. If it has been ten years in the planning I can't believe it. This is ridiculous. Thank you. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 27 Musicc: My name is Jerry Musicc, I'm the General Manager for Razorback Park golf course. The first question I would have is the owners Linda and Ron Kavenauss, just took over the golf course a year ago and we have not been notified of any of these meetings or any of the activities relative to that. Maybe that is partly my responsibility but I think as a property owner in that area that we should be notified rather than finding this by happen stance from someone in the area. I would like to have more time to at least think about it. I don't know much about it at this point other than to say that any golf courses around that have multi -family units adjacent to them create serious problems of maintenance for the course. The lack of respect by a lot of the residents in these kinds of properties, multi -family properties, tend to create problems for the golf course. Unless there was some significant work relative to limiting access, I would say that we would be strongly opposed to multi -family property in that area. Kimbrough: My name is Les Kimbrough, I live at 2422 N. Salem Road. I would also like to add my voice to the rest of them to oppose this amendment. My main concerns are the traffic issues that have already been spoken about here this evening. I'm aware of three other developments that are currently going on along Salem Road that are varying degrees of completion. I don't have an exact account but I know that there are two or three other developments going on down further down Mt. Comfort Road, including Crofton Manor by my place. As it has been mentioned here before, we have Phase II of Crystal Springs that hasn't been started yet that I understand is single family dwellings. The traffic along Mt. Comfort and Salem Road is at an untenable situation as it is. I haven't been pleased with the density of the single family dwellings. However, we have always kind of thought of it as an accommodation that we were going to have to make because it seems like the chances of stalling or stopping those developments are pretty much nothing. I think to add 230 units to an already bad situation along Mt. Comfort Road and Salem is a terrible idea and we would simply like to voice our opposition to that. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Kimbrough. Wilson: My name is Billy Wilson, I live at 2708 W. Quail. My house sits at the end of the cul-de-sac at Raven and Quail. When Kathy came around we were the only side of the street, the north side of Quail, that was notified as far as we now. In going through the neighborhood Kathy brought us a petition and yes, they were given information as to how far back it was. It was not going to abut up to our property to start with. They were mostly in opposition. I only incurred two people that were either too busy to come to the door. Kathy pulled most of the signatures, and by the way, did a fine job at that. To say that it is not going to impact our area, that it is not going to impact the traffic. They are my children, they are my Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 28 77. neighbor's children. We sit at the end of our cul-de-sac outside and watch the kids play. That is the reason that most of the people bought in that area. It was affordable housing as well as the fact that it was a quiet neighborhood. With the addition to this as well as any other possible rezoning later plus the fact that this many more cars later, it is just beyond us to try to figure out how to get on and off the road as is. I could say other things that have already been said. I just don't think it is necessary. We in that area would appreciate you looking at the overall picture. At this time it is just not feasible for that area. Hello, my name is John ??, I live at 2809 Quail. I have three small children and they don't play in the street yet but I'm sure that they will when they get bigger. Our neighborhood does not have adequate sidewalks around. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic, people walking for exercise and jogging around to walk their dogs. Every morning I go to work and there are usually two or three cars backed up at the end of the street already. With the addition of this many more units directly down our street I think that it is going to cause problems and may even necessitate a traffic light in the future. I would prefer to have all of that traffic directed other ways but I understand that that is probably not possible at this point. Had I of known that this was going to be a major collector, as he mentioned, it was planned ten years ago, then I may not have bought a house here. It had no traffic and was peaceful and quiet. That was one of the main deciding factors when we purchased our home. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further public comment from the public? Edwards: I'm Greg Edwards. Ostner: This is for the non applicant. Edwards: I'm actually for the development. Westfield: I am Barbara Westfield, I live at 2863 Quail Drive on Woodlark and Quail on the other end where the other cul-de-sac is. I have to agree with every one on this. The traffic is unbearable in the mornings. I have to agree that if they couldn't get out on Mt. Comfort down Raven they would come down Quail. Going down Woodlark there is no way out except for getting back to Mt. Comfort. In the mornings it is horrible. In the evenings it is horrible. I recommend that someone at least check out the traffic. I agree with the children, there are no sidewalks over there. Someone needs to check that out. That's all I have to say. