Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:30 p.m. on May 9, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEM ADM 05-1506: (Wal-Mart Optical PZD) Consent ADM 05-1507: (Stonewood Gardens PZD) Consent FPL 05-1477: Final Plat (RIVER HILLS, 569) Consent ADM 05-1497: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance ADM 05-1505: Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks: Consent ADM 05-1503: Rupple Road R -O -W: Page 9 PPL 05-1408: (CHERRY HILLS S/D, 282/243): Page 14 CUP 05-1474: (ZAXBY'S, 521): Page 24 CUP 05-1475:(CHRISTIAN LIFE CATHEDRAL, 213): Page 29 RZN 05-1479: (WIMBERLY, 368): Page 38 ANX 05-1451: (LANE, 571): RZN 05-1452: (LANE, 571): Page 53 ANX 05-1470:(PHILLIPS/BAGGETT, 571): RZN 05-1471: Rezoning (PHILLIPS/BAGGETT, 571): Page 66 ADM 05-1504: PZD Ordinance Revision Page 70 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council C-1 Portion Denied Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council No Action Necessary Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo Alan Ostner Audi Lack Christine Myres Nancy Allen James Graves Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Kit Williams Leif Olson Brent O'Neal MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 3 ADM 05-1506: (Wal-Mart Optical PZD): Submitted by Todd Jacobs of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for property located at 2314 W 6th Street. The property is zoned I-PZD, INDUSTRIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT, and is in the DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT. The request is to extend the approval of the Planned Zoning District for a period of one year. Planner: JEREMY PATE ADM 05-1507: (Stonewood Gardens PZD): Submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Stonewood Gardens for property located at the 4900 block of Crossover Road, N of Stonewood Subdivision. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. The request is to extend the approval of the Planned Zoning District for a period of one year. Planner: JEREMY PATE FPL 05-1477: Final Plat (RIVER HILLS, 569): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at E HWY 16, S OF THE DAVID LYLE S/D. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 6.91 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 18 single family lots proposed. ADM 05-1505: Administrative Item: Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks: The request is for a major modification to the approved Large Scale Development (LSD 04-1078) for the Botanical Gardens. Ostner: Welcome to the Monday, May 9th 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 Anthes being absent. Ostner: The first item is the approval of minutes from the April 25th meeting. Allen: Since we just received those minutes, I move to table the approval of the minutes until the next meeting please. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Can you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 4 Ostner: Our consent agenda has four items. The first is ADM 05-1506 for Wal- Mart Optical PZD. The second item is ADM 05-1507 for Stonewood Gardens PZD. The third is FPL 05-1477 for River Hills and the fourth, ADM 05-1503 for Rupple Road right of way. If anyone in the audience or any Planning Commissioners object to the consent agenda please say so now. Pate: At the agenda session we recommended that ADM 05-1505 for Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks be placed on consent. Ostner: Instead of Rupple Road right of way the item is ADM 05-1505 for the Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks. If anyone objects to these items on the consent agenda please speak your peace right now, otherwise, I will entertain a motion for approval. Clark: Allen: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: So moved. Second. Will you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 5 ADM 05-1497: Administrative Item: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (formerly AD 01- 15): Submitted by Long Range Planning as a proposal to add an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance to the Unified Development Code. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is ADM 05-1497 for the Outdoor Lighting ordinance. Olson: We have before us the outdoor lighting ordinance. As most of you are probably aware, staff has worked on this off and on for quite some time and we feel that this ordinance before you is a pretty straight forward ordinance that will achieve our purpose however, it will have a minimum additional work load for staff in terms of review and things of that nature. I have a short PowerPoint presentation for you tonight. There is the United States from a satellite photo. There is lots of light. The purpose of the outdoor lighting ordinance is to limit glare and light trespass on adjacent properties. Protect drivers and pedestrians from hazardous glare. Promote the efficient and cost effective outdoor lighting while allowing for flexibility and design and the style of outdoor light fixtures. Finally, to reduce atmospheric light pollution. The applicability, any outdoor lighting fixtures in new development would have to comply with the regulations of this ordinance and any outdoor lighting fixtures being completely replaced would also have to comply. There are a number of exemptions from the ordinance. Single and two family residential dwellings. Any street lights that were installed prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Of course, your navigational lights for airports and towers. Seasonal decorative lighting. Sports field lighting. Security lighting that is controlled by timed motion sensors and the decorative street lighting that is located in the downtown master plan area. How this ordinance will be enacted is much the same way as how we now get a landscape plan or a grading plan. At the time of submittal the applicant would provide staff with an outdoor lighting plan. On that plan, the applicant would indicate the location and type of fixture, the description of the laminar or the bulb, including lamps, poles and shielding devices and then also the photometric data showing the angle of light emission. The photometric data is available from the manufacturer of the fixture. Any outdoor lighting shall be coated, shielded, and aimed downward. The hood or shield shall mask the direct horizontal surface of the light source. Light trespass beyond property boundaries shall be considered non-compliant. Again, when an existing fixture is replaced the replacement must meet the requirements of this ordinance. When you speak of shielded fixtures, these are some examples, the bulb is located up in the fixture, no light escapes above the horizontal plain of the fixture. All of that light is directed downwards onto the ground. These are examples of parking lot street lighting type applications. These are wall mounts. You typically see floodlights on walls with commercial type development. These fixtures are all shielded, the light is directed downward. Lighting manufacturers are making more ornamental type Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 6 fixtures that are fully shielded so there is a lot of flexibility in design out there. Those are just some examples of what a shielded fixture looks like. This gives you an idea of what it does for you. The fixture on the left is a shielded shoe box fixture, the light is coming down. The pictures to the right are not shielded and the light is going in all directions. That kind of gives you a good idea of the difference in shielded verses unshielded fixtures. It is directing that light down to the ground, not allowing any light to escape above the horizontal plain. I have some pictures of the city. This is a light fixture that is intended to light the canopy of a gas station. The gas station has lighting in the canopy but these fixtures project onto the canopy to light the logo of the company. This is what it looks like during the daytime and this is what it looks like at night. It is 6' off the ground, unshielded, focused up into the atmosphere. If you look past this fixture you see more lighting in the gas company there. Those are not shielded. The lens sags below the canopy so it emits a lot of light out in all directions. This is a typical gas canopy light, convenience store Tight. Again, you see the bulb is located down in the lens. This is what it looks like at night. These were taken with a digital camera with the flash off. Here is a gas station canopy and that is what it looks like at night. Obviously, there is a lot of glare there. These are typical parking lot type applications. Where the fixture is a good fixture, it is just that it is aimed at a 45° angle so you are not directing that light downward onto the ground, you are throwing it out at a 45° angle. That kind of gives you some ideas. If you drive around the city at night you can see some good and bad examples of outdoor lighting. This ordinance is intended to give a lot of flexibility to the lighting designer while achieving our purpose of directing that light onto the ground and reducing light pollution, energy waste and the glare is the biggest issue with pedestrians and drivers, seeing that glare shine into your eyes from badly installed outdoor lighting. In your packet on 4.1 is the staff report. It kind of walks through some of your basic questions in terms of what does an outdoor lighting ordinance do. How does the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance, what will it regulate, what will it exempt. Then on page 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 you have the actual ordinance. The ordinance itself is about three pages and then there is another page of examples of fixtures. I would be happy to entertain any questions. Ostner: Commissioners? I have one question. You handed out this bill from the State Legislature, could you elaborate on that a little bit? Olson: The State Legislature passed a bill in the last session titled "An Act to Encourage the Use of Shielded Outdoor Lighting and Other Purposes." It is the shielded outdoor lighting act. I became aware of this Friday. The shielded definition is almost word for word the definition that we have in our ordinance. Basically, this state law says that no public funds shall be used to install an outdoor lighting fixture unless it is shielded. For Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 7 example, any highway lighting that would be state or federally funded, they would have to put up shielded fixtures. The other thing that it does, in Section 3(a) it says that each electric public utility shall offer a shielded lighting service option. Currently in the City of Fayetteville if you were to develop a subdivision I believe they give you two or three options of street light fixtures that you can put in your development. None of which are shielded fixtures. This state law actually mandates that by January 1, 2006 each electric public utility shall have shielded fixtures for installation. That was a question with previous ordinances as to street lighting and how do we get the utility companies to go along with this. This state law is actually going to mandate that for them. It really works in conjunction with the outdoor lighting ordinance that we have