Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 25, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Discussed VAC 05-1440: (WAITSMAN, 295) VAC 05-1455: (NECESSARY, 99) VAC 05-1456: (REINDL, 484) ANX 05-1451: (LANE, 571) RZN 05-1452: (LANE, 571) Page 5 CUP 05-1466: (ISRAEL, 451) LSP 05-1465: Lot Split (ISRAEL, 451) Page 6 LSD 04-1360: (MAIL CO., 678-717) Page 10 VAC 05-1435: (ASPEN RIDGE, 522/561) Page 22 VAC 05-1454: (HARGUS, 561) Page 25 VAC 05-1453: (St. James Baptist, 524) Page 27 RZN 05-1480: (BILL EDDY MOTORSPORTS, 402) Page 37 RZN 05-1448: (STAGGS, 678) Page 39 RZN 05-1449: (PAYNE, 755) Page 42 RZN 05-1450: (Stonebridge Meadows V, 607) Page 51 Action Taken Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Tabled Tabled Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Tabled Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 2 Members Present Audi Lack Candy Clark Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo James Graves Christine Myres Members Absent Christian Vaught Staff Present Staff Absent Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Kit Williams Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Good evening. Welcome to the Monday, April 25, 2005 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Can we have the roll call please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Vaught being absent. Ostner: The first item is the approval of minutes from the April 11, 2005 meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? Anthes: So moved. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Renee? 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. VAC 05-1440: (WAITSMAN, 295): Submitted by J. JEFF MARTIN for property located at 3565 NATCHEZ TRACE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to vacate a 20' drainage easement along the east side of the subject property. VAC 05-1455: (NECESSARY, 99): Submitted by BUCKLEY BLEW for property located at 3187 E WATERSTONE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.12 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. VAC 05-1456: (REINDL, 484): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at 580 W MEADOW. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.40 acres. The request is to vacate two sewer easements on the subject property. Ostner: There are three items on our consent agenda tonight. I will read those items. Item number one, VAC 05-1440 for Waitsman submitted by Jeff Martin for property located at 3565 Natchez Trace. Second, VAC 05- 1455 entitled Necessary submitted by Buckley Blew for property located at 3187 E. Waterstone. The third item on the consent agenda is VAC 05- 1456 entitled Reindl submitted by Mandy Bunch for property located at 580 W. Meadow. If anyone would like these items to be removed from the consent agenda please speak up or if anyone in the audience would like for these items to be heard instead of on the consent agenda, please speak now. Seeing no discussion, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 4 MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Clark: I will second. Osmer: 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 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 5 ANX 05-1451: (LANE, 571): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at at THE END OF COUNTRY RIDGE ROAD, N OF HWY 16E, W OF DEERFIELD WAY. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 24.19 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 05-1452: (LANE, 570: Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE END OF COUNTRY RIDGE, N OF 16E AND W OF DEERFIELD WAY. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 30.872 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next two items on our agenda have been requested to be tabled by the applicant. However, we have notified the public. I will announce them. If anyone would like to speak concerning them right now we can hear your public comments. Item number four is ANX 05-1451 entitled Lane and item five is RZN 05-1452 entitled Lane. Would anyone from the public like to speak to these two issues tonight? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. The applicant requested that these be tabled so we will hear these again possibly in some form. MOTION: Allen: Graves: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: MOTION: Allen: Graves: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: I move to table ANX 05-1451. Second. Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 05-1451 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. I move to table RZN 05-1452. I will second. Will you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1452 approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. was Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 6 CUP 05-1466: (ISRAEL, 451): Submitted by CLARK CONSULTING for property located on STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 30.99 acres. The request is to approve a tandem lot on the subject property. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 05-1466 for Israel submitted by Clark Consulting for property located on Starr Drive. If we could have the staff report please? Pate: This property is zoned both R -A, Residential Agricultural and is also located within the Planning Area. It contains approximately 31 acres. This item and the following item are in tandem. The request is to create a tandem lot. This item is a Conditional Use request to create a lot that does not have frontage onto public right of way and is instead accessed by an access easement that is filed on the lot in front of it. The larger lot, which would consist of about 28.95 acres would have that access easement as shown on the plat along the north property line for ingress and egress. It would be wide enough to accommodate emergency service vehicles. A driveway would need to be constructed in that location as well. The tandem lot would be approximately a two acre lot that would consist of one single family home and accessory structures. Staff has made findings of fact with regard to this Conditional Use request as required by ordinance on pages 6.3 through 6.7 and have recommended conditions of approval based on those findings of fact. Those are listed on the first page of your staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use to approve this tandem lot request as well as the following request, which is the Lot Split request that does meet ordinance requirements with the exception of frontage. There are a number of conditions. As I mentioned, one single family home is the maximum allowed on this tract of land by ordinance. On this particular tract of land a building permit will also be required for any structures because it is located within the city. Much of this property that is in front of us is located within the county. The city limits line meanders in and out in this location. Item number two, a new access drive shall be paved a minimum of 25' in length from the intersection of the drive and intersecting Starr Drive right of way. That will need to be maintained by the tandem lot owner and comply with city ordinances to provide safe and adequate emergency access. The ingress/egress easement from Starr Drive shall be 30' in width. Also, with regard to solid waste disposal, staff is recommending a cart be rolled out to the street as opposed to the more typically recommended by ordinance brick screening type facility, which is not useful for the city's purposes for handling solid waste. I'm not sure if the city actually services this area because it is part of the county but in the case that they do that would be more compatible with our type of arm system. The building setbacks shall be 20' for all property lines for the tandem lot. That is a basic ordinance requirement. Also, the developer is required because it is a Conditional Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 7 Use, to contribute, in this case, a payment of $630 for fees in lieu of sidewalk construction for one single family residence prior to the issuance of a building permit. That recommendation does come from our Sidewalk Administrator, which is also an ordinance requirement. The following item, the Lot Split for Ben Israel is to actually split this lot. This document will be filed of record at the county and that does have seven conditions. With the Lot Split, a minimum of 35' of right of way from centerline for Starr Drive, which is a collector street, is required to be dedicated for our Master Street Plan requirements. Additionally, a public water main shall be extended and made accessible to each tract prior to the recordation of the requested Lot Split. That is to be verified by City Engineering before we stamp that drawing for filing. I believe that is everything unless you have any further questions. Ostner: At this point will the applicant please step forward? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Clark, S.: My name is Steve Clark. I represent Ben Israel , he is trying to split out a two acre tract that he will sale so he can give to his daughter so she can build a home on it. It's they're intent to build a single family home on just the two acres the remaining portion of it serves as a portion of his horse farm and he runs some horses on it and uses it for some of his training areas. Conditions are all acceptable, the one question I do have is the requirement for payment for sidewalk, the frontage along Starr Drive is actually I believe within the county, and didn't know for sure whether the sidewalk requirement would apply since it falls within the county area and not within the city area. Ostner: We will answer your question in a moment. At this point I am going to open it up to the public. We are discussing two items right now, CUP 05- 1466 and LSP 05-1465. If anyone would like to speak to these issues please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. If I can start by asking Staff about the question by Mr. Clark. Pate: Two responses. One, with the Conditional Use request there is a requirement for either sidewalk construction or fee in lieu. This property is located within the city, at least this area. The City Council also recently passed an ordinance to require all county properties within one mile of the city limits, the street systems within that area to be improved to city standards which would include street standards, sidewalks, street lights, in this case the rational nexus calculation doesn't really warrant for a Lot Split those type of street improvements so we are looking for that Conditional Use fee. Ostner: Does that answer your question Mr. Clark? Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 8 Clark, S.: Yes. Ostner: Commissioners, is there any discussion on these items? We will discuss them together, I believe we need to vote on them independently. MOTION: Allen: It seems pretty straight forward to me. I will move for approval of CUP 05-1466. Clark: Second. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Allen: Subject to the seven conditions of approval. Anthes: Staff, obviously, Mr. Israel having his daughter on this property makes a lot of sense. What happens in the future if this is no longer owned by a single family and we have an island within somebody else's land? Is that ever a problem where you have a donut, essentially, you end up with a hole in the middle with someone else's ownership? Pate: Essentially, that is what the tandem lot does. Anthes: Usually we see them behind and maybe adjacent to other properties but they are not just totally contained within another parcel that can be sold to another individual. Pate: The Conditional Use runs with the land so it doesn't rally matter who owns the property. If this property in the future develops it could become not a tandem lot anymore. For instance, if the street were constructed to have adequate frontage and there was sewer in this area. That restriction would be lifted once it had adequate frontage onto a public improved street. In the future I suppose it could become a more developable lot with more lots on that two acres. We found it is extremely in character with most of the properties out there surrounded by agricultural land. We have not seen a problem in the past with that. More so, we see a problem with these tracts being created illegally and we have to fix it after the fact. Ostner: There is a motion for approval and a second, is there further discussion? Call the roll Renee. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1466 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 9 LSP 05-1465: Lot Split (ISRAEL, 451): Submitted by CLARK CONSULTING for property located at STARR DRIVE, BETWEEN 909 AND 1011 STARR DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 30.99 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 28.95 and 2.04 acres. Ostner: The tandem item is LSP 05-1465. We have already heard the staff report. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this Lot Split? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. MOTION: Clark: This, again, is straight forward so I will move that we approve LSP 05- 1465 with the conditions as listed. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 05-1465 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 10 LSD 04-1360: Large Scale Development (MAIL CO., 678-717): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at S SCHOOL AVENUE, N OF WHILLOCK STREET. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4.02 acres. The request is to approve a 13,000 01 mail sorting facility with 38 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is LSD 04-1360 for Mailco submitted by Steve Clark for property located at South School Avenue north of Whillock Street. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: Several months ago this applicant actually applied for this LSD and at the time that we were reviewing the proposal for a 13,000 sq.ft. postal sorting establishment with 38 parking spaces we realized that as this property was at the time, split zoned with C-2 and RSF-4, this development proposal had an encroachment into the RSF-4 portion. The applicant then brought forward a Rezoning request to you and to the City Council. It was approved and this property is now C-2. It contains approximately 4.02 acres and is located within the Design Overlay District and surrounded by both commercial and residential properties along School Avenue. The applicant, this time, is bringing forward this LSD for your review and approval. It is adjacent to a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan, School Avenue, they will be required to dedicate right of way in conformance with the Master Street Plan for a total of 55' from centerline by Warranty Deed. That is prior to issuance of a building permit. They will be constructing a 6' sidewalk at the right of way line adjacent to the subject property as well as the installation of street lights in compliance with the ordinance. This is a commercial property and is reviewed for Design Overlay District requirements for a commercial structure. I have listed in the staff report all of the items which we review for that. With regard to curb cuts, there is a requirement in the Design Overlay District for a minimum distance of 200' between curb cuts. They are requesting slightly smaller than this distance for a total of 160' between two proposed curb cuts on this property and 135' distance between the southernmost driveway and the curb cut to the south of this property. Staff is recommending in favor of the proposed curb cuts and the waiver request for less than 200' requirement and requests that the Planning Commission make a determination for that. Another item which was discussed at length at Subdivision Committee was with regard to Commercial Design Standards. This development is within the Design Overlay District and there are additional standards with regard to Commercial Design as well as the design criteria within the Development Section of the Unified Development Code. Just a small recap, at the Subdivision Committee there was a discussion of adding additional contrast to the appearance and color of the split faced block in order to meet Commercial Design Standards. There have been no modifications since Subdivision Committee reviewed this development. We request that the Planning Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 11 Commission make a determination of whether this structure is in compliance with those requirements. Staff finds that the proposed elevations do not meet the ordinance requirements at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this LSD with 16 conditions of approval. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Clark, S.: My name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting. We are here on behalf of Mailco. I think all of the site issues have pretty much been addressed in previous conversations with the exception of the separation between the drives. We are requesting a waiver on that simply because we feel like it is necessary to have two drives in and out of this project to avoid truck traffic through the pedestrian area and through the central parking area in front of the building. We separated our drives as much as we could because of site constraints with the creek that is on our north property line we couldn't separate them anymore than we have. Some of the issues are related to architecture. I will allow Ken Shireman, who is the Project Architect, to address those issues. Shireman: I am Ken Shireman, Project Architect. I guess as it relates to the design standards in the staff comments, they refer specifically with regard to minimizing unpainted precision concrete block walls, we have no unpainted concrete block walls on this project. We do have split face concrete masonry units. Smooth face concrete masonry units. Brick, and we have stucco. All of which are masonry products. We have some metal on the building. I guess where we want to go with the design on this building is we want it to be in keeping with the character of what Mailco does. They do three things. They are a mail sorting facility, which is very utilitarian in nature. You can say it might be light industrial in nature. They operate as a mini post office. For those who rent PO boxes, Mailco does the packing and shipping facility for local customers. Their logo is red, white and blue, and we want the building to be black and gray and white with red and blue accents we are asking for a variance. The bottom elevation on the east side of the building that approximately eighty feet of that building we are asking for metal on that wall because that's the expansion space, this building could very likely expand within five to six years and that's where the mail sorting room would just keep on going east, that's why we asked and very thankful we did get the rezoning for the property. We don't want to ask the client to build and pay for a masonry wall and have to tear it down in a few years, so we would like not to do that. The rest of the building we want a very crisp clean building that we feel is in character with the revitalization of south Fayetteville. We are beginning to see what type of buildings are being built there and I understand that we are in the design overlay district. However, when you speak of natural looking materials, we don't see wood and stone being a Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 12 viable option on this type facility and we think we are in character with the neighborhood, we would like to see if you would approve our design concept. As far as the other issue on here, they talk about a monument sign we are not asking for a monument sign and never have. We want a wall sign and recreate their logo probably in metallic stainless or aluminum or silver something very bright and discrete. But it will be colored and probably larger than that. Other than that, I don't know what to add. I'm open for questions. We would like to see the project get approved and start building. Ostner: Thank You, Mr. Shireman. We will get back with you on the questions. At this point I'm going to open it up to the public. If anyone from the public would like to speak to this issue large scale development 05-1360 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the commission. Pate: I would like to clarify something that came up with Ms. Anthes' question at agenda session. I believe the City Attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm reading from the Variance Chapter 156 on condition number three, there is a question at agenda session the difference between a waiver and a variance. In looking at this, I believe this actually is a variance of the Design Overlay District requirements. There are three findings that the requirements of Chapter 166 have been met by the applicant for a variance. Those have. Item number two, the minimum variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The applicant has stated tonight that this is the furthest distance apart between curb cuts that they can make the property to reasonably be utilized for this use. Item number three, in harmony with general purpose, granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Overlay District and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. Staff does find in favor of that. I just wanted that to be on the record with regard to these findings. Ostner: Thank You, Mr. Pate. Trumbo: I have a question for staff, Mr. Shireman said that the concrete walls or stone block walls are painted and staff said that they are not. What is the discrepancy there? Pate: I think it has been just a little bit unclear building elevations presented and the drawings that you have in your packet, are obviously not quite as articulated as the ones on this board. Additionally, materials here that we have had have never been labeled. Mr. Shireman may be able to point some of those materials out and let us know exactly which ones are which. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 13 Allen: Our concern, I think from the time that this was submitted at Technical Plat Review, because this is Design Overlay District, there is a higher standard set by the city council for this area. Particularly in regard to architectural elevations and what can be seen from the public right of way. The elevations have been presented, I think in this case, these square box like structure has been minimized by a great extent. Most of the subcommittee did see the three dimensional images that show that this does have quite a bit of movement within the actual structure especially as utilitarian as it is and the large pieces of machinery that it does incorporate. We just felt that the side elevations have some more blank wall surfaces that could be further articulated potentially with color in the actual split face block or precision block walls that could help in the situation. Since the drawing up there is newer than the one that we have in our packet, I was wondering if we could pass that around to get a better look at it. I would like to be able to see if whether or not the scored masonry is visible as compared to the stucco. Graves: I have a question for the staff also. It seems like normally in the design overlay district we are typically dealing with more of a retail or restaurant type of space as opposed to maybe a heavy commercial or light industrial use. Do we have any kind of a precedent or anything that we have dealt with in this district before with maybe a use that's more similar to this than to a retail or a restaurant Pate Not extremely, similar, we've had some uses that are more intense there is a large scale development on McConnell Avenue. I think I mentioned it at the agenda session, that originally was a car , or body shop facility, which is more like heavy commercial C-2 zoning. That project changed and now it is some type of a storage, small retail area, plumbing type carpet type facilities. They did utilize the metal on a portion of their sides, I think it was utilized in a manor that was painted to look more natural in character, I don't remember specifically what exactly what color it was or anything but there were requirements placed on that project as well. Graves: Have we ever dealt with anything that was expandable? Where we got sort of a wall that we're dedicating to future expansion. Pate: I'm sure we have. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything where the material was specifically changed to allow for that on the back of a wall. We fully anticipate that this structure will in the future expand simply because the applicant did take the time to go through the City Council to have the rest of the property zoned C-2 as opposed to the RSF- 4. There is no way to promise that that is going to occur in the future. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 14 Allen: When this came before the Subdivision Committee, I know that they are not trying to design the building, but I am wondering what kind of conversation came out of that in terms of the design of the building. Clark: I will be happy to jump into that. We talked about the design standards extensively and providing a little more articulation on some of the blank walls. We did not have this design in front of us and it looks like they have darkened some stuff up. As a matter of fact, one of the last things that was said when we passed this on was Commissioner Graves said that he would recommend that they get with staff to try to come up with some ideas with some accents or something that would enable the staff to recommend for this. We all agreed with that. I am still troubled because I'm still seeing what I consider to be some blank walls. It looks like there is some shading difference and Christine is trying whole heartedly to educate me on the contrast with the brick, but I'm still not particularly satisfied with it. In terms of the metal, we didn't really talk about that much because that is on the back and not really visible and they are going to expand and I agree with the financial hardship. I think Subdivision agreed with it as well. We were still worried about the west elevation and part of the north elevation. I expected there to be some differentiation when we saw it this time. Allen: Is that metal more the shade of red that we have or the shade of red on the door? Shireman: It is red like the materials' board. I don't have our big site plan in front of us but from that back wall, that back portion of the property is wooded right now and we plan to leave it that way. It is 300' probably to that back property line to that red wall. To be very frank about it, I don't much care what color the wall is on that back part there. It could be any color, I don't care. I just don't want to build a concrete block wall back there. The public is not going to see that wall anyway. I don't think anybody back there is going to see it. The other thing, there is a tire company on the south side of this building that virtually blocks the south elevation when you are coming from the airport there. You are not going to see this building until you are just almost right on top of it from the south. From the north, which is the top elevation on that board, there is a lot of articulation on that wall there, with the ins and outs, the canopies. I guess I don't get that dissatisfaction with the north elevation there. We are very comfortable with the design as architects. I would like to see you get that comfort factor with it. Myres: There is a piece of brushed stainless steele between the brick and the block, is that for the awnings? Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 15 Shireman: No, that is where the sign location will be. The awnings will have more of a flat finish. Ostner: Staff, this west elevation shows a loading door. It is recessed a little off the side but it is quite visible. I wasn't aware that that was permitted under the Design Overlay District. Pate: They are not expressly prohibited at all. We have seen that occur in specifically the Hoskins project that I was referring to on McConnell Avenue with the car repair type facility. It is not expressly prohibited, no. If the entire site is the building with all metal garage doors, that would probably fall under the no metal sidewalls section of that ordinance. Anthes: I feel like this building is nicely proportioned and it has a lot of ins and outs. I don't have a lot of problems with it. I don't think that we should specifically grant metal walls based on a maybe future expansion. We don't hold anybody else to that standard, we require it to be in place at the time that the construction happens because it may not ever expand. However, because that is the rear elevation I don't have a lot of heartburn over it except that it is bright red. I like that you said that you don't mind that it is white or gray or something else, for the residents behind there, it may be 300' away but if it is white or gray you probably won't see it but if it's red you might. If you are willing to change that I don't see many other things to complain about. Lack: I would concur with that. I think for the stepping of the facade and the ins and outs of the building, I think that you have done well with something that is inherently proportioned to be a boxlike form. I am trying to get a good idea of what the building will look like and how the articulation will take place. Looking at the west elevation, to the right hand side of this elevation I see split face block at the base line or a water table of block and a single scored block above that and as I turn the corner to the south elevation I am seeing that wall being all split faced block. I am just trying to get a handle on how this articulation will be carried around the comer and how that will work. Shireman: There will be some transitioning there to the smooth faced block. Lack: I'm just trying to get an idea. What I'm seeing is where you have a comer, one side of it has one articulation and the other side different, it seems that they are too close together and it needs transitioned. Shireman: We would be willing to make the east wall gray or white and on the font there we would want to wrap that smooth band around the corner probably about 1/2 way to that first door so a couple of feet and then we would convert to the split faced block. What we want to do, I think the split Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 16 faced block will contrast. What doesn't show up in a rendering like this is the shadow line. Split faced block creates a lot more shadow and a lot more texture, which is automatically going to show up a lot darker in the real world than it is ever going to show up on a piece of paper. You get quite a lot of contrast just by changing the textures on a block that is all the same color. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Shireman. Williams: In concurrence with the City Planner I agree that a Variance is what is required for the variation of the 200' curb cut. I think also you are looking at a variance here on the design standards, not just your general look at them because Subsection 6 says no structure shall be allowed to have metal sidewalls unless metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or natural looking material. Obviously, this is not. You are allowed to grant a variance under the same conditions as the City Planner told you earlier for undue hardship and so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured providing variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the development regulations and further it says in the condition you grant variances the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as well in it's judgment to secure the objective standards for requirements so varied. The petitioner here said there is 160' of woods behind the structure which adequately screens it from any other property unless and until it is expanded. Once it is expanded maybe he would be agreeable at that point to have masonry walls as required. It could be you could grant a variance with the condition that the wooded lot remains undisturbed. Obviously, it would be disturbed in the future if they were going to do an expansion but then again, the metal wall would be gone at that point too. You should consider this as a variance as well as with the Commercial Design Standards. This is directly in opposition to that one thing about no metal walls. Pate: I would also add as Landscape Administrator currently the tree buffer to the east of this property is also shown in a tree preservation easement so those will not be removed. That should be a permanent buffer for that area. That is on the east side adjacent to the residential property. Williams: Does that include that whole area so they would not be able to expand? Pate: No, there is expansion potential. As for the plans that have been submitted, and approved tree preservation plan, there is an area shown as tree preservation easement in which development could not occur. Clark, S.: It was our intent to preserve the trees for this phase and to have an easement that will protect the trees that would meet the 20% but I think Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 17 that all of the areas that are shown as preserved during this first phase was not intended to be an easement. I believe that is something that we can work out at staff level but we will have a preservation easement that meets the 20% minimum standards that are required. All of the trees that we are preserving with this phase would not necessarily be within an easement. They could be removed at a future date, just so that is clear. Ostner: It is clear but what it means is it is more confusing now. Clark, S.: Pate: There will be a preservation bend and we will be preserving trees along that area. The current line runs diagonally, when we do a future expansion some portion of that area may need to become parking. What we would want to do is make sure that the portions that in a future case may need to be parking would not fall into the permanent preservation easement. If that is the case I would highly recommend condition eight be changed before the project is approved. As it is shown now on the plans it is showing a tree preservation area which is within a protected easement. Clark, S: This portion of it is for easement but it wouldn't necessarily be all of this over here. Clark: You have mentioned that we are now talking about two specific variances, one for the driveway and one for the metal. Do variances not have to come through on their own? Williams: No, they are usually recommended as part of the LSD. Anthes: Jeremy, the tree preservation calculations for this site and the area that is shown on these plans, what percentage of that canopy is over and above what is required? Pate: It is almost double currently. I think they are required 15% and at this point they are keeping 32%. By ordinance, the Landscape Administrator is required to look at the potential to put it within a conservation easement of some sort or a protection easement if we can, it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to. I would just keep these minutes of record and if there is an expansion at a later date we could potentially look at what needs to be accommodated and what the tree preservation is then. They obviously have some canopy to give, if you will, for this project. Anthes: Do you believe that you can accommodate your expansion and still retain the amount of preservation that will be required by this project? Clark, S.: Absolutely. We were prepared to dedicate in an easement at least 15%. We want to preserve the trees also. With this being 30% we really don't Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 18 want to put all of that within an easement that we couldn't take a tree down in the future. Anthes: You would delineate an easement with the Landscape Administrator's help, that would satisfy the requirements of both projects and leave an area where you anticipate your expansion to go outside of that easement? Clark, S.: Correct. Allen: Mr. Williams, would it then be appropriate to add an additional condition that if they should expand to the east that the metal walls would be removed? Williams: I would think that you would have to approve an expansion. You might want to put that in there that if they do expand to the east and take out some of the buffer, that they must return for a commercial design standard review at that time or something like that so at least you would get a second look at this. Clark, S.: We are comfortable with that. In the future when expansion occurs we will eliminate the metal wall and not simply move it back. We will eliminate it. Ostner: There is a second variance. I would like to ask you all about that. Planning Commission determination of a variance to allow the minimum distance between curb cuts to be less than 200'. Is there any discussion about that? Anthes: I believe that the staff gave a good report at Subdivision Committee and at agenda session we talked about what curb cut distances are allowed in the next step down from the Design Overlay District, can you restate that for us? Pate: The next step down if you are outside the Overlay District is 60' for collectors and arterials, this is obviously 140' less than the Design Overlay District requires. It is our opinion that it is not the intent for the Design Overlay District ordinance to prohibit curb cuts entirely but it was more in keeping with an access management policy so each one of these properties individually could determine that. Anthes: I am thinking about where other driveways are and I look at the amount of property, 160' is a good distance and I don't think that will be problematic in this situation. Ostner: I would tend to agree because there is good visibility in this area. It seems like Commercial Design Standards is the issue that we are hung up on. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 19 We do not have any type of motion yet. If the Commissioners are completely dissatisfied, we have an option to approve, we can table. MOTION: Trumbo: I don't do much with colors and designs and I'm not good with that. To me this building is in South Fayetteville. It is in the Design Overlay District but the spirit of the Overlay District in my mind, is coming off of I-540 and going through Fayetteville where you see all the retail and things like that. This is kind of at the end of it and it is not going to be seen by near as many people. The good that this project is going to bring down there is more important in my mind. It is across the street from Beckhart Industrial, which is just a huge metal building with a fence around it. This is a Light Industrial use building and I think this is fine. I would be in favor of making a motion in support of this as it is. Ostner: Is that a motion? Trumbo: That is a motion. I am going to need help with the variance things that we need to add. Williams: The standards on a variance is so substantial justice may be done to prevent the variance will not have the effect of nullifying the intents or purposes of our regulations. Then you could place conditions that you want. One reason that you might want to grant this variance is that there are a lot of trees that will be buffering it from any sight looking from the east towards the west of the building. You could put that as a condition if you wanted to that they would retain those trees until there are further additions onto this building. I believe that would satisfy them from removing any trees at all until that time. Trumbo: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1360 with findings that elevations do meet requirements in the Design Overlay District and item number two with a finding that the curb cuts are appropriate for this. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Would the motioner repeat the motion? We discussed earlier the applicant returning to the Planning Commission for further additions. Trumbo: I would be willing to add that to my motion. Ostner: We could just call that condition 17 that the applicant would be willing to return to the Planning Commission to further look at the commercial design standards. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 20 Trumbo: Anthes: Trumbo: Anthes: Pate: Trumbo: Ostner: Pate: Anthes: Pate: Williams: Clark, S.: I will add that to my motion. A clarification to the motion, the commercial design standards, you said you found that they are in compliance, is that as drawn or with a different color of the metal on the back of the building? They have said that they will change the color of the metal, that is what we would like done, obviously, whatever needs to be done to ensure that that happens, let's say gray or white. Are we clear about the tree protection area and do we need to add anything Mr. Pate? I would recommend that you strike condition number eight, the tree preservation easements as submitted on the plans. I will strike that. Condition eight will read an easement plat recording all utility easements? Correct. Does that mean that we are not going to get any tree preservation easement at all, even the 15%? This is in the Design Overlay District so also condition number seventeen doesn't need to be added, it has to go through Large Scale regardless of the size, so they will have to come back through that. I would rather see at the time of expansion determine the best placement and the tree condition at that time rather than trying to carve out 15% in some sort of nebulous way at this time. Removal of those trees would constitute a potential ordinance violation anyway. I think our ordinances in place do protect that canopy. As it was stated, they are not going to be anywhere near them until they do expand so I'm comfortable with just leaving that. One of the conditions of the variance was that the trees in that area are going to remain as is and not touched or harmed up until you do the expansion. We will put a note on the plans to that effect. We have now an area that says tree protection area. It would be there without the benefit of being in a protective easement but it will have the effect of that and we will note that. Ostner: Thank you. Is everyone satisfied with this motion? Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 21 Clark: I understand the motion and I have been a strong proponent of this project since it came for us for rezoning. However, I am still concerned about their Design Overlay standards and more importantly, I'm concerned about the discussion we had at Subdivision that ended when I thought that we were going to see something else in terms of articulation by the time that it came to this body. That is where I'm struggling a little bit because I feel like I was told one thing and I'm seeing another. Because I believe in principals like that I am not going to vote for this. Even though I welcome you to the neighborhood and it is a great thing, it is a principal. I thought I was going to see more articulation from Subdivision to here and I'm not. I agree with staff, I don't think it meets the standards. Ostner: Thank you Commissioner Clark. We have the ability to not approve the Commercial Design Standards. We do have a motion for approval, is there further discussion before we vote? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 04-1360 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Clark voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 22 VAC 05-1435: (ASPEN RIDGE, 522/561): Submitted by MATT CRAFTON OF CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOC. for property located at DUNCAN AVENUE AND ANDERSON PLACE BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned R-PZD 04-1307 and contains approximately 27.969 acres. The request is to vacate rights-of-way within the subject property. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is VAC 05-1435 entitled Aspen Ridge submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at Duncan Avenue and Anderson Place between 6`h Street and Hill Avenue. Pate: This property is zoned R-PZD 04-1307 and contains approximately 27.969 acres. In January the City Council approved a Residential Planned Zoning District with 220 condominiums on this site. As part of the development, there are two on site public streets that are proposed and redesigned in a better configuration than the right of way as currently in place on Duncan and Anderson Streets to allow for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity from the street. These rights of way are required to be vacated as a part of this project and the conditions of approval. I did include the staff report from Aspen Ridge PZD and condition number two states Planning Commission recommendation for the future vacation of portions of existing Duncan Avenue and Anderson Place rights of way to facilitate the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 in favor of the recommended future vacations with the conditions of approval. This is a formality of the Vacation process to get it through the Planning Commission and the City Council to vacate those streets in order to begin construction. I was asked by a couple of the Commissioners to supply the minutes from that meeting. I did so in your packet and I read through these today. There are two portions of the minutes that reference the Vacation discussion. On page 49 is my discussion, that there were not formal Vacation requests at the time of the PZD but it was important to understand the City Council's and Planning Commission's recommendation for this when a formal Vacation request does come forward. We recommended in favor based on the fact that circulation was achieved with these rights of way being proposed. Additionally, on page 61 there was some discussion from Commissioner Ostner and the applicant on the Vacation issue between Hill cutting over to Royal Oak as warranted and one of the comments that the existing right of way was 40', which would accommodate a residential street but not the street width that we would like to see with the number of units being proposed for this development. Staff is recommending approval of the Vacation request. There is one condition. The Water and Wastewater Division, there are some existing utilities within the Anderson Place right of way that do service properties currently. They will need to be relocated. The applicant has been working with the Engineering Division and Water and Wastewater Division to appropriately time that infrastructure change with Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 23 the installation of infrastructure once this project begins construction. Other than that, staff finds that vacating the rights of way in question would not adversely affect access to the property or any adjacent property as it is owned entirely on all sides by this applicant. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Crafton: My name is Matt Crafton, I'm an engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Jeremy has done a very good job of explaining what this is. Hopefully you don't see any issues with it at all. As you will remember, we were here in December or January and discussed the access all throughout the property and the access, the right of way that we are asking to be vacated right now runs in this area right here, there is actually a 30' right of way. It is just not usable, it is not compatible with what we are trying to do with the property. All of this that you see in gray will be dedicated as street right of way for the city and we do agree with all of the conditions that the Water and Sewer Departments have with this. We will be continuing those water and sewer services throughout the construction project. There won't be any interruption at all. I would be happy to answer any questions about that. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to VAC 05-1435 for Aspen Ridge? Please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I was concerned at agenda that I wanted to look at this more and keep it off of consent. I appreciate everyone understanding. I'm in favor of this. It seems like it makes sense. The concern I had was Anderson Place is a street that heads westward from Hill. Anderson seemed like a good access for that out lot that is not part of this PZD. However, that right of way is undersized and I understand that you are rededicating more right of way as we vacate this. That is one comment that I would like to make for the record. We are vacating right of way but it is almost an exchange. It is being vacated and then rededicated almost right next to it. It seems like a fair exchange and I don't think the city is losing access to your property. That's important. Anthes: I do notice that you have buildings on the inside that are fronting onto the out lot. I do question how this Vacation will affect access to that out lot in the future. We know that curb cuts on 6th Street are pretty excessive and I'm a little worried about that from a safety standpoint and then also, if you vacate Anderson will you be able to adequately access the future development within a reasonable distance of the intersection of 6th and Hill? Can you speak to that? Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 24 Crafton: Yes. Actually, I think we are going to end up with future development with less curb cuts than we have now. There are several residences in this existing right now that curb cuts are constant there along 6th Street and Hill Avenue. The concept right now that has been discussed is some kind of a mixed use facilities here with perhaps residential on the other floors and some kind of a retail or office on the lower floors. Probably there will be one access off of Hill Avenue in the rear and then probably just one access off of 6th Street. Again, there are several curb cuts along 6th Street now. I think in the future we are going to end up with fewer cuts on 6`h Street. Anthes: If we vacate Anderson and you move the access to that lot just slightly north, what distance do you anticipate that being from the intersection from 6th and Hill? Crafton: Anthes: O'Neal: MOTION: Clark: It will be about 200'. Mr. O'Neal, do you think that's a safe condition? Yes. They will be making improvements to the intersection of Hill and 6th along with the signal, so I believe that it is going to be a much safer condition. I read back through the minutes and I remember the discussion that we had at the time of PZD on these vacations so I have absolutely no hesitation. I am going to make a motion that we approve VAC 05-1435. Myres: I will second. Osmer: Thank you. I have a recommendation to forward. Is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 05-1435 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 25 VAC 05-1454: (HARGUS, 561): Submitted by MARLA AND ROBERT HARGUS for property located at 836 S HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains lots 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 of Dowell's Addition. The request is to vacate approximately 0.138 acres of an alley adjacent to the subject property. Ostner: Clark: Morgan: The next item on our agenda is VAC 05-1454 for Hargus submitted by Robert Jordan for property located at 836 S. Hill Avenue. I will recuse from this item. The subject property is located within the Dowell's Addition east of Hill Avenue south of 6th Street. There is currently an existing 20' alley that runs north and south parallel to Hill Street between Hill and Government Avenue. The applicants, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Hargus, both own property on each side of this alley. This 20' alley was actually dedicated with the subdivision of this property for Dowell's Addition. The southern portion of the alley was vacated by Ordinance 4151 per the request of the Regional National Cemetery Regional Improvements Corporation in 1999 therefore, the alley currently provides no connectivity. The applicants do request to vacate approximately 300' of this existing alley for the entire length of the remaining portion of the alley way. The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to both the utility companies and to the city. There were no objections listed from the utility companies or the Superintendents. There was, however, a request from the Water and Sewer Division that this 20' alley way be retained as a 20' utility easement for future use. That request has been reflected as a condition of approval for this Vacation. The applicant has also submitted required application forms to adjacent property owners and we have not received any negative responses from adjacent property owners. Therefore, staff finds that vacating this alley would not adversely affect the property or access to other property, as it is currently a dead end alley. Therefore, we recommend approval of forwarding this to the City Council. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hargus: I'm Robert Hargus, the owner of 836 S. Hill. We are simply requesting a vacation of an existing alley that lies between two properties that we own. We own property on the east and the west of this existing alley. The alley was vacated back in 1999 for the National Cemetery and our request at this time is that the lot be vacated so that we will have basically, connecting property without any division. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the public. Would anyone from the public like to speak to VAC 05-1454 for Hargus? Seeing none, I will Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 26 Pate: close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I do have a question. If staff could please illustrate a little bit better the difference between a 20' right of way that we have currently and a 20' utility easement that we will be keeping? The right of way is owned by the city and is supposed to be maintained by the city, although, it is not developed at this time. It does constitute a parcel of city property. When right of way is vacated half of each side of that right of way goes to adjoining property owner. In this case, they own both portions of the property so they would be able to utilize that property. The difference is building setbacks are located off of right of ways and this could decrease any buildable area with regard to the property. Additionally, an alley, if developed, is a public access point so if this property owner were moving a home on this site or developing in some manner there would have to be an allowance for public access within that property. A utility easement is not that case. It is under one ownership, the property owner, and there are just access rights by utility companies to service that property. Anthes: I believe if you will check my voting record I'm not usually in favor of giving up city right of way for alleys and streets. I believe in the lot and block system that was laid out for this area, so I have had to look at this one pretty hard. However, in this case, because boards prior to this one have seen fit to vacate the other portion of this alley and therefore, this is now a dead end with no connectivity possible and that we are retaining the utility easement and the functionality, I will agree with staffs comments and move for VAC 05-1464 with staff's recommendations, to City Council. Graves: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 05-1464 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Clark recusing. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 27 VAC 05-1453: (ST.JAMES MISSIONARY BAPTIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at SE CORNER OF ROCK AND WILLOW. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.20 acres. The request is to approve the vacation of two alleys and an unconstructed street. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is VAC 05-1453 for St. James Missionary Baptist Church submitted by Steve Clark for property located at the southeast corner of Rock and Willow. If we could have the staff report please? Pate: This property is located at the southeast corner of Rock and Willow. The Planning Commission did visit this site on Thursday at their agenda tour. It is zoned currently RMF -24 for multi -family use, 24 units per acre maximum and contains approximately 5.20 acres. The St. James Missionary Baptist Church has submitted a Conditional Use request and Large Scale Development plans for construction of a new 26,500 sq.ft. church on the subject property. Staff has been meeting with their applicant and their representative, this project goes to Technical Plat Review on Wednesday. The site plans have not been reviewed for compliance but a Conditional Use is required. The property was originally platted as part of Hill's Addition in 1905 with many small residential lots. The majority of which you can see on your maps that we have provided for you, have not developed, along with the lots, there were platted alleys and a 40' wide street on the property which is called Southern Avenue that has also not developed in the 100 years that it has been in existence. The applicant is proposing to vacate the streets and alleys on the property in order to facilitate continued review for the proposed Large Scale Development plans and Conditional Use request. As it is, development of the property would require construction of on site streets and alleys as well as the required setbacks from these rights of ways which can not be accommodated in the site design of the church. It was staff's recommendation to forward this Vacation request to you and the City Council should the Planning Commission recommend for approval in order for this applicant and his client to understand if proceeding with the project would be unfeasible should the alleys and streets not be vacated the project, as shown, could not be processed any further. Southern Avenue, as I mentioned, is a platted 40' right of way that runs north and south and then it turns eastward and is proposed to eventually connect with Walker Road. There is also a portion of right of way along the south property which is described as Alley 1 that is proposed to be vacated. Additionally, Alley 2 is an east/west and north/south alley, a 20' wide access running north and south. None of these have been constructed at this time in the 100 years that they have been in existence as city property. As I mentioned, the city is requesting the city to vacate and abandon a portion of the city right of way approximately the north 1/3 of this alley is Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 28 to be vacated for the entire 20' as you can see on your site plan. Staff has recommended a couple of conditions that hopefully will alleviate some hanging on right of way out there on another piece of property. Staff finds that the public interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the streets and alleys on the property. The property has been platted in this manor for the past century and never been utilized for its original purpose. The applicant has succeeded in assembling all of the parcels within the subject property, all of which are platted separate, for a common development which would be best served in a different configuration than that which currently exists. While the lots could be combined for development if a street were built in this area, currently could not be developed as they are platted as 50' wide lots. A variance or some sort of waiver would have to be processed for each one of those to develop. Staff is recommending approval of this proposed Vacation with four conditions. Item number one, which was discussed in the agenda session as a concern, many lots platted on the property do depend upon the platted right of way of Southern Avenue as their only future means of access if they were developed as platted. With the approval of an ordinance by the City Council vacating the rights of way on the property all lots shall be considered one lot under common ownership and shall not be sold or developed individually. That is an ordinance requirement regardless of this condition. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. If there is any portion of the lot that does not meet bulk and area requirements or lot frontage and it is under common ownership with another adjacent then that is required by ordinance to be considered one lot under common ownership. I just felt it was important to include that as a condition. Also, item number two, utilities to each of the lots were not provided when Hill's Addition was created, development of the area shall conform to city requirements for adequate and legal water and sewer service as well as required extensions of easements, provisions for flow through, there is a memo attached to the Water and Wastewater Division and will be made part of the official ordinance should this pass on to the City Council. A formal petition to Vacate shall be completed and submitted for this request to continue to the City Council. There is a template attached to this staff report for the applicant to utilize. A portion of that was filled out but we do need a formal petition to vacate by ordinance. As I mentioned, item number four, the additional 10' of north/south alley on Alley 2 shall be added to the legal description to be vacated so as to not leave a portion of unusable alley adjacent to this property. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Clark, S.: My name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting representing St. James Missionary Baptist Church. They purchased this piece of property a few Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 29 years ago and are in the process of trying to develop it as the site of their new church. They are wanting to expand the building that they are in, provide adequate off street parking for their congregation and this is the current piece of property that they have ownership to. There will be many challenges associated with trying to get that approved, we recognize that. Our first step is to obtain the Vacation of the existing streets and alleys and that is why we are here tonight. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Clark. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to the issue of VAC 05-1453 for St. James Missionary Baptist Church? Feinstein: My name is Andy Feinstein, I'm a neighbor to this property, my wife and I own the property immediately to the east of this subject parcel. We have no objection to the interior alley ways and rights of way being vacated. It is just a necessity for them to do what they want to do. I do want to talk about our common alleyway. We met earlier and Mr. Clark was gracious enough to let me review his site plan some time ago and I noticed that his first proposal was to suggest a Vacation of our common alleyway. We have a 20' alley separating our tracts of land. I suggested it would be better for us if we didn't go that route but to maintain that alleyway, his setback would start from there and we could look at this as a buffer. I think we have a fantastic opportunity here to use this alleyway as a buffer between the different uses. We are going to have an institutional use right next to our residential use. I understand this may not be the correct time to present my concerns, I know I will have the opportunity at Large Scale. I want to invite you all to look at this area and see what is going on. It is a heavily wooded alleyway, I think it would benefit our property if we could maintain this as an undisturbed buffer. That is my point. I would like to suggest a fifth condition that the designers and the staff look at this perhaps as a suitable place to have a buffer of woods and that it be undisturbed. I'm specific here in that I know that we are looking at some walls probably close to this and I would like to suggest that the designers incorporate their construction zone to accomplish these wall constructions to not disturb that 20' buffer way. There are some good size trees along that area and once we get a dozer in there to do the wall construction and backfill, it is disturbed and we have lost the benefit of any sizable trees. When you do your review I invite you to come onto our property. The dogs won't bite. You will get a better view of what I'm talking about. Our barn, which is situated in the middle of our lot, is about 5' from the property line. That will help you eyeball what we are talking about in there. He has some survey stakes in there, I think that he staked the center of that alleyway so you might need some help figuring out exactly what you are seeing, but look at the 20' right behind my barn and you will sort of see what I'm suggesting there. That is really all I have to say. I look Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 30 forward to having them as a neighbor. I'm sure it is going to take the prayers of all the congregation to get this one approved. Ostner: Is there further public comment on this Vacation request, VAC 05-1453? Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Myres: Even though I can see some true challenges in the future in terms of actually developing this land because of the topography, it is going to be totally unusable unless we approve this Vacation and I'm all in favor of St. James having a place to build a new church so I will support this. Anthes: I guess I would like to hear some more discussion because I don't concur that it is total unusable property without the Vacation. I also want to state that the staff in the report, and in tonight's reading of that report, indicated that the Anthes: I guess I would like to hear some more discussion because I don't concur that it is total unusable property without the Vacation. I also want to state that the staff in the report, and in tonight's reading of that report, indicated that the rights of way in question have been platted and available for use but not used in 100 years. I don't necessarily think that that is a good reason to let it go. There have not been development pressures in the city of Fayetteville in the last 100 years as there are now and I think that we are going to be seeing more of these instances where previously platted roads and alleyways will come into being that may have been sitting for a long time. Ostner: I was going to raise that point myself. There are on page 11.10, which is a good drawing that shows what is currently platted and it shows the outline of the current property. I understand the property along Willow and facing Rock have their frontage. There are 12 tiny lots that only have frontage along Southern Avenue and what people in the neighborhood have been doing is building on two lots. When we drove out there that is what has happened, because you have to. It is difficult to build on such a narrow lot on a hillside. If you build on two lots, that's interior lots that won't have frontage and can't be bought or sold with these Vacations. I believe hillside development on a 50' wide lot is probably inappropriate because you can't do it very well. But I'm also wondering if hillside development with an area this big is appropriate. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes that losing this frontage is a loss to the community and the neighborhood. It is not a big, flat area that we normally see for a single Vacation request like this. The big difference between this Vacation request and the two that we just approved, the nature is that so much frontage will be lost and the nature of hillside development is so different from what we saw on both sides of Hill Avenue just a few minutes ago. I am concerned about this. That's all that I have. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 31 Allen: I wonder how much we factor in the Large Scale Development that isn't before us, nor is the hillside ordinance. Ostner: We are not supposed to consider the development plans that have been included in our packet. We are strictly looking at this as a land issue. Even though I'm saying hillside, I'm not referring to a hillside ordinance, I'm simply referring to this piece of land. These Vacation requests are similar to rezonings. They are land use issues. They are not development issues. We are not looking at Large Scale Development, we are not even considering conditions. You can't do a conditional Vacation. We either keep it in the city or let it go so this is different I suppose. Anthes: I guess to follow that up, I can't look at any specific development plan here but in my mind I can look at ways that the parcel can be developed for different uses and for a church and it seems to me that you have options on this site for this congregation to build a church without providing these Vacations. Allen: What would they be? Anthes: We can't discuss those at this point. That is the problem. Ostner: We can talk with the issues that are in front of us like lot sizes, frontage and those are the issues that make a difference. If a 3,000 sq.ft. church were in the discussion in front of us, these right of ways wouldn't necessarily need to be vacated. Williams: There are a couple of statutes that govern vacations of streets and alleys. One of the statutes, which we rarely use, especially for streets, talks about if it has not been used for five years. We have 100 or more years on this where it hasn't been used. You are going to make a recommendation to the City Council but if this is an issue for the City Council, I will do some more research on that statute. I really think that since these have never been used I would think that probably the applicant might actually have a right to have these vacated. I don't know that for a fact but there are two different statutes. One says "no longer needed for corporate purposes." The second one talks about "not being used for five years." Go ahead and make your recommendation to the City Council but since these have never been used since they have been platted, it might very well be that the petitioner has an absolute right to have them vacated. Anthes: I would be interested to know how that comes out. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 32 Williams: I will do a memo to you on that. I didn't realize that this was going to be an issue and so I did not research that for tonight but I will send you a copy of that. Anthes: That is interesting to me because of course, cities were platted long before things were developed and we are entering an enormous growth pattern in Northwest Arkansas with a lot of development pressure and I would hate to see that all of the work that had been done with the previous plats that hold true today, are given away because of 95 years of not having the need to have built things. Williams: I will get that statute to you and to all of the Commissioners here. I apologize for not realizing that this was going to be an issue tonight or I would have already done that for you. Lack: I would like to explore an idea and maybe get some clarification for myself on what it is in the public good that we look at with the Vacations of right of way or holding this right of way in that the property is wholly owned by one owner and what I would see would be presentations of the public good that we would be protecting or an idea of what should be, an idea of streets in residential neighborhoods or connectivity and not isolating something through this Vacation. I guess my presentation is that the connectivity and not directly isolating something with this Vacation would be what I feel an omen to protect, as opposed to an idea of what should be there in the residential development. I would welcome comments as to whether I am bound to that. Ostner: When you mention connectivity I guess I'm not quite sure what you mean. Lack: I guess I mean that through Vacation of an easement we should never strand a piece of land, we should never cut off access to a piece of land, we should never damage that connectivity or that connection to a piece of land. In that this property is pretty much fully looped by another road that we traveled on before, I'm not sure that we would be doing that with the Vacation of this right of way. Ostner: For me, I would see it differently, that we are stranding pieces of land which current interior small lots would be absorbed, would have to be in this large lot and would have to front either Rock or Willow where they have street frontage. Mr. Pate and the staff on the first condition, second sentence, with the approval of an ordinance vacating the rights of way on the subject property, all lots shall be considered one lot under common ownership and shall not be sold or developed individually. That is a policy decision. How is this area going to grow? Is it going to grow with large lots or small lots? We cannot force a developer to give us right of way or frontage through his property if this were open and not before us Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 33 tonight, we don't force developers to say give us a right of way through there, we want you to develop small lots. That is not the way the system works. That would be my response. Policy decision on how this area is supposed to be platted or how are lots supposed to look in this area? Myres: This is currently zoned RMF -24, 24 units per acre so it is multi -family. I don't necessarily see that regardless of who owns this property or how much right of way that we need to vacate that single family homes are going to be an option here. Ostner: RMF -24 is a maximum. Myres: You can develop lower than that? Pate: That is correct. The RMF -24 zoning district does allow single family, two family, three family and multi -family types of development. I would