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 29 Ostner: Thank you. Is there further public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment session and open it up to the Commission. I believe the applicant would like to share something. Edwards: I am Greg Edwards, as for the golf course, we would provide a wrought iron fence around the entire area where there is multi -family. I just wanted that to be known. Ostner: I would just like to add that this is a land use discussion. Traffic is not a land use issue. This applicant could be bringing forth a development plan that he would have a legal right to build and traffic issues would be part of that. This is a land use decision, this is not a decision about the Master Street Plan. It was set by a body larger than this one. Your elected officials, the City Council, sets that plan and they do it regularly. I believe we are going to revisit the Master Street Plan this year. I encourage you to be active with your City Council and talk to them about the Master Street Plan. That is a legislative act. This is a decision about land use and about RMF -12 units per acre verses RSF-4 units per acre. Vaught: I tend to agree with staff on spot zoning RMF -12 in this location. I do think a mixed density in this area I would not be opposed to. I would like to see a PZD though so we could further look at the details and the mixtures of uses in this area and also the different screening and buffering. Raven is a collector street and I think that even some of the discussion about the residents being trapped in this neighborhood goes for the need of connectivity in this area to other directions. That is one of the major things. Any development on this site I think there needs to be multiple points of access and not just Mt. Comfort as we look to the future. Right now I tend to agree with Staff. As is, I can't support a straight RMF -12 in this area. I am not opposed to a mixture of uses in the area, but I would like to see it in the form of a PZD so we could have not just more control, but a better understanding of what exactly is going to be there and a plan as to can the infrastructure carry it. Ostner: I would like to agree with those comments. Clark: I think the staff report lays it out pretty adequately with the inadequacies in the infrastructure, it is not compatible with surrounding density and it is not needed at this time. I would move that we concur with staff and deny RZN 05-1426. Allen: I will second. Ostner: I have a question for the applicant. The motion to deny the RMF -12 is on the table. I just wanted to open a dialogue with you if you all had considered a PZD or a different development plan. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 30 Milholland: Yes, we have considered a PZD. As I stated earlier, as we normally do, we requested a hearing with the staff. We met with some of the staff and Mr. Edwards with JED, Inc., made it very clear at that meeting, he just wanted to know would the staff support a PZD with some multi -family in it and the bulk of it single family or would they not support that. What we discussed basically was traffic counts and bridge improvements, which we knew we would have to do that and do a traffic study. We knew all of this, and the flow of traffic I think that what happened is we left there not knowing what the support would be from the staff. I don't mean that negatively. I think that they may have been just not prepared to answer that. We wanted to have something on paper saying yes we would and some input from someone. If you all would give us some input we would be more than happy to bring forth a PZD with a similar type design and buffers and so forth with some multi -family and the bulk of it being residential if we felt like this Council and the staff would support that. I have heard three tonight that said they would, I think I understood that right. We are open to dialogue, if you could give us some input tonight we would love to. Mr. Edwards is sitting here ready and willing to tell you exactly how he feels about it. I'm trying to represent him the best I can. He would love to do this if it is possible. If it takes a PZD then we will do that. A PZD costs a lot of money to put together because you design it so we are wanting some input to find out whether we are going to spend thousands and thousands of dollars and get here and now know exactly how you feel about it. That's why we ask for that. I am not going to speak on behalf of staff and what they felt on that. That's what we really want. In discussing it with Mr. Edwards, the only thing we could do was ask for something we felt like was pushing the limit but we could get some input from you and if you would give us input tonight we would definitely appreciate it. We would open the dialogue on a PZD. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Milholland. If I could request from the Commission a little more elaboration as to your decision behind your vote tonight I think it would help us out from a difficult situation. Anthes: Staff, I have a question both to clarify our position to the applicant and also, because Rezonings are, of course, recommendations to the City Council and don't stop at this level and I think that they need the benefit of that discussion as well. The first question is we have established that Raven is a collector on the Master Street Plan and of course, we do have a policy of connectivity. Is there any timing on Raven extension or do you expect it to happen as development occurs? Pate: It is likely as development occurs. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 31 Anthes: Keeping that in mind, I have a couple more questions. How far is this property from Holcomb Elementary? Vaught: Holcomb is not far if you go across the bridge and down. The top edge of Crystal Springs, that is Holcomb sitting there, I believe that is Salem Village. Pate: It appears it is about 1/2 mile. Anthes: Theoretically speaking, when we are talking about density near elementary schools and affordability of property and housing options near elementary schools and we are within '/z mile, which is walking distance from an elementary school, I don't inherently disagree in looking at options for density in that kind of situation. How far is this property from commercial nodes that are coming? Pate: Probably from the east of this property the CPZD that has been approved for springwoods you have to go south or north to eventually get to that property, it is about '4 mile to get to that point. Anthes: Knowing that again, I don't think when we are looking at a mixture of density, it is not necessarily bad in that proximity to a