proposed. Clark: Does the state law include sports field outdoor lighting? Olson: The state law doesn't make mention of sport field lighting. Allen: We have been playing around with this for a long time with other efforts, we have taken a league of new employees in order to implement it and I commend you for making this simple enough. I know we could tweak it to the end of the earth but I think you have done a good job and I think it is an ordinance that can be implemented. I am going to move for approval of ADM 05-1497 to be forwarded to the City Council. Myres: I will second. Ostner: I have a few questions. I would agree that this is a good ordinance and we have been trying to do this for a long time. On page 4.2 we are talking about proposed outdoor lighting ordinances, what uses will it regulate and what uses will it exempt? Will these ordinances apply to parking lots? Olson: Yes, they will apply to parking lots in commercial and multi -family residential and industrial uses. Osmer: Parking lots for parks or non-commercial uses? Olson: That is a good question, I don't know that we address that. It addresses sports field lighting for parks and schools and such as exempting them. I would say that it would. We could clarify that. Jeremy might have something. Pate: I don't know that we have specifically indicated exempt or not. I would just make mention that most city divisions are typically required to follow most city ordinances, much like the city follows it's own ordinances for a LSD or the Parks Division does the same. I think there are specific exemptions with regards to certain things but if that is something that this Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 8 Planning Commission, the Ordinance Review Committee or the City Council would like to exempt we can certainly pass forward that information to them for their review as well. Ostner: That is the same reasoning I was thinking. Since we are exempting the Downtown Master Plan lights it was an idea that crossed my mind On the issue of trespassing onto someone else's property, here again, I understand this is in the beginning phases and has a lot of tweaking until it gets done, I would be interested on whether a property owner's front property line would be considered a property line. There are specific drawings at the bottom of page 4.6 that talk about shielding to not spill over onto the neighbor's property. Front right of way is a form of property line. It is not the same as your side property. I would encourage the staff to look into that. Those are a few of my issues. Are there any other questions from anyone else? At this point I am going to open this issue up to public comment. If anyone would like to speak on the outdoor lighting ordinance please step forward and share your comments. Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. There is a motion and a second to forward, if there is no other comment go ahead and call the roll Renee. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 05-1497 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 9 ADM 05-1503: Administrative Item: Rupple Road R -O -W: A request to modify the conditions of approval for the subject project regarding right-of-way dedication. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is Rupple Road Schools, ADM 05-1503. Pate: You may remember back in November, 2004 the Planning Commission voted to approve LSD 04-1287 for Rupple Road Schools located at the southwest corner of Rupple Road and Persimmon. The applicants have since obtained approval for grading and drainage permits as well as footing and foundation permits. There are some items however, that do remain outstanding to gain full building permits, which the school representatives and staff have been diligently working toward. You may have seen in our tour visits out there that they are well under construction. A lot of dirt work has been completed. Obviously, the next step here is for the school to gain building permits. One of the requirements that we typically place on a Large Scale Development prior to building permit, and it is in our conditions of approval for the Planning Commission to approve, is right of way dedication per the Master Street Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. In this case we have a unique situation in which the Master Street Plan is actually on a portion of property that is not the school's property. The school and the owner to the east have been working to facilitate that right of way dedication as well as staff. At this time the property owner to the east has submitted a Preliminary Plat that is in our process and we are reviewing currently. It shows the Master Street Plan just like we reviewed it with the Large Scale Development for this project as well as everything else we have seen. Additionally, the school has submitted easement plats and have been reviewed for their portion of the dedicated right of way. Essentially, at this point what we have is a situation where the timing is such that we are having a problem issuing a building permit because of that condition placed on the project stating right of way has to be dedicated prior to building permit. Staff has reviewed the original conditions of approval, three through eight on the original LSD. We took a look at those to see if we could more distinctly clarify what those conditions mean and how we could potentially help facilitate the public school being permitted as it is under construction currently and still gain the correct right of way that our ordinance requires per the Master Street Plan as well as construction of the street. The three conditions that staff proposes that the Planning Commission amend from their previously approved Large Scale Development are mentioned in the staff report and there are also some graphics shown on the following pages of exactly the right of way in which we are speaking of. One is a photograph shown on page four showing offsite right of way needed to be dedicated from the property owner to the east. You can tell from the aerial photograph how Rupple Road is primarily on the property owner's to the east and then it curves in to the school's property. You can see on page three how that occurs with the dedication of right of way. Staff is Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 10 proposing three conditions. We are proposing these to replace conditions three through eight of the original staff report that the Planning Commission approved and be just as effective as the original conditions were. 1) The school district shall be responsible for providing safe and adequate means of access to the property prior to completion of the project and opening of the school. In order to do so and meet Master Street Plan requirements, the school district shall be responsible for the construction of a minimum 36' wide section of Rupple Road south of Persimmon Street including the necessary improvements in the intersection to make the transition from what is being constructed currently through the first entrance to the school as indicated on the site plans. That is not really a change from the additional conditions, that is just more of a clarification sentence to make sure that these amended conditions do apply. Of course, this will require coordination with the Reserve LLC, Terminella, for construction off site to the east. Said improvements shall be constructed, inspected and accepted by the city prior to Certificate of Occupancy. It was this Planning Commission's finding that the street construction, 36' wide as opposed to a half street in this case would be necessary to the south entrance, not the full length of the property, but would be necessary to facilitate the traffic generated by the size of the school in this case. 2) On site right of way for Rupple Road to meet Master Street Plan requirements, a minimum of 45' from centerline shall be dedicated by easement plat prior to the issuance of a building permit. The italics section shows we are this close to getting that accomplished. The easement plat has been submitted, we have reviewed it and made comments, it has been submitted a second time and I think Suzanne is working with the Engineers to complete that hopefully this week so we can get the easement plat completed as one of those items for a building permit. 3) Obtaining the dedication of offsite right of way for Rupple Road on adjacent property to the east shall be the responsibility of the school district as part of the Large Scale Development approval of this project. Said off site dedication to the City of Fayetteville shall occur prior to the completion of the project, which means the final Certificate of Occupancy to allow for public access on and through Rupple Road. Should this dedication not occur prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the School District shall be responsible for all costs associated with condemnation and/or legal proceedings necessary to obtain this right of way in order to provide a safe and adequate means of access to the public school as part of the conditions of approval of this project. Essentially, in a nut shell, what that means is that at the time of completion of this project the city fully expects the school to dedicate the necessary right of way per the Master Street Plan and per the Large Scale Development approval for this project instead of building permit time. That is what this condition is changing. Instead of prior to building permit we would expect to see that dedication of right of way prior to a final Certificate of Occupancy meaning that the school could not get a final Certificate of Occupancy Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 11 prior to that dedication of right of way. Other than that, everything remains the same. As you are well aware, the school is under construction and is essentially desiring to get their building permits. We are happy to facilitate that as long as we do meet current ordinance requirements and we believe that the Planning Commission does have the authority to change those conditions as you did set them. We do recommend that these three conditions replace original conditions three through eight in the staff report. Ostner: Since there is no applicant tonight, I am going to call for public comment. Would anyone like to speak to this issue of the Rupple Road right of way? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Pate: I would mention that there is an applicant here if you do have questions of them. Ostner: Excuse me, would the representative like to share something? Burgess: I'm Wes Burgess with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the school. The only thing I would add to what Jeremy has said is being that this is a school and schools have one opportunity per year to open. If we miss the fall of 2006 opening date, which we are in the situation now if we are not able to get our building permit, if that is delayed a month or so for the rest of the right of way that the school has no control over, essentially it is pushing the school opening back a complete year. That is why we are hoping that we can get through this tonight. Ostner: Thank you. I am going to ask for public comment again since we have heard from the applicant. Would anyone like to speak to this issue of ADM 05-1503? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commissioners. Is there any discussion? Williams: I will say that I did ask Jeremy to do this, I think he has done a good job on that. We have run into a problem in trying to get the easement as he explained and we got stuck and we couldn't go forward and because of the fact that this would delay the school construction considerably we did something out of the order in this particular case, or are requesting that the Planning Commission do something out of the ordinary. We feel like this is an extraordinary situation and therefore, it was something that we would do this time but we would not make this kind of request very often. I think Jeremy has covered the city well in the conditions of approval that he has drafted so that we are protected and I want to thank him for doing a good job on that. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 12 Allen: Jeremy, has there ever been a situation like this before? Is this precedent setting so far as you know? Pate: I don't think it is precedent setting at all. As Mr. Williams mentioned, this is a unique situation, extraordinary because of timing. As Mr. Burgess mentioned, they do only have one time of year to open and if that time can not be met that is a year that the school will have to sit and cannot be utilized potentially unless there are major changes in the middle of the school year to change where children are going to school. I feel that our typical requirements of requiring dedication of right of way prior to building permit, we will continue enforcing that requirement that the Planning Commission places upon projects and go forward from this. We just felt that this was a situation where we were sort of at an impasse because there is a third property owner involved. The School District, just to reiterate, is responsible for obtaining that right of way. That is why the conditions are drafted as they are because it is part of the approval of this project. The city is not responsible for getting that right of way and that is why we have stated the conditions as such as part of their responsibility to build a school there and we feel that they are actively pursuing that. Vaught: What happens if something to the third property owner, if neighboring development gets delayed. What would the school do then? My understanding is they are building the street on the Reserve's property, is that correct? Then it will all be dedicated before the time of final occupancy? Pate: That is correct, for the school. Vaught: I guess that is just a fear in doing it this way. What kind of confidence do we have to know that that will happen? I guess we feel confident, has the school district looked at their options in case something happens? Burgess: The school district is definitely keeping close contact with the property developer. We don't see any reasons for concern that their development is not going through. It is just a timing issue. I think what the Planning Staff has proposed would put the school in the position of having to pay for the cost of condemnation if that would occur but I don't think anyone really believes that that would occur. Vaught: I just wanted to make sure that we have our bases covered. With that, I will make a motion to approve ADM 05-1503. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: Is there anymore discussion? Could you call the roll Renee? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 13 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 05-1503 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 14 PPL 05-1408: Preliminary Plat (CHERRY HILLS S/D, 282/243): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at THE W SIDE OF HUGHMOUNT RD., N TO LIERLY LANE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 75.85 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 195 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1408 for Cherry Hills Subdivision submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers for property located on the west side of Hughmount Road north to Lierly Lane. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: As stated, the subject property is located west of Hughmount Road. It contains approximately 75.85 acres. The proposal is to create a 198 lot subdivision with 195 single family lots. This property is in the Planning Area and the applicant is proposing somewhat of a unique situation, a community sewage treatment area, on this property. We have only seen one other like this, Sloan Estates. The proposed Preliminary Plat was brought before the Subdivision Committee on four occasions. We have worked, the Subdivision Committee and Staff, has worked quite a bit with the applicants and feel that we have made quite a bit of progress with connectivity and such and at this time are bringing it forward to you for review. When a property is located within the Planning Area and one mile within the city limits the city can regulate the following: Appropriate division of land; lot area; lot width (75' minimum); right of way dedication in conformance with the Master Street Plan; we can evaluate the impact of traffic; surrounding streets; grading, drainage and construction of streets in compliance with ordinance requirements; septic system approvals; and street connectivity. That is just a review of what the city can review for these properties in the Planning Area and within one mile of the city limits. With regard to the community septic system, the applicant has provided sufficient preliminary approvals for this system including a letter from the Arkansas Health Department, a Soil Scientist, as well as the Washington County Environmental Services Depaituient. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Hughmount Road, a collector street, and Lierly Lane, a collector street. Hughmount Road is adjacent to the property on the east and the applicant is proposing to dedicate right of way in compliance with the Master Street Plan. Lierly Lane is a street at this point which has not been constructed and the applicant is proposing to dedicate 35' of right of way along the northern property line and construct a 21' wide drive as well as improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalks along this northern property line. As properties around this piece develop we will see the eventual construction of Lierly Lane. With regard to connectivity, it is proposed in all cardinal directions. Staff finds that the additional connectivity provided by the applicant through these several different reviews will create smaller block lengths and discourage high speeds. We are in support of the proposed connectivity which they Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 15 have shown. With regard to street improvements, street improvements are proposed for the length of Hughmount Road adjacent to the property. As well as improvements of a "Y" intersection off of Mt. Comfort Road and Wheeler Road to create a 90° angle intersection. The applicant at this time has submitted an initial plan showing the existing conditions of the intersection and proposed improvements. At this time staff recommends that PPL 05-1408 be approved with 20 conditions. Most of which are standard. There are, however, a few conditions which require Planning Commission determinations. Conditions one through four, condition one stating Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity and residential block layout. Staff does find that the proposed street connections are adequate and do meet city policy for connectivity. Condition two, ensure adequate street design for the proposed and potential vehicle trips per day on streets within the subdivision. The applicant has proposed construction of both 40' and 50' rights of way. There is one street, Golden Willow Drive, which is proposed at this time to be a 40' right of way and it does abut Lot 88, the proposed community septic system. At this time they are requesting to build a 24' wide street within a 40' right of way. At the time in the future that lot is ever developed, we would request that the street be widened to 28' and additional right of way be dedicated for a 50' right of way. Condition three, Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Master Street Plan. Extension of Lierly Lane through the northern portion of this subject property and again, the applicant does propose dedication of 35' right of way adjacent to the northern property to comply with this requirement. Condition four, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. We are recommending off site street improvements on Hughmount as well as the realignment of the intersection to the south. Ostner: Is the applicant present please? Gill: My name is Ryan Gill, I'm with McClelland Consulting Engineers. I just wanted to add a couple of things. We are dedicating 35' of right of way. The additional stub outs, we have tried to comply with everything that staff has recommended. We have a total of 10 stub outs including the two that will be used currently, which means 8 additional stub outs to the north, south and west. That is the main thing. The improvement of the intersection at Hughmount, Mt. Comfort/Wheeler Road, has been approved by the County Judge and also we have received a letter from John Armstrong who has dedicated the land for that improvement. It doesn't seem like there will be any hold ups in that regard. I believe that is it. Ostner: At this point I will take public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please step forward. Please give us your name. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 16 Parette: I am David Parette, I live at 2931 N. Hughmount Road. That is the east border of the northern most 10 acres or so of the proposed subdivision. I have several concerns and I'm sure that several of the folks here will also. First and foremost, I would like to commend the engineers from McClelland, the folks on the Subdivision Committee, Jeremy and Suzanne. Everybody that I've seen in the operation of this has done an exemplary job. There are a lot of things to cover. It is baffling, there are thousands of things to watch and I think folks have done a commendable job. It almost makes me wish I lived in the city, but I don't. I have several concerns, not the least of which is that we are in a primarily agricultural looking part of the county. It isn't necessarily agricultural but it still looks that way. I have ten acres. The neighbors immediately to the south of me have approximately seven. To the south of them they have 2 '/2 or so and those three will border the northern most end of the subdivision. We are sort of used to being out there by ourselves and alone and we know that progress is coming. Progress in the form of 10,000 sq.ft. lots is I think far too dense in every way conceivable. It gets more dense to me the more we consider it. If the county and city ordinances say 10,000 sq.ft. is the minimum lot, I understand the economics that we are going to a 10,000 sq.ft. lot so you can get more people on the property. For you all it will be more tax payers and it makes sense, you can recoup the investment on services. In this particular case however, the developer is having to bear the brunt of putting in this step system because Fayetteville's sewer will not be extended because we are in the growth area. I have noticed in the last week that another property not 1/2 mile from my place is up to be annexed. That will bring the sewer line to within about 75' of this proposed modified intersection if that actually happens. Which means we will have a situation where we will have a developer, it is incumbent upon the developer to short himself 30 or more lots and build an elaborate system that nobody really trusts, even though the science seems to be all in order with this step field system that will release pretreated sewage into the lines that will then be 1/2 mile or so within the tributary of the Illinois River. We don't know what that is going to do. We are still on a well where I am. The grading in that area takes ground water somewhere between 80 and 300 feet down in some cases. My well happens to be 280 feet deep so who knows what is going to show up in my well if things malfunction if they have missed somewhere, which is possible. In any case, it seems silly to me to approve and move on a subdivision that if you waited would have sewer to it probably within a year and a half or two years. It is not going to kill these people to wait and do this in two years. As a matter of fact, it would probably be much easier because the road improvements could be made if they are on the Master Street Plan, once they have come up in this sort of presentation, you know that it is coming and you might see an intersection that needs to be improved, why not improve it ahead of time? You know that you are Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 17 going to need that sort of traffic flow through there. It seems that sometimes these things would change as you watch them and it might be better to go ahead and take care of things as the need arises. The concerns that I have, traffic is a big one. We are going to have 195 houses in there, 2.4 or 2.5 average people per house. That is approximately 400 people zipping up and down the road. Right now there are only two egresses from that proposed subdivision that both dump onto Hughmount Road. Anyone who goes to Holt School or to Holcomb School in the morning knows that that much more traffic is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. It takes 20 minutes if you hit the wrong part of traffic in the morning to get four miles out of town to the campus. It is only going to get worse. That is something that should be addressed. Also, we have seen in that immediate neighborhood in the last twenty years, we have seen places like Betty Jo where you have a much higher density than the surrounding area and they end up being sort of hot spots crime wise. They are at enough of a reach that the city doesn't get out there quickly. The county doesn't patrol it because they are stretched to the breaking point already. We can't get people to come out and catch speeders up and down Hughmount now. If there are 200 more folks coming up Hughmount it isn't going to get any better. Some of us out there have kids. If you put that kind of density in there where it is still fairly agricultural looking, where there are things like old dump trucks and you have ponds and there are attractive nuisances of all sorts, my neighbor has a swimming pool, none of us are very careful about keeping stuff locked up because we haven't had to be. If someone's toddler gets in my pond, I'm not around enough to watch it, who is to say that if you put 400 people in there something tragic isn't going to happen? It is going to be bad news. I don't think it would be as likely if you put 40 or 50 houses in there. I think we are developing too densely. The traffic within the subdivision concerns me a little bit. We hear the folks drag racing up Hughmount Road I think if you have got nearly a 1,000 foot stretch in there kids are going to be zipping up and down that road. I think it probably more likely to be motorcycles than cars because they can get in there, get out and get gone and nobody is going to catch them. I am an old street bike rider myself, it would be very, very tempting because of the way it is laid out. There are two ways in and two ways out. If a cop comes in one way they are going to go out the other and it is going to be nasty. I would like to know for the sake of public record what the other 15 or 16 things are. Suzanne mentioned that there are 20 or so items to be addressed and she mentioned five or six of them. I would like to know for my own edification what those others are even if they are fairly standard. Thank you for your time. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience who would like to speak to PPL 05-1408? Seeing none, I am going to close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I would like to start out by asking for a Subdivision report. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 18 Clark: Vaught: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Pate: It has been repeatedly. I have to commend Ryan from McClelland and the neighbors for working together on this subdivision. We have had numerous things that have been troublesome and I think they have worked very hard to clear some of those things up. As you can tell from Mr. Parette's comments, this is not a very popular subdivision for the neighbors out there. As you also know, our jurisdictional reach is very restricted because it is in the Planning Area. In terms of traffic, the intersection at the "Y" of Mt. Comfort and Wheeler Road was a major concern. They have decided to go ahead and correct that and make it better. The lot sizes, there is a letter in your packet from a builder who says that the lot sizes will be sufficient to build on, which was another concern. Density of course, is a big concern. That is where our hands are fairly well tied in terms of what we can and cannot look at. I think if nothing else this subdivision gives you a clear understanding of what happens when there are no zoning regulations in the county. Our hands are fairly tied. They have complied with what we asked them to comply with but our list is very restricted. It has been a very cooperative venture however, and I will commend everybody involved in it. Staff as well, to make sure that what we can look at was thoroughly looked at. The one long stretch of road that runs north and south, what discussions took place about that? Are there some four way intersections? Are they going to use stop signs to control traffic down that long stretch? I just know that is a concern. It barely avoids the maximum of the limits for the distance. She is referring to the 1,400 foot block length. That is correct, all of their blocks do meet that minimum standard which we have and they have added additional stub outs to break up blocks, create smaller blocks and potentially create some sort of grid pattern where you see a lot in the downtown area. How many stub outs did this have when it first came to us? It was quite a bit fewer. I think it was four or five originally and we have added five more. That was an attempt to not only recognize this area is going to grow but also to provide some traffic controls. As Mr. Parette indicated a straight highway or straight street is an invitation. Part of the problems we have seen in recent subdivisions, neighbors in those subdivisions are now looking for traffic control measures and speed control measures, are these long straight streets without those Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 19 intersections. We feel that it is a good practice to create these intersections. Simply because it creates the perception that there is someone who potentially might not stop so therefore, you would theoretically slow down to go through that intersection and thereby create a more suitable traffic speed in these neighborhoods. We feel that with the addition of these stub outs, the intersections that have been provided, it will create a much safer neighborhood in regard to traffic speed and allowing neighbors to walk the streets and sidewalk and have safety. Clark: How close is the annexation that Mr. Parette mentioned? That is news to us. Pate: The intersection of Mt. Comfort and Bridgeport subdivision essentially. It is fairly close. We just got that annexation in this last week for an annexation request very near. I would mention that by state law this particular piece of property is not allow to annex. It is not contiguous with the city limits or the city boundaries so they could not even request annexation. With regard to sewer extensions, the City does not allow sewer extension outside of the city limits without special approval by the City Council for that. It is seen on a case by case basis and has not been utilized very often in the past. Allen: Pate: Then it seems to me that the concerns that we have of density and the sewage problem are outside the jurisdiction of this Commission, there is nothing that we can do? With regard to density, you are exactly right. There is no density limit within the Planning Area. This could be a multi -family development, it could be an industrial complex, it could be any number of things. There are no use controls or density requirements outside of the city limits within Washington County. With regard to sewer, essentially all we require is the State Health Department, Arkansas Department of Health Services and a Soil Scientist have their documentation together to allow for a development to proceed. We do have a policy now that the systems be designed in such a manner that in the future if this does come into the city, that lift station could be removed and this could tie onto our sewer system. That, to my knowledge, has been designed to accommodate that particular connection in the future. Allen: This might sound really stupid, but why are we seeing this then? Pate: Subdivision of land is regulated within the Planning Area. That is something that the City of Fayetteville does regulate within our Growth Area anytime the subdivision of land occurs. The County Judge gives us that jurisdiction. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 20 Ostner: Is there any dialogue or added information on the concerns of police patrol? This is not patrolled by Fayetteville Police because it is outside of the city limits so police control is completely outside the jurisdiction of the city. Pate: It would be the Washington County Sheriff. Ostner: I just wanted to address that. The other conditions of approval that we have that he doesn't have a copy of, I was going to ask that you read them so I don't have to. They are fairly mundane and uninteresting compared to the first four. I believe the first four are what we need to concern ourselves with. Clark: The extension of Lierly Lane has also been a hot topic with the neighbors but this developer has done what they are supposed to do in terms of dedicating right of way. It is still going to be a concern for the neighbors but it is nothing that we can talk about within the context of this division. We do have more property that is about to be developed just to the east of that on the northern side. Ostner: Just as a related issue, if Lierly could be piece mewled developed by development, it would be an alternate route to Mt. Comfort and it would greatly alleviate those problems. On the issue of Mt. Comfort, do we have any remedies on our CIP to that area to help with these delays during school times? Pate: Probably not outside of the city limits. We would not spend those funds outside of the city. However, there are some improvements in the works east. Ostner: The issue starts in the city limits really. Pate: Brent, you can jump in anytime. We have been seeing assessments in lieu of improvements on Mt. Comfort and on Rupple as well to improve the "Y" intersection to widen Mt. Comfort near the intersection of Shiloh and Mt. Comfort further east of this property where the I-540 interchange comes into play. The city is actively looking at improving Mt. Comfort. To what extent, I can't say tonight. We are taking assessments from developers as opposed to requiring those improvements simply because we would like to pool those resources and do that all at once. Trumbo: Item number two conditions of approval says the applicant requests construction of Golden Willow Drive as a residential street with a 40' right of way. Staff's recommendation goes on to say that at the time of development of Lot 88 they dedicate another 10'. Do we need to go ahead and take the 50' at this point? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 21 Pate: The problem with doing that from my understanding with the applicant, is that there is a specific minimum requirement on the acreage and square feet of that treatment area, Lot 88, where their leach field is located. Dedication of right of way would take that out of play. They could not put any of that treatment area into the right of way so that would hamper their ability to utilize that field in that location unless more lots were lost. We felt it was appropriate at this time if the subdivision does connect to sanitary sewer at some point, potentially that becomes usable land and therefore, could be developed in the future. At that time we would see more lots and more traffic generated and a requirement for additional right of way dedication and a wider street. It will be a note on the Final Plat so that 20 years down the road if someone does subdivide that property they are aware that that requirement is placed on the property. Vaught: As a part of grading and drainage, detention is not included within our control, is that correct? Pate: Actually, it is a case by case basis. The City Engineer does look at drainage on streets in some locations. I don't believe in this case detention was required. O'Neal: Lack: Detention was not required for this development. We are looking our ordinance with regard to drainage and I suspect we will have a policy in the books shortly outlining exactly what we do want to see with development in the Planning Area. In that we do have regulation control over grading and drainage, do we regulate that grading and modification of land be completed within the property boundaries? The reason I ask is in looking at the grading and drainage plan, it appears to me that there is a substantial amount of cut that goes beyond the property boundaries of the subdivision. There were not elevation numbers on either the existing or the new contours so I am making some assumptions. The assumption that I'm working with there looks like we have anywhere from 6' to 9' of cut into neighboring property which extends 50' or 60' into that property. Pate: I will ask the applicant to respond to that question. Gill: I believe the way it is written is it is 5' inside of your property line is where you tie into the existing contours. I don't know if I got that from staff or out of the ordinances. We won't be doing any cut or fill on adjacent property. It will tie in 5' this side of it. There is a considerable cut on the northern side of the site which will be pushed down to the ravines on the southern part of the site. There won't be any cut on the adjacent properties. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 22 Lack: Looking at sheets 8 and 9, the grading and drainage plans, it would appear to me that those go beyond the property boundaries. Gill: The darker lines are overlaid there, that is the way our software produces those. If you will notice on the boundary line there is a double set of lines. Where we are actually tying onto is that inner line. The software shows it so that it can do calculations for cut and fill. It overlays the darker lines. O'Neal: I think what Mr. Gill is referring to is the offset is on the inside of the property and that is the actual location of where the grading will stop. The software interpolates outside of that line back to the point where it will connect. For their calculation purposes that is the line that they will use as the point of grading start and stop. Lack: Does that mean that there will be a wall there? Gill: No, it will tie into the existing grade. There are no retaining walls planned or designed for this subdivision. All grading will tie into the 5' mark. That is a little misleading, I apologize for that. That is the way our software produced it. That is not an excuse, but at least it is a reason. Ostner: We have several specific determinations to look at. Conditions of approval 1, 2, 3, and 4. Is there any comment on these? MOTION: Clark: I think in terms of 1, 2, 3, and 4 the developer working with staff have met all of the concerns and I am more than happy with the way that staff has presented it. The stub outs are correct. The Golden Willow issue on number two, we talked about it with the developer, they are going to have to pay later to do it but that's their choice. If that field does become buildable, it seems like they should do it now but we have no control over that. The Master Street Plan is being followed and the street improvements including that "Y" is very necessary and the developer is in agreement to do it. Having said all of that, and having listened to this several times at Subdivision Committee, I will make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1408 with all conditions listed. Myres: I will second. Clark: This is not a development I would approve if it were inside the city limits. If this was in the City of Fayetteville I would raise the density flag high and waive it long but we have no jurisdiction over that. That leads me again to say go to the County Planning Commission and see if you can get Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 23 some consideration from them. This is definitely an agricultural area, there is no transitional development at all. Ostner: Or consult the Fayetteville City Council and discuss annexation as we have done several times. Vaught: I am glad that we see these. There are a number of improvements and changes that we are able to make through our review process that I think are valuable. I think any changes to grading and drainage that can help with detention will be invaluable as well. I'm glad to hear staff is working on that. Allen: To echo some of the comments that were just made for the record, I would like to say that I have a number of concerns about this project, the density, the sewer, but I can't get my teeth into anything that will allow me to vote against it so I will vote for it. Ostner: Is there further comment? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1408 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 24 CUP 05-1474: Conditional Use Permit (ZAXBY'S, 521): Submitted by WILLIAM RUDASILL for property located at NE CORNER 6TH ST. AND LEWIS. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL & R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.15 acres. The request is to permit a restaurant within the R -O Zoning District. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 05-1474 for Zaxby's. Trumbo: I will recuse myself from this item. Pate: This is a Conditional Use request for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Lewis. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.15 acres. The request is to permit a restaurant within the R -O zoning district, which is only allowed by Conditional Use. If you look at your map, the R -O portion is separated from 6th Street by property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, which is under the same ownership. The property is currently vacant with overgrowth and a gravel lot which you can primarily see from 66 Street. The property to the south is zoned C-2, which allows restaurants (Use Unit 13) and drive-thru restaurants (Use Unit 18) as uses by right. However, this property zoned R -O only allows Use Unit 18 by Conditional Use. The difference is Use Unit 13 is a sit down type of establishment whereas Use Unit 18 is a drive thru type of facility. Development of the restaurant on the overall property would likely require a portion of that development, the building, parking, potentially other accessory uses to the primary use of restaurant to be located on the R -O tract and therefore, the applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to allow for a restaurant type of development to occur. Staff has been in discussions even today with the applicant to either move the drive in from the site plans or relocate it onto the C-2 portion of the property in accordance with our zoning regulations. This subject proposal would come back before you as a Large Scale Development should this use be approved. Should it not be approved they have an option to process the restaurant as a use by right on just the C-2 portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to develop a restaurant called Zaxby's on the subject property. I was told today that there is one under construction here in Arkansas. This would be the second in Arkansas. They are located out of Georgia I believe and have 200+ locations in the southeast United States. Staff has made findings of fact regarding this particular application and find that the granting of the requested Conditional Use will not adversely effect the public interest. This property has been undeveloped for a number of years. The property to the north has been developed as primarily multi -family and is zoned for RMF -24. The existing development is either single family small development, which are rental houses or multi -family. To the northeast of course is the large physical plant facility and some of the other University facilities there along Stadium Drive and Razorback Road. As I Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 25 mentioned, we find that this property is in compliance with what our Future Land Use Plan shows for this area, which is a mixture of uses for commercial, residential, office type uses. Ingress and egress to the property is adequately provided with surrounding streets. They have streets on four sides of this overall property. Of course, we will conduct a careful analysis of proposed curb cuts at the time of Large Scale Development to ensure that a dangerous traffic situation is not presented. That is one of the basis for denial of a Large Scale Development, so we will see that again at the time of Large Scale Development. We feel that currently the proposed plan there are curb cuts that are too close to that intersection and we would be reviewing those at the time of development depending upon the actual circulation that we see. Adequate parking areas are to be provided on site in accordance with current city ordinances. Again, we would see those screened in accordance with our current development ordinances and find that there are no specific economic, noise, glare or odor effects on adjoining properties with this request. The Solid Waste Division coordination would have to occur as well as well as extension of public utilities, screening of parking areas and all signage to be in compliance with city ordinances. Staff finds that the proposed restaurant use is found to be generally compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in this district, compatible and like uses are located along 6th Street. Directly to the west of this is a drive thru restaurant which is in close proximity to this lot and will compliment surrounding properties. That being said, staff is recommending approval of CUP 05- 1474. We do have eight conditions, most of which I have gone through with you. Item number one talks about the drive thru restaurant. I would just mention that the Zoning and Development Administrator does have the jurisdiction and ability to look at a zoning line on a split zoned piece of property and allow uses within 50' of that zoning. That may have to be utilized as an option for this property. We are trying to make that not occur. We met today looking at site plan options to try to alleviate that and get everything on the C-2 zoned piece of property with the exception of some of the parking and some of the drives, potentially the dumpster pad area. I just wanted to let the Commission be aware of that so at the time of Large Scale Development if that does happen to occur it is not a surprise to you. Osmer: Did you say 15' or 50'? Pate: 50' is what is allowed by ordinance. Item number two, because of the difference in the actual legal description submitted and the site plan where the restaurant is located, I just wanted to clarify that this is one restaurant that may be located on the property with this Conditional Use. Any other uses not allowed in the R -O zoning district would need to come before you. At the time of LSD building elevation drawings shall be submitted for all sides of the structure. Again, in our meeting today with the Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 26 applicants, we expressed a few concerns with some of the elevations and we hope to work with them to get you an elevation that we can recommend approval of. Item number four, a vegetative buffer consisting of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs shall be planted along the north side of the property to adequately screen the residential use. That is an ordinance requirement as well so there should be no surprise there. Sidewalk construction or money in lieu shall be reviewed at the time of Large Scale Development for this property. Curb cuts for ingress and egress will also be carefully evaluated. All refuse areas shall be screened with materials that are compatible to the materials on the building and signs shall be permitted in accordance with city sign regulations. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill, I'm with WBR Engineering. I'm here representing the owner of the property and also the proposed developer of the property. In general, there is already a restaurant to the west of this and then there is a pool operation to the east of it. We are fitting in here in a transition zone. What they are wanting to do, they need a little additional space to be able to create a restaurant in there. Are there any questions I can answer? Ostner: We will get back with you. At this point I am going to open it up to public comment. I f anyone would like to speak to this Conditional Use please step forward and give us your comment. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I have a question for the applicant, I think this came up at agenda session, it almost seems easier to ask for a Rezoning. Rudasill: We addressed that with staff and the direction that they more or less put us in was more in the way of Conditional Use instead of a Rezoning. Vaught: On the split of the property, condition number one, why would we want to limit the ability, since they can do the 50' by code. To me a tradeoff would be additional screening toward the rear of the property near the RMF -24 zoning. None of this is abutting any low density residential. I just want to get more of an understanding on why you included condition number one. Pate: Essentially, R -O does not allow for that type of use even by Conditional Use or with screening or anything. Use Unit 18, if it is a drive-thru restaurant needs to be located entirely within that C-2 district or within that 50' that by right I would be able to grant to allow for development. Essentially, I tried to word it such that it does not preclude the ability to utilize that 50'. That is why it says subject to city ordinances. There is a Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 27 city ordinance in place today that allows for that to occur. It is more as a clarification for the applicant. The R -O zoning district, if anyone saw this 15 years from now and was looking at it, why is there a drive thru restaurant in the R -O zoning district, this would hopefully get back to the reason why. Vaught: I was wondering with that last little caveat if we were taking the 50' ability and all of the development has to be within the 50' so the parking lot can't even spill over past 50', is that correct? Pate: Clark: Pate: No. The established use, the building use, much like sales taxes, are based upon where the actual building and cash register are located. That is where we would apply that type of use. The ancillary uses for parking areas could be located. Again, we are seeing a Conditional Use and we feel that appropriate conditions and findings of fact have been set with this Conditional Use should you approve this. This seems like a very unique situation. Jeremy, correct me if I'm wrong, this Conditional Use should not transfer should this restaurant go out of business? In other words, if another restaurant would move in they would have to request a Conditional Use again right? A Conditional Use runs with the land. If it is not Zaxby's it could be another restaurant. However, it would have to come before you and they would be subject to the very conditions that you placed upon this. Clark: That gives me some reassurance so I will move that we approve CUP 05- 1474 with the conditions as stated. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Just as an aside to that, we would not see a LSD if this were already built and was simply changing hands. If this applicant builds a building with this Conditional Use and sales, no offense, this Conditional Use is basically a zoning. It is a land use decision and it sticks with the land. A LSD is only about development. If they do all the developing and there is no more development to be done and it changes hands, the next owner gets this Conditional Use. Pate: Subject to the same conditions placed upon that project. Ostner: So we quite possibly would not see it again if there were another owner, I just wanted to make that clear. We have a motion and a second to approve this Conditional Use. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 28 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1474 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Trumbo recusing. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 29 Break CUP 05-1475: Conditional Use Permit (CHRISTIAN LIFE CATHEDRAL, 213): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 1147 E MILLSAP RD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The request is to allow a church in an R -O Zoning District. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is another Conditional Use Permit, CUP 05- 1475 for Christian Life Cathedral. Lack: I will recuse from this item. Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 0.9 acres and is located south of Millsap Road and east of College Avenue. Several months ago the applicant for this property submitted a building permit requesting construction of a 7, 616 sq.ft. metal building addition to the rear of an existing structure which was formerly utilized by the American Red Cross on this property and also to utilize existing parking on site. Staff evaluated this building permit and realized that the request was for the use of a church in the R -O zoning district, which is not permitted by right. However, can be permitted by Conditional Use request. Therefore, the applicant has applied for this request and is requesting approval for the use of a new church. The applicant is Christian Life Cathedral. There is actually an existing church facility, which is one property removed from the property in which they are requesting this Conditional Use. The existing structure has a considerable amount of parking, more than what is required for the facility that is currently existing. This new proposed addition, along with the existing building, will be utilized for a youth ministry and have an auditorium that seats 275. There will also be associated game rooms and classrooms in the structure. With regard to findings, staff has reviewed this permit and found that granting a Conditional Use for a church in this location will not adversely affect the public interest with appropriate and sensitive design measures in place. Surrounding properties are in large part a mixture of uses including single family, institutional, including the existing church, as well as law offices and insurance offices. Conditions for screening, landscaping, etc., will aid in diminishing the presence of that non-residential use in a residential area. Additionally, staff finds that with additional articulation of the proposed structure it will better incorporate this proposed building into these areas. Though there are spatial and architectural design decisions to work out to comply with city ordinances, staff finds that the proposed use for a church is compatible with the adjacent uses. The structure is located within the R -O zoning district and can, at any time, be utilized for office use, for which commercial design standards apply. Based on the City Attorney's opinion, the proposed institutional use does not require compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The current elevations of this Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 30 development show an addition of approximately a 7,600 sq.ft. metal structure. Many sides of the structure are visible from right of way and single family properties. As you can see on the attached maps and I have handed out proposed elevations of the structure. Staff recommends that the elevations be modified to incorporate similar building materials and articulation as the existing structure has on the property with a minimal amount of metal siding. This will create a structure which we feel is compatible with the surrounding areas. Other issues with regard to this request, there is currently access off of Millsap and the applicant is requesting to utilize that existing access for this property and development. With regard to pedestrian access, there is currently no sidewalk adjacent to Millsap and the Sidewalk Coordinator has reviewed this and required with the building permit that a sidewalk be installed adjacent to the right of way. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide screening adjacent to residential areas to RSF-4 zoning, 12' wide landscaping buffer in order to screen this proposed use from those residences. The other issue I would like to address is parking. At this time there are currently 15 parking spaces on the site, 14 of which are proposed to be utilized with the removal of one space for a landscape island. The current request of a 275 seat auditorium will require additional parking more than they have currently available. There is a minimum requirement of 49 spaces on site. At this time the applicant is requesting approval of a Shared Parking Agreement with the property that they currently own and utilize for church services. This property is off site because it is removed from the subject property by one single family home, a portion of one single family property. The current church has approximately 318 spaces where only 250 are required. Staff feels that there is sufficient parking currently existing in order to facilitate the parking required with this proposed use. Additionally, I have handed out that shared parking agreement. Staff would request that this agreement run with the land regardless of ownership at 1147 E. Millsap in order to provide sufficient parking for the proposed development of this tract and any future business which may occupy this structure. We are recommending approval with a total of 10 conditions of approval. Most of which I have gone over in detail. If you have any questions I will be glad to address those. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and we are here to answer questions and help explain basically what Suzanne just got through telling you. We were ready to start up the dozers and pour concrete and we realized that we needed to do this Conditional Use. It is basically in the shadow of the church and never even occurred to us that this was not zoned properly for Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 31 the use of the youth ministry that the church wanted to have right here. I'm here to answer questions basically. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public for comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue, CUP 05-1475 please step forward and give us your comments. Seeing none, I will close the public comment period and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: We will not see a Large Scale on this project because it is less than an acre, is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Vaught: Is staff satisfied with the current elevations that were submitted tonight? Is that a new rendition or is that the one that you guys weren't happy with? Morgan: That is the front view of the proposed elevations that we originally saw. What you have in your packet on page 9.13 is what is shown in color. Vaught: Ok, so there have not been new elevations submitted but staff would have to be happy with the elevations before they proceed, is that correct? Pate: We are recommending that the Planning Commission determine if this use and the building that is proposed for this use is compatible with the adjacent single family residences and the other adjacent uses to this property. Our finding is the architectural elevations, not necessarily the front, because that is an existing building, that those areas that are seen from the public right of way be modified to incorporate similar building materials and articulation as the existing structure on the property. We recommended in similar situations brick facades or some other type of use of a similar material, E.I.F.S. and brick combination to help this better fit in with the rest of the office, commercial, institutional and residential type dwellings that are in this neighborhood. Vaught: If we approve this tonight they will need to submit revised elevations to staff for approval, is that correct? Pate: It entirely depends upon your motion and your conditions. Vaught: If we agree with that. Pate: That is correct. Vaught: I'm curious about that comment because we won't see this as a Large Scale so I want to know how that is going to be handled, if we agree with Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 32 Clark: Pate: that first condition staff will see it and review it. I wanted to make sure that this wasn't the most recent rendition. Staff, you said there is an intervening single family residence between these two, do these folks have any objections to the parking being kind of strung out? I am guessing people are going to cut through their yard, just a guess. There will likely be a sidewalk requirement placed upon this property to develop. Honestly, that is a good question because that is another property and we would have to potentially coordinate that with that property owner. You can see it is an odd shaped lot on page 9.16 that has just a very small portion of frontage onto Millsap Road. Clark: The fact that it is a small lot could exasperate the problem, it gives people less room to walk across. Pate: I'm speaking of the intervening residential lot. On page 9.16 you can see that single family residence and how that small portion of lot actually heads north. That is the intervening property. Clark: But you haven't heard from them? Pate: We have not. Morgan: We have not. Actually, going out there on site about half way to Millsap on that tag it is landscaped. I think they have their boat out there but the remaining tag is just kind of brush and kind of in it's natural state. Clark: Mr. Jorgensen, have you all heard from the neighbors? Jorgensen: It is hard to tell that that is a separate piece of property. In fact, Steve Dickson mentioned that this was contiguous with the church property. Steve, did you know that there is that tag in between the church property and this property? By the way, this is owned by Charlie Sloan and he knows about this. Dickson: I didn't know. Jorgensen: The distance is about from me to you and it does have some shrubbery in there. It is labeled as a utility easement, access easement or something to that effect. Clark: I was just curious because it is a single family home lot. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 33 Ostner: Pate: Jorgensen: Vaught: Jorgensen: Myres: Pate: Myres: Pate: Vaught: Williams: Jorgensen: Clark: We can craft a condition that a connection be made. This is a question for staff on this issue of if there is an intervening property that is a utility easement between, could we add a condition of approval that a sidewalk or some sort of connection be made between the church and this new project since it is off of their property? We do often see offsite improvements. For instance, the Cherry Hill Subdivision tonight, the developer was required to either purchase or gain access to right of way for an improvement to that "Y" intersection. It is not something that we like to recommend. It obviously puts another burden upon that developer. It is really based upon the need of the property. There is quite a bit of pedestrian traffic, there would be, if it is youth ministry it would likely be children or teenagers walking through the street if not through the sidewalk. I don't know if the applicant is willing to try to work that situation out. I do have a photo of that actual greenspace area. That is definitely no problem. I think it would be helpful to have a sidewalk right there. Is there not a public right of way around that street anyway that they could build it in? Yes there is. Number eight of the conditions of approval, what sidewalk does that refer to? The potential sidewalk on this subject property. Ok, that is just the sidewalk on this property, not that intervening strip. Commissioner Vaught made a very good point. If it is in public right of way there is the right of access for those types of public facilities. If it is ok with the applicant, add that condition stating along the public right of way to connect to the existing church facilities. I don't know if the City Attorney has a better way to word it. That is fine, it will connect to the existing parking lot. That is no problem. We would be glad to do that. Suzanne, did you say the shared parking agreement would transfer or stay with this property? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 34 Morgan: Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: Clark: Ostner: Trumbo: Jorgensen: Ostner: Vaught: Pate: That is our recommendation, that it stay with the land. If there is a change of ownership and this property, which is currently requested to be developed for a church use is occupied by an office use, the parking required may be reduced to around 20 spaces but they do not have those spaces available on site. Therefore, we would be requesting the shared parking agreement. Should the Red Cross office turn back into the Red Cross office, the shared parking agreement will still give them the right to park in the church lot. That is correct. We do have in our ordinances a shared parking agreement which has to be approved by the Planning Commission, which we have included as a condition of approval for this Conditional Use. But the church knows that that is one of your conditions? That is correct. They do have a copy of our conditions. Essentially what we are trying to do with this Conditional Use as it runs with the land, for instance, if they vacate the building in ten years the building is still likely going to be there. If it were converted to some sort of office or commercial use that is allowed in the R -O zoning district as a use by right there is potential that that lot is so developed now that it would not have any room to have any parking and therefore, we are trying to protect those interests and allow for potential expansion or change of use on the property with that shared parking agreement which would be in place and be on file with the Planning Division. That is interesting. I've never seen one of these before. It happens on Dickson Street a lot. Is the applicant in agreement with all of these conditions? Yes. I believe we have a new condition that Mr. Vaught suggested. I will make a motion to approve CUP 05-1475 with the finding in favor of conditions one and two, is that correct? If the Commission could give staff a little direction to see, because you will not see this again, we will sign a building permit based on your approvals tonight and a site plan meeting our development ordinances. Again, if you find in favor of condition number one we are recommending that architectural elevations be modified. We would like to have some Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 35 direction from you about what you would like to see when you go out and see that building. Vaught: I personally would like to see it comply with the ordinances. As long as it meets the requirements of our ordinance, which are no square box like structures, etc. Pate: It does not fall within Commercial Design Standards. What we have spoken with the architect and their representatives about, the structure I believe is a red brick structure. We have some photographs of it. I can pass those out as well. Ostner: I think that is where the photo distributed tonight could very well be what they submit. Pate: Essentially we are recommending that similar materials be utilized. Obviously, the applicant would need to speak to that as well because that could potentially effect the cost of the project, a metal building as opposed to a veneer. We don't necessarily believe it has to be a full brick veneer, an entire building worth, but to some how articulate and better the compatibility with single family homes which are directly adjacent to this site, the existing structure which this building will be tied onto, parts of the existing church and other uses surrounding this property. Any guidance there that you can give. What we have seen typically is wainscote or the bottom piece, banding, columns or pilasters showing some sort of articulation. Corners rounded with a brick material. We have seen awnings utilized, both in applications for Commercial Design Standards and for churches or institutional uses like this. We saw Rupple Road School which again, was not subject to Commercial Design Standards but very well articulated. We have looked at designs in that nature as well. We would really like more direction from the Commission. Vaught: On all sides or just the sides visible from the street? Pate: Again, this is a Conditional Use and one of the major findings with Conditional Uses is asking is it compatible with adjacent uses and buildings in that general district. I would feel that the rear of a full metal structure would not be very compatible with a single family home if you are having to look at that structure. We recommended some screening so I don't think it has to be a full brick building but I think some accentuation and some materials be utilized on that structure to help relieve some of the metal walls. Clark: On page 9.14 I think is a clear example of what I don't particularly want to see. If you can get the metal kind of remediated some and reduced with Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 36 more articulation that will tie better into the church because the church building is quite nice. That would be the direction I would give. Make it compatible with existing structures. Is that enough guidance? Myres: We do trust you to use your best judgment. Ostner: On the northern facade on page 9.13 I think the two story metal facade that you see up high, not the roof, but part of the two story that is set back that is behind the area with windows and doors, I would like to see that minimized also. Visually that is going to be over powering especially when you turn the comer which Commissioner Clark pointed out. A mixture of materials such as E.I.F.S. or brick or even short pilasters. I'm not sure. Design by committee is a treacherous task. Vaught: I would agree. I would think that front elevation that would be visible from behind the existing structure would probably need to tie into the structure in front of it as much as possible. As you go to the side I would think you could use other remedies such as wainscoting, pilasters, a variety of things to mitigate the long, blank metal walls. To me the area behind the existing building tying into the building would be very important I would think. Pate: For the record, what we will take from this conversation and hopefully the applicant will take from this conversation, is we will expect to see in similar nature to the building that is in front of it, a brick wainscote potentially on all three sides with some potentially brick pilasters that would break up the metal facade. Also, in this case, because there are not requirements for Commercial Design Standards, we could utilize vegetation next to the building and require screening alongside those buildings to help relieve that and I think that would still maintain compliance with the compatibility issues that we are looking at. Vaught: I don't know that I would say brick. I would leave it to the applicant's discretion if they could be creative to come up with E.I.F.S. or some kind of mitigation on that. I would let them have some discretion there. I am just one. Ostner: I would agree with Commissioner Vaught. Vaught: I would like to ask the applicant what their thoughts are on that. Do you guys agree with that? Jorgensen: The architect is not here so you are kind of asking the wrong person. I think that is a very acceptable suggestion and we will do our very best to try to comply by that and hopefully the Planning Staff can take a look at it and agree that we are going to be ok with what we come up with. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 37 MOTION: Vaught: Ostner: Pate: Clark: Vaught: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: With that, I will continue my motion to approve CUP 05-1475 with all stated conditions, with the modification to number eight to include extending the sidewalk along the existing right of way to connect to the existing church parking lot. Staff, we haven't really addressed the items in condition number two. Does that motion satisfy the staff? Yes, we would review this much the same as we would with any building permit. We will ensure that this development meets development regulations. I will second. Is there a specific finding on number nine needed as well? We are proposing condition number ten that is attached to your packet which kind of nails that down. The shared parking agreement has been supplied. There is a little more information that we do need. That is also identified. For the record, this condition number ten will need to be included. There is a condition number ten talking about signage in the R -O district, are you referring to condition number nine with the parking agreement? Yes. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further comment? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1475 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Lack recusing. The motion carries. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 38 RZN 05-1479: Rezoning (WIMBERLY, 368): Submitted by DAVID WIMBERLY for property located at 155 E ELM STREET. The property is 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Ostner: Morgan: & SALLY zoned RSF- acres. The The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1479 for Wimberly. If we could have the staff report please? The subject property is a .26 acre tract located south of Elm Street, west of Green Acres Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and is currently developed for single family residential use. The property to the west is also developed for single family use while property to the north, east and south is developed and zoned for office uses. The applicant at this time is requesting that the property be rezoned from RSF-4 to R -O. The applicant proposes to use the existing single family home for a massage therapy and reflexology office. Staff has received numerous calls from the surrounding neighbors and several petitions against the requested rezoning. The applicant too has also submitted information from neighboring property owners and businesses supporting a rezoning request. I have included many of those materials in your packet and presented those to you tonight as well. Staff at this time is recommending approval of rezoning the subject property to R -O based on the findings that I will go over. We find that the proposed use is compatible with many of the surrounding properties that allow for office uses. Specifically this is designated for office use on the General Plan 2020. With the General Plan we have a Future Land Use Map which designates the subject property as office. The boundaries for this office use identified on the plan extend approximately 200' west or two lots west of the subject property and encompasses several adjacent single family homes and other properties. The proposed zoning for R -O will not only permit residential uses but also professional offices and studios as well. It is appropriate to allow and encourage low impact office development in residential areas as a means for providing necessary services close to established population base. We also find that should the existing structure be utilized for office uses or that the property be redeveloped for permitted uses within the R -O zoning district, all parking and drive aisles should be screened. With regard to a determination of whether the zoning is justified and/or needed at this time, staff finds that the location and potential uses of the property justify rezoning the property R -O at this time. The subject property is located west of Green Acres Road as well as College Avenue, which are both major thoroughfares. Although property to the east is currently zoned R -O and somewhat acts as a transition between the more intense C-2 uses to the east and the residential uses to the west, rezoning this property to R -O will expand that R -O or that transition area between these two uses. The Police Department has determined that the proposed rezoning will not substantially alter Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 39 population density nor will it create an undesirable increase on services. Finally, staff finds in favor of this rezoning request and if you have any questions we will be happy to address those. Thank you. Osmer: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Wimberly: I'm Sally Wimberly, this is my husband, David. I am a licensed massage therapist and board certified reflexologist. I have had a thriving profitable private practice for the last six years on Sunbridge. Prior to that I was a special education teacher for the Fayetteville School District. I have been part owner on Sunbridge for the last six years. My colleague is moving her practice to Bentonville so I have been forced to find a different location for my business. What attracted me to this Elm Street property is the secluded, quiet atmosphere of that neighborhood. Mark Martin and Ken Kieklak are right there on the corner of Green Acres and Elm. That is a good example of the type of environment that I have had at my office on Sunbridge. Landscaping was a big priority. I am real interested in the trees, the greenspace, the serene setting. The focus of my work is to promote relaxation and release of tension and so these are all things that I take very seriously in my work. Also, it is a convenient location for my clients. I have clients not only from Fayetteville but also from Rogers, Springdale and even Bentonville occasionally so it is a good location and easy for them to get to. Also, the fact that it was part of the 2020 Plan encouraged us to buy the property and to use it for this purpose. We did close on this property last week. Even prior to closing we were over there planting trees and picking up debris and already improving the property. That shows the commitment that we have to it. The changes that we are considering, we have met with an architect and he is drawing up some plans for us. The changes are really very simple. We want to put in new windows. The exterior needs a new paint job so that is something that we want to do. Of course, landscaping. It has been neglected for quite a while so, as I said earlier, that is a priority. We are going to add a deck in the back for plants and that sort of thing. Inside are pretty minimal changes. In talking to neighbors, we did go up and down the street and met some of the neighbors. Some of them mentioned to me that