mention, in following your line of thought Chairman Ostner, as you mentioned on item number one, all of the lots would be seen as one. Currently we have to see them as one because these lots do not have any constructed frontage. They have a right of way platted but it has never been built so it is not an improved public street. Until Southern Avenue is constructed we have to see these properties as one because otherwise, they have no frontage onto an approved public street. I just mentioned that for you to keep in your mind as well. It doesn't necessarily mean that these lot lines go away because Southern Avenue could be developed some day. It has not in the past 100 years and that is one of the basis for our recommendation, that it has not occurred. It was platted before zoning was applied to the property. This was platted before zoning was even around in the State. That is something that we definitely took into consideration and we do with every Vacation request, whether the particular public good would be served by keeping these properties in tact and the rights of way in tact. I think the question obviously, you have to answer for yourself is does this limit the property developed as a single family residential neighborhood or a multi -family with construction of Southern Avenue? Essentially, that is what it does. There is potential for development but the setbacks and inhibitions for development of a church on this property are greatly increased by the existing rights of way. Anthes: Earlier tonight we saw a Vacation request that came through after we had already seen the development plans, which gave us more comfort in doing so. When you are going through a standard Large Scale Development process is that an option? Or is it because that was a PZD that we saw that? Pate: It is a little of both. With the PZD there is an option to create your own setbacks so you can have a zero setback and build right up to the right of Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 34 way line if you wish. This project is not going through that process so a development has to set back 25' off of Southern Avenue. That is the only reason that I included the site plan that you have to show this is why I, as Planning Director, have recommended that the Vacation process come forward. The applicants and their engineers and their architects would likely spend a whole lot of money to get it to the Planning Commission without full knowledge if they could even develop the project. If the Planning Commission recommends against the Vacation request and it goes to City Council I do not feel we would have done a good service to this applicant. That is why I recommended that this Vacation precede that so they would at least have some idea of what they were looking at and if they should even proceed with the project. That was a decision that I made. Mr. Williams can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that there is an ordinance requirement that says that you have to do one before the other. We do often Vacate things as a condition of approval. You've seen a couple of those tonight. That is the line of thought that I was following because this is a contentious project because of it's area and the actual situation with the tree canopy and hillside. We have spoken with the applicant several times and I want to give them the due process that they deserve as well. I understand completely your concern about being able to see the development and how it works in relationship with the Vacation. Honestly, we should look at those separately. It is very difficult to separate those in your mind. Anthes: Is a church a use by right in this zoning district? Pate: It is not. Anthes: Therefore, we don't even know that a church is going to be allowed on this property and therefore, making decisions on the probability of this project, relating this project to this land use is difficult because right now we have an RMF -24 zoning and we have to judge the Vacation request on this property per that zoning district and what is allowed in that zoning district. I don't see the need for it in this zoning district under the current zoning and without seeing the Conditional Use request for the church or seeing a Large Scale Development on this site I have to assume that it is RMF -24 zoned piece of property on a hillside with right of way platted through it. I look at it and I can see how it could be reconfigured in other ways and the city could have access to this site in one place rather than two and it would still provide the same kind of connectivity and maybe a lot block arrangement that would make sense but again, that is not something that we can consider either. Looking at the current zoning and not being able to see a development plan with it, I can not find a reason that we need to give up the right of way. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 35 Williams: MOTION: Allen: I think the test normally for all Vacation is, is that right of way or easement needed for corporate purposes? That is what the City Council will be looking at. Although, I think that there is the other statute with streets not being used for five years. Even if you disregard that, the issue before you is, are these streets that are just lines on paper, needed for corporate purposes? I am going to plunge in here and see if we can get going with this. I move for approval of VAC 05-1453. I think the development will be very difficult but I favor the Vacations. I motion with those four conditions that we forward this to the City Council for approval. Lack: I will second. Ostner: I think Commissioner Anthes brought up a good point, if I were looking at this piece of land exactly where it is with this zoning and did not know what development plans the owner had I would be weary to make one large lot. That decision does not have anything to do with development, it has to do with land and lot sizes and frontage and that is where I will not be voting for this issue. Graves: In light of what the City Attorney told us, and I believe it is a policy decision of sorts, I can't support a policy where there is a common owner to support frontage for interior lots along a street that doesn't even exist yet. We have a common owner here. We may not have the actual development plans in front of us or what they intend to do but in light of this particular situation where you have got a single owner, you have got the frontage that they are requesting to be vacated in an area where there is not actually a street there, it is a policy choice. The policy choice ought to be, in light of what our City Attorney has told us, that there is not a justifiable corporate use for it right now. If there was it would have been developed and we would be using it. I am going to support the motion. Ostner: On that point, the method of development has changed drastically in 100 years. We have seen developments on hillsides in this town that never would have been dreamed of 100 years ago or even 20 years ago. The ability that engineers have to develop on hillsides is astounding. As technology changes the pattern of development changes. That is across the board. That is not just engineering and concrete footing. That is building our cities, our streets, our cars, our homes, everything. As technology changes it changes completely. I don't think the argument of it has never been used and it needs to go really holds water. In my mind, that side steps the policy decision that we are charged with, that the Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 36 Council has requested that we scrutinize and give our recommendation on. If the law is going to overwhelm us it will overwhelm whatever our policy decision is. I don't think that our lack of that brief in front of means that we don't look at a policy decision. Graves: I respectfully disagree that taking the issue that I have is side stepping any issue. I believe it is addressing this situation head on. I believe we have a common owner in an area where the frontage is not there. The street has never been built, the frontage is not there and you have one owner that owns all of these lots and under those particular circumstances, I believe that the policy choice to me is clear and that is that there is not a legitimate corporate purpose. I don't even care about looking back 100 years. Look back five years. We have definitely had developmental pressures in town over the last five years and no one has gone in there to build a street. In my view, the policy choice is that there is not a legitimate corporate purpose. Ostner: There is a pretty good street under development 300 yards or 400 yards north of this. It is a similar hillside development, it is steep. We saw a Large Scale Development here for that, so just because this particular piece of property has not been developed up until now, I disagree that it won't ever be. Anthes: I would like to call the question. Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 05-1453 was approved by a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Clark and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 37 RZN 05-1480: (BILL EDDY MOTORSPORTS, 402): Submitted by WILLIAM AND CATHERINE EDDY for property located at 1205 N FUTRALL DRIVE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1480 for Bill Eddy Motorsports submitted by William and Catherine Eddy for property located at 1205 N. Futrall Drive. Pate: This property is located at the intersection of Futrall Drive, Wedington and I-540. The property is formerly the location of Hank's Furniture which has moved to Joyce Blvd. It is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, the only property in this area that is zoned as such, and contains approximately two acres. The property is undergoing extensive renovation, most of which are complete by now. It is interior on the site to relocate Kawasaki or Bill Eddy's Motorsports currently located on Shiloh Drive north of this property, to relocate a business into that structure. My conversations with the applicant indicated that C-1 was not an appropriate zoning district for this type of use even though furniture sales were permitted under C-1, motorcycle sales and repair were not. That is why you are seeing this rezoning request. As I mentioned, the applicant fully intends to utilize the property much as the same business currently located on Shiloh, which is an I-1 district but this would be for retail and interior motorcycle repair. Use Unit 17 is the Use Unit which that is allowed. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to C-2 which will be more in keeping with the future land use plan in this area which is community commercial and will also be more compatible with adjacent properties which is a mixture of businesses including Marinoni Construction Business, Karstetter & Glass Auto Body Repair and the Cornerstone Apartments directly to the north. Staff finds that this zoning is consistent with current land use objectives and policies and is consistent with the future land use plan. It would not increase traffic in a dangerous manor for this type of use nor alter the population density thereby increasing loads on public service facilities. Access and infrastructure is adequate to serve this property for the use proposed and other uses, should they be proposed on this property, within the C-2 zoning district and therefore, find in favor of the C-2 zoning request. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Eddy: My name is Bill Eddy, I am the owner and manager of Kawasaki of Fayetteville and Bill Eddy's Motorsports. I don't have much of a presentation, I would just like to request the change in zoning to allow for my motorcycle business to be there. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 38 Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment if anyone would like to speak to RZN 05-1480 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Myres: MOTION: Since the surrounding area is zoned exactly the same with C-2 I don't have any problem with this request at all. It is in keeping with the uses that the adjoining properties have been put to. I think it is a reasonable request. Clark: I will make a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 05-1480 to the City Council. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1480 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 39 RZN 05-1448: (STAGGS, 678): Submitted by RUSS STAGGS for property located at 2824 S SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.68 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1448 for Staggs submitted by Russ Staggs for property located at 2824 S. School Avenue. If we could have the staff report please? Morgan: The subject property consists of Lots 8 and 9 of Grandview Heights Subdivision containing approximately .68 acres. The property is located between School Avenue and Hayden Avenue and is zoned RSF-4. Surrounding properties consist with a mix of single family use as well as commercial and industrial properties. The applicant intends to utilize the existing structure on the property for a bail bonds business. This is classified under a Use Unit 16 which is not allowed in the RSF-4 zoning district as a permitted or Conditional Use. The applicant proposes rezoning the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial to allow for a use that is compatible and similar in nature to the surrounding uses. With regard to findings, the Fire Department has reviewed this site and found that the response time is approximately five minutes. The Police have reviewed this particular request and found that the rezoning will not substantially alter the population density nor will it create an undesirable increase on police services. The future land use plan does designate this particular area for community commercial where adjacent to School Avenue. A portion of the property along School Avenue and directly to the north of this subject property is currently zoned C-2. Property to the south is zoned for residential use. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning objectives and policies and is compatible with the adjacent properties in the same zoning district. The proposed zoning is not only compatible with the adjacent land uses but it will also support existing uses such as the County Correctional Facility, which is across the street from this property. With regard to traffic, it is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that the change in zoning will not create an appreciable increase in traffic or traffic danger. Future development with the proposed zoning in this location may increase traffic accessing the adjacent rights of way. However, with regulations in regards to development of commercial property and this property also being adjacent to two streets, there are some abilities for regulations on curb cuts and access to the property. Staff is recommending in favor of this rezoning request and we will take any questions that you may have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 40 Staggs: Osmer: Lack: Pate: Lack: Pate: Myres: Morgan: Myres: MOTION: Clark: Ostner: Graves: My name is Russ Staggs. Our intention is to turn the current structure into an office. It is located directly across from the new detention center there in Fayetteville. At this point I will take public comment if anyone would like to speak to this RZN 05-1448 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. It says on the map the land to the south is RSF-4, will there be screening requirements for a change in zoning between the two if this is rezoned? With the building permit, with an interior finish out with a change in use there are typically not many site development standard changes. It really depends on the amount of change on the property. Typically we do see with the expansion of a structure or an expansion of a business to a certain percentage based on our development regulations, there are screening requirements. I am not aware if that is the case in this situation if they are going to expand the structure anymore than it is on the property from adjacent residential uses. So the development regulations would not necessarily be inherent in the change to keep the separation of zoning? That is correct. If you had an empty piece of property that just changed zoning districts you would not be automatically required to screen your property boundaries from other residential uses. There always does exist potential for that though dependent on the amount of development proposed with the property. Have we had any comments from the neighbors to the south? I am not aware to any comments that have been submitted. So as far as we can tell there is no opposition from adjacent properties? I guess it has been said build it and they will come. They built the jail and here comes the next phase. If I were a neighbor I think I would have had many more objections to the jail. It is there so the neighbors I guess are ok with it so I will make a motion that we approve RZN 05-1448. There is a motion to forward, is there a second? I will second. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 41 Ostner: 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 05-1448 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 42 RZN 05-1449: (PAYNE, 755): Submitted by RODNEY R. & NANCY K. PAYNE for property located at 1200 W BAILEY DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.86 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-7, Residential Single Family, 7 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1449 for Payne submitted by Rodney R. and Nancy K. Payne for property located at 1200 W. Bailey Drive. Pate: The Planning Commission also visited this site on our agenda tour last Thursday. The property is located on West Bailey Drive in far south Fayetteville. It is almost adjacent to the city limits. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 3.86 acres. For the public, the sign originally said 4.73, there were some changes in the legal description because that included some right of way. I just wanted to clarify that it is 3.86 acres that we are looking at. The property is located west of the railroad in Fayetteville off of S. School. It is near the airport fly over zone area. I believe that the city did purchase property in this general area in the past and took away structures. I don't believe this property is in that location. This is one large tract owned by the applicant. A mobile home has been removed from the property and the other structure that is located on the property currently, a single family home, is proposed for removal. Surrounding properties are primarily single family homes and agricultural land with R -A zoning district or in the Planning Area along West Bailey Drive. The property directly to the east, a rezoning request was denied in the late 1970's for a higher density on that property. The most recent action in this area is in 2000 the City Council made a policy decision to rezone a piece of property to RSF-4 which is almost directly across the street. The developer intends to develop this property for single family residential use at a density approaching seven units per acre. In discussions with the applicant today after they read through the staff report, I believe they would like to change that request tonight but I would like to give the public a chance to comment and to hear from the Planning Commission as well. Staff is recommending against the RSF-7 rezoning request. We find that it is to a great degree inconsistent with planning objectives, principles and policies. The proposal would represent a spot zone with a density much higher than that which it is currently surrounded by, which is .5 units per acre, the allowable density in the R -A zoning district. It does represent a mixture of housing types and lot sizes, etc. that we do look for but that is typically within a planned type of development. For those mixtures a development can be compatible in manor The future land use plan does support residential use in this location. However, the density should be compatible with and support the land use and zoning plans of surrounding property. Additionally, the additional traffic generated by the rezoning request approaches 270 vehicle trips per day. The existing Bailey Drive is a Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 43 substandard street, most of which is actually located in Greenland right of way. The Police Department did submit findings stating that without substantial improvements on West Bailey Drive they would not be in support of this zoning request either. With those findings, staff is recommending denial of the requested rezoning to RSF-7. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Payne: My name is Ron Payne, I'm a residential contractor. We build single family homes in the neighborhood of 1,400 sq.ft. We had originally purchased this property with the intent of building around 18 homes on it. We had never considered putting 27 homes on it which is the maximum that the RSF-7 would allow. We have made some improvements on the property already, removing a mobile home. We are in the process of moving another structure that was honestly a single mobile home doubled in size by conventional construction. The problem that we see, as Jeremy noted, is the bottle neck that is between the property and Hwy. 71. Hwy. 71 obviously has a lot of good access and infrastructure. Buried under the street is a 6" water and 6" sewer that Engineering says is adequate for development. After reading staff's report and talking with a couple of the neighbors, I understand the safety issues that they have with Bailey and I would have the same issues with the bottle necking down by the railroad tracks and I'm willing to work on that. We would like to change our request to RSF-4 to be more compatible with the neighbors in that area and that will still get us 12 homes in there. I suppose that is all that I have at this time. Ostner: At this point I am going to take public comment, if anyone would like to speak to RZN 05-1449 for Payne please step forward. Hatcher: My name is Ray Hatcher, I own the property just to the east of that, which is also to the downhill side. We have a severe flooding problem there already. I talked to the Mayor of Greenland earlier today because the main problem with Bailey Drive is right before it goes across the railroad tracks all of the water from that whole hillside comes down there and there is like a 4' culvert that is almost completely washed out. As far as actual road that is stable there is barely room for one car to go across there. Anybody that lives up and down the street, when you come up to the railroad tracks if you see somebody coming you stop and you give them room because there is not room for two cars to pass there. Where he is talking about building is another ''A mile up the street. The whole street needs improvements. I talked to the Greenland Mayor this morning and actual residents that live in Greenland, there are only five on that street. They are not going to do anything. My main problem is being down hill, I already have a drainage problem. I don't know how much area he is talking about Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 44 developing. I do know that asphalt doesn't absorb as much water as ground and we have already had several inches of water in our house from just the drainage. Thank you. Bailey: My name is Gerald Bailey, I'm a former resident of this area, I lived there 12 years. My father, who I'm speaking on behalf of, has lived there for 25 years in the Fayetteville section. I want you all to be aware that the entire community is here tonight, there are some concerns on this. Are you all aware that the petition against the rezoning was turned in this morning? The group that I've talked with, their opposition is basically the same as the city staff's. I commend the city staff for saying it. Those are the reasons we don't want it there. The street is way too narrow now. The density that is requested in front of us is just out of proportion with the area. The soil down there is unbelievable. When it gets dry you can stick your hand to the elbow in the cracks in the ground. If they do build there eventually I hope they are aware of that so they can channel the foundation. I just want to reemphasize that the police are against it. Basically, changing the neighborhood and the width of the street. I would like to thank the city staff again for opposing it. Ostner: For the record, I would like for the public to know that we do have a copy of the petition in front of us with easily 25 signatures. That is being considered tonight. Would anyone else like to speak on this rezoning request? Hatfield: I'm Steve Hatfield, 3707 S. Butterfield Trail. I have similar concerns for this project, even with the RSF-4. Like has been stated, everything over there is agricultural or one house per two acres. Also, I have some great concerns with the railroad crossing. There is no crossing, there is just a stop sign. It is in Greenland. I have some real concerns with people trying to cross there two or three times a day. It can be a hazard. The area just to the west of the railroad is very low and the railroad creates a dam so there will be a lot of drainage issues that any development to the west of that is going to have to be really looked at. I would encourage the applicant to have a neighborhood meeting with all of the surrounding owners and try to come up with some sort of plan that might work. I, for one, am against even the RSF-4. 77• I'm at 265 Bailey Drive, across the street from Mr. Hatcher. I thank staff for their recommendation and whole heartedly support it. In my seven years living on Bailey Drive, the railroad itself has been washed out three times because the drainage is terrible as the water comes down off of Bailey Drive it makes a 90° turn back to the north and goes under Bailey Drive and backs up against that railroad and washes all of the rock out down on the gentleman on the other side of the railroad tracks. We have been in a habit after a heavy rain to go down and check the railroad tracks Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 45 Dole: and call the sheriff so we don't have a train derailing at our crossing. Thank you for your consideration. My name is Bob Dole, I live at the top of that hill which is Butterfield Trail. It "Ts" at the top of this. I know there is a lot of consideration to this drainage problem and I'm afraid it is going to be worse. I went to the doctor today, came back and in front of my house the water main broke AGAIN. My water main breaks on an annual basis. The drainage up there at the top of the hill is choked. About a month ago I cleared it, there were trees blocking parts of it. Ostner: This is a land use issue and we are going to try not to talk about drainage. Dole: That is going to be more of an issue at the lower end. I had to call the city's park service to come clear it. They are right, there are times when part of that railroad track had to be replaced. It is not just about drainage, the people on that road have lived there for the most part their whole lives. There are some people who have lived there less. My family moved up there 30 years ago. I have lived there the last 13 years. It isn't consistent with anything in that neighborhood. That is what Bailey Drive up to Butterfield Trail is, neighborhood. We welcome people to come there but it doesn't seek high density. We had a trailer park that was down at the Greenland section and they moved them all out, just that increased congestion caused increased problems for people who live in that neighborhood because it is a dead end and there are many nights that we have had people get lost and turning around in our driveway because there is no place to turn around. If you want to turn around you have to go to the top of the mountain and turn at the "T". Unfortunately, a lot of people just choose the nearest driveway, it doesn't matter what time it is. Those are the things that I have noticed on that. I just want to make sure that you all understand from someone who lives up there. We welcome new neighbors, come in and build and be consistent with what's there. High density, aside from the fact that there is an issue that you cross Greenland into Fayetteville. I'm surprised that maybe someone from the Greenland Council wasn't here to at least what is going on with their township. I feel like not all the people are properly prepared for what is going on here. There are a lot of residents who maybe didn't read the little sign to know what is going on. Those are the main points and topics that I wanted to bring up and the fact that I'm here. Pritchard: My name is Art Pritchard, I live on Butterfield Trail. I am really concerned about the density of families. We have got 20 families that live on Bailey and Butterfield and you are going to add 20 more in a four acre spot? I am looking at families that have children coming in there, where are they going to play, in the streets? The density of that four acres having that many families living in that spot. There are 20 that live up there Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 46 already and there are only five that have children. Most of the families have at least Yz acre to play in their yard if not 1, 2, or 3 acres of playing area. My concern is about the children, that there are going to be a concentrated group of children on that four acres and where are they going to play? In the street? It is not right. That's all I have to say. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? ??: I don't have much to say. I live right at the corner of Bailey and Butterfield and they are always coming up there at night and turning and shining their lights. I don't think we need Bailey overloaded anymore than what it already is. It is a little narrow street and you go to adding 20 or 30 more families up there it is no good. I agree with this fellow right here 100%. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this rezoning before we close it to the public comment section? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Allen: I would like to ask Mr. Payne whether he has visited with your neighbors? Payne: Allen: I have visited with the people across the street and up the street from me. I guess all total five of them. The ones that immediately are direct neighbors I guess you would say. I haven't spoken with the ones up on Butterfield. It has been my observation in my years on the Commission that should this rezoning fail and you bring it back to us in some other form it would be a much smoother process if you have a conversation with the neighbors between now and then. Graves: Staff, your recommendations were obviously based on a request for RSF- 7, with it being changed to RSF-4 are there any changes in your report or any changes that you would make to your recommendation in your report? Pate: Likely. It would take some time to evaluate it fully. I'm not sure if the Police Depai lment would have a change in their recommendation but 3.86 acres times four units per acre would only be 15 units so that is decreasing by 12 what would be allowed in the RSF-7 zoning district. That is 120 vehicle trips per day which is rather substantial. It is hard to lean one way or the other. This Commission often times sees changes with a rezoning request and forwards a recommendation to Council without our recommendation. I would say that the City Council did make a policy decision in 2000 for a piece of property across the street, a smaller piece of property, but a piece of property nonetheless, on Bailey Drive, to rezone that to RSF-4 from R -A and that would indicate that at least there Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 47 Clark: Pate: Clark: is some sort of precedence in this area for that type of density. Actually, it is almost directly across the street on which a couple of single family homes are located. At this location RSF-7 through up a red flag for staff just because that type of density in our opinion, based on our findings, is more appropriate closer to town and to support infrastructure that is currently located there. As most of the neighbors have indicated here, there will obviously be substantial improvements needed on Bailey Drive regardless of what development happens here unless it is a single family home or two homes. If you are increasing the traffic proportionately our ordinances require you to again, proportionately increase the safety on roads that access arterials, which of course, would be S. School. In a round about way, can we recommend RSF-4 is your question I think so, just initially, that we could recommend a RSF-4 zoning designation. I don't think that is taking into account all of the findings but I think that is a safer recommendation than RSF-7. On a street like Bailey it is co -owned by Greenland and Fayetteville, even if we allow development in the Fayetteville area, we can only mandate improvements in the Fayetteville portion of that right? Our ordinances require, like the State Highway for instance, is owned by the Highway Department, the right of way. In the Planning Area the right of way is owned by the County so we don't directly have ownership of the streets. However, our ordinances do require that a development that does go into place does have to have a safe and adequate means of access to an arterial. If that means improving streets in other cities I feel comfortable recommending those types of improvements if you want to access property within the City of Fayetteville and put a load on infrastructure needs in that area. There is existing right of way, I believe it is 60' for this Bailey Drive. It is not necessarily a matter of trying to acquire additional right of way, it is more a matter of constructing streets to safety standards. Paraphrasing, if we approve RSF-4 and this property develops you are saying that it would be within our jurisdiction to require improvements up to the arterial, which would be School Street? Pate: Obviously, Greenland would have to concede. Clark: Assuming that they are smart enough to let us pay for something. Williams: I am a little concerned with that. Not only would Greenland have to agree with that, but you have a lot more lead way with rezonings than you do once you get into development. One of the things that you look at in rezonings is adequate streets, safe traffic, those are reasons to deny rezoning. It is a tougher standard to require something out of a developer on a condition of denying his LSD once the rezoning has occurred. I'm Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 48 somewhat concerned with requiring streets in another city which obviously, is outside the developer, he has to get the power to do it. I am with you, I would hope that Greenland would allow him to do that. Also, we have to look at the rational nexus then, how much should he have to do for his one development when there are already people living there, not only in Fayetteville but some in Greenland also. That kind of concerns me at this point in time. I don't think I can give you an unqualified yes that we can require a developer to build to our street standards, the remainder of Bailey, which would be a very expensive proposition, especially with the drainage problems that are there and with crossing a railroad and the length of Bailey that is in Greenland. That might be far more expensive than what we could justify in a rough proportionality test which is all that we could require, even if it was in Fayetteville. Clark: Is the railroad crossing in Greenland? Pate: Yes it is. Myres: I'm still a little uncomfortable with this even at an RSF-4 given the density of the property and the surrounding area. I can understand wanting to put your land to the best use possible and get the most out of it that you can. Correct me if I'm wrong Jeremy, when we talk about RSF- 4, that's maximum. By the time that we dedicate streets and right of way and setbacks, we don't usually build to that density numerically? Pate: That is typical. It is very rare to see a development develop out at the maximum four units per acre. It really depends on how efficient an engineer and developer can make that property. Myres: Theoretically it can end up with 10 or 12 units rather than 15? Pate: Theoretically, yes. Myres: Even at that, I think it is a little too high density and that's really the only reason I have any objection. I would do a RSF-1 or RSF-2. Ostner: I would be hesitant to recommend to forward this issue at RSF-4 simply because our staff, police, fire and whatnot have not evaluated it at RSF-4. They have given us a staff report recommending denial of RSF-7 and I don't think they sat here on a Monday night in five minutes and did that. I think it took more time to do that report. I would not be in favor of forwarding this tonight. I would like to see it tabled and looked at more thoroughly. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 49 MOTION: Graves: That was going to be my comment as well. I kind of put staff on the spot just to get their inclination. I would certainly like to have the police report given that they have said this is on the fringes of where they travel with the number of folks that were moving out there, although they were looking at 27 units, they were concerned about response times given the increased number of calls they would have out there. We have no clue what their feeling would be but this is one of the rare times where they have actually said we don't recommend doing this. I would be hesitant to guess what their response might be with 15 units out there. I think we still, even if the Police Department came back and felt comfortable with it, I'm not sure that we have enough information from the neighbors how they would feel after they have had a chance to meet with the land owner with 15 units as opposed to 27 units. I would like to give him the opportunity to meet with more of the neighbors out there and get a little more feedback. It sounds like talking through some of these issues may help. Then you have the railroad crossing out there and the poor condition of the street which, even if Police feel comfortable getting out there, it may not solve the issue with the number of people who are driving out there. I think all that reducing it down to RSF-4 has done is take away the spot zoning issue and it really hasn't necessarily solved any of the other concerns that have been raised regarding traffic congestion and the number of people going in and out of there. I would like to see it tabled as well. I move to table RZN 05-1449. Ostner: I will second. Is there further discussion? Clark: I would just like to echo what Commissioner Graves said. I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with RSF-4. I apologize to somebody because I turned around in someone's driveway when I got up there. It was during the daylight hours however. That railroad crossing is a frightening thing. I'm just really anxious to see more staff reports. This is the first time the Police have ever, in my tenure on the Commission, said we don't want it. That means it has to be horrible! I would really ask the developer to talk with the neighbors and work with staff to get a density that would be safe and not require this road to bear a harsher burden than it is already bearing. Anthes: Just so that the developer has all of our opinions, I think when you come to these hearings and you don't get something through you would like to know what we are thinking. I too am concerned about RSF-4 and would encourage you and staff to look at perhaps a lower zoning. Ostner: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 50 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1449 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 51 RZN 05-1450: (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS PHASE V, 607): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at GOFF FARM RD., E OF CRESCENT LAKE S/D & W OF STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS GOLF COURSE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 26.61 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1450 entitled Stone Bridge Meadows Phase V submitted by H2 Engineering for property located at Goff Farm Road east of Crescent Lake Subdivision and west of Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. If we could please have the staff report. Morgan: This property, as you have stated, is located north of Goff Farm Road. It is surrounded to the north and east by a golf course. To the west is Crescent Lake subdivision, a preliminary plat that was recently approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant requests rezoning 26.81 acres from R -A to RSF-4 in anticipation of development for a subdivision in this location. Staff has reviewed this request as well as the Fire and Police Departments' reports. Fire reports that there is an approximate seven minute response time to this property at maximum build out. The Police Department states that it is their opinion that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population nor increase the load on public services to create problems within the city. Staff finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the land use planning objectives and policies and is compatible with the zoning and uses of adjacent properties. We find that the proposed zoning is justified in order to promote orderly and consistent development patterns as well as make use of existing infrastructure and it will also promote development compatible with surrounding residential development and allow for future residents to live in close proximity to amenities such as the golf course. With the current R -A zoning district there could be a maximum of 13 dwelling units. With the RSF-4 zoning district 106 dwelling units could be permitted on this property. Staff finds that this proposed rezoning of RSF-4 is consistent and we are recommending in favor of it. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hearn: My name is Kip Hearn, I'm with H2 Engineering representing Meadows Enterprises. This is the first step in our efforts to continue the development of the Stonebridge Meadows Subdivision. All of the other developments in that location are RSF-4 so it is just a continuation of those efforts. Thank you. Planning Commission April25, 2005 Page 52 Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public if anyone would like to speak to this issue please step forward, RZN 05-1450? Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: Although I am concerned by the seven minute response time for fire and I'm also concerned about the traffic density issue that will magnify again with the development in that area, I am still going to recommend that we forward RZN 05-1450 because it is consistent with development in that area and it is consistent with what this development has been doing throughout the months. I do wish I had the phone number for the Arkansas Highway folks so I could just post it and say call them about widening the road because Huntsville is just terrible. This is going to compound it but that is not something that we can talk about now. I will make a motion that we forward. Myres: I will second. Pate: Clark: Trumbo: Ostner: Just in response to the response time, I don't believe our numbers here take into account that the city has recently purchased property a lot closer and that will reduce that response time by three or four minutes. It is a lot better response time once that fire station does go on line. These developments are putting a lot of pressure on the city on that property acquisition and development to get a fire station out there. That's for sure. The intersection on Hwy. 16 going east is part of the bond issue before City Council. I think that needs to be considered and not slashed or cut in any way because we are throwing homes out there. Let's approve it. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval RZN 05-1450 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Announcements of