commercial zone. Can you verify the applicant's assertion about the availability of sewer since that is in contradiction to our staff report? Pate: The availability of sewer really has no findings with regard to the rezoning request. There are several developments that will go through and do go through Hamestring lift station. There are no development guarantees with zoning based on the capacity of the lift station. That is capacity of simply how many units can be served off of taps from sewer lines to get to that lift station. Those are upgraded as needed and that is kind of what we have to look at more intensely and with more detail at the time of development of this particular piece of property. There are agreements made prior with this developer that the City Council approved. There is a resolution on file and we will obviously look at that and take that into consideration when development of this property comes forward. Anthes: The reason I asked is because it is listed in the staff report as a finding. Pate: It is probably mentioned in our report that the number of units represented in the applicant's letter does not necessarily represent the number of units allowed by density or zoning. Anthes: With all of that being said, I would like the applicant to know that within these distances of schools and commercial nodes, I am not necessarily against a density that might be higher than an RSF-4 density. However, it Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 32 is difficult to support this rezoning request for all of the reasons that staff has mentioned. Particularly in regards to the spot zoning, that directly contradicts city policy. At this point, without a development plan, I am finding it hard to find compatibility at this point in time and therefore, am going to agree with the motioner but would encourage you to come back with a development plan that would give us other options. Vaught: I would like to follow up on my thoughts as well. When I look at this, I agree that it is a great location for a mixed density for affordable housing. I don't know if I could support a PZD with an area as dense as RMF -12 type zoning. It just depends on the development honestly. I would also encourage the applicant to look at the developments around the other new middle school off of Wedington. I think those are the types of development that might fit better in this neighborhood. It is not a straight jump to RMF fully, it is more mixed with that in there of smaller single family areas, small lots and alley loaded type of development. I think that could be a good fit and be a good buffer, a transition type area. Even RMF, I don't know I could go with 12 per acre. Maybe something significantly less, maybe 7 or 8 for part of it, not for the entire 19 acres, with a blanket zone in that area with that kind of development. Allen: Milholland: Allen: Vaught: Whitaker: Ostner: I would like to ask Mr. Milholland if he has met with these neighbors. I personally have not. To answer your question, we have not. I think that would be helpful before you bring something back before us if this is denied. I would also like to add that anything that we see before us I would like to see multiple access points. Not just access south to Mt. Comfort but that's requiring a bridge across the creek, I think that is something that is very important. I want to give this development various points of access at the time of this development. It would also give those people who live in adjoining neighborhoods the availability of cutting through and exiting from their property. I think that is the key to why a PZD needs to be looked at. I just wanted a point of clarification on process. On rezonings, you either recommend approval of a rezoning which then automatically goes to the City Council and they are the ones that would approve or deny at that point. However, if you vote to deny that basically kills it and the applicant then has a procedural right to request an appeal to the City Council. That is just to avoid confusion on the process. Thank you. As I understand it, if denied tonight, the applicant is not prohibited from approaching staff with a different rezoning request. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 33 Whitaker: I believe the language is substantially different. I believe you are talking about the one year of not bringing it back, that would only be if it were trying to dress it up and get another vote within a year. I think the whole idea of a rezoning to RMF -12 verses a PZD are substantially different enough to be considered different items. Pate: Lack: In response to a couple of the comments. Staff did meet with the applicant on a couple of different occasions talking about this project. His statement is entirely correct. We are not adequately prepared to support a PZD for this property yet. We are prepared to support the application or submittal and discussions with the applicant regarding what type of development but we are not to a point yet where we feel we can recommend development on this site based on the extent of information provided. We have requested some more detailed information traffic studies and what type of improvements would be required with the type of development number of units proposed. I just wanted to make that clarification and let the applicant know and the Commissioners know, that that is a true statement. We are not quite prepared yet to recommend to you and the City Council a particular submittal for this piece of property. I would like to concur with those comments about connectivity and the additional points of access to the property. I wonder, and maybe I should be able to read this better, but I would like to understand from the applicant, if you currently have land rights to produce that connectivity. If you can actually extend the streets within your property to connect to other means of access for the property. This plan does help and it shows the potential of the street connecting but a part of it is shaded so I don't know if maybe that is the part on your property that you have the power to do. Milholland: The road was designed to touch the property line. We would implement the Master Street Plan in our design. Lack: I'm seeing something that looks like potentially Raven to the north which is, of course, part of the Master Street Plan, unless I'm reading your plan incorrectly there, part of what I'm asking is it possible for you to connect this to the north specifically is my question. Milholland: Yes. Lack: If this were voted and declined tonight, a PZD could see Raven connected within this property? You could design Raven to be connected to Crystal Springs within this project? Milholland: Yes, we do anticipate that. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 34 Myres: I can't add a thing. I just wanted to go on record saying so. I concur with my fellow Commissioners. I plan to support staff and vote to deny. Ostner: I would like to concur with Mr. Vaught. I believe that if this were a PZD around 7 or 8 units per acre, depending on the development, I might be amenable to that sort of request depending on how the design was. Milholland: For the record, we are open to dialogue. I don't know if it is permissible but we would love to know how the rest of you feel as far as what the Chairman just said. Mr. Vaught, would you be open to 7 or 8 units per acre on this on a PZD? Graves: I can't commit myself without seeing anything, but there needs to be some transition obviously, between single family housing and anything like RMF -12. I think maybe Mr. Vaught wasn't necessarily talking about an average for the whole piece of property the way I understood him. I think he was talking about something with 7 or 8 units per acre contained within that piece of property but the average might be something less than that. Given the lack of very many entrance and exit points on this particular piece of property absent future construction tie in and things of that nature. I wouldn't want to mislead you if you came back with a PZD that if the only way in and out was through the Quail area that some of these folks are from, or is only to the north, in other words, Raven is the only way in and out and there is not some tie in going some other directions, I would still have the same concerns about traffic, which is one of the considerations from a zoning standpoint, not from a land use, but from a zoning standpoint, potential traffic congestion caused by a rezoning is something to look at. I just ran down that road the other day, and it is pretty dangerous without the sidewalks and there is a lot of traffic going by out there. It is not a comfortable situation. If you came back with a PZD and it still had only one way in and out I would be uncomfortable with it. Milholland: I don't want to mislead you. The intention was to get to the zoning for the multi family. We would not just go north, we would put single family in also, having two ways, one north and one south out at the same time. It wouldn't be really practical to put one way for any type of development, you would need two. We plan on directing it to the north and the south as far as designing and developing streets. Vaught: I would also just like to add from my point of view, more development area incorporated in the PZD, if you expand the pink area into the blue, it is easier for us to get an overall picture of the impact of what is going to happen. You don't necessarily have to change what you do with the blue, but it would be nice to see those mixed together and not just have a stand alone 19 acre PZD that is a just a dense residential PZD. I think it is better Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 35 if it expanded into the mix of the area around it. I know you already have the zoning for the RSF-4 in this area, so you don't necessarily want to propose that. I think it would present a better picture and increase what you could do. I think that is at your discretion. I agree with Commissioner Graves, I don't want to mislead you by stating a number but I am thinking that it is an area that may be able to tolerate more density than four units per acre. Ostner: We have a motion to deny. Are there any questions from the applicant since we are in a dialogue? Milholland: If I understand this from the City Attorney, if you deny this tonight, that would not prevent us from coming back with a PZD. We appreciate the input. We would love to have each of your comments. We will work with staff and you and come up with something. We didn't want to come here tonight with a PZD and not know how you felt and spending hours and hours on it. We kind of knew what you wanted with a PZD but we knew also that this was zoned RSF-4. We would like to know if we come back now are we wasting our time or should we just come back with single family. That's what we wanted to know. I think I understand staff saying that they are not ready to support either way. Clark: I would like to also add another component, that would be to talk to the neighbors. I think transitional housing from single family to anything that is denser, that needs to happen. I think the neighbors need to be consulted and I think it is incumbent upon the developer to do that. It also makes for better relations down the road and fewer people coming to meetings like this to express their distaste for the development. In terms of density, I think we have said no to what you proposed and I don't think any of us have committed to any number coming back to us. An R-PZD could be a wonderful thing and I think staff can guide you. I don't think any of us have said anything definitive about density and I don't think we are going to. That is a very unique piece of property with a lot of different limitations to it and a lot of different considerations. I think between you, staff and the neighbors, you could probably come up with something that we will like and we will all look forward to seeing it but this one is not going to work. Ostner: If there are no further comments, I will call for a vote. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1426 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The item is denied. Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 36 Ostner: I believe that is the end of our agenda tonight. Are there any announcements? Announcements Meeting adjourned: 7:25 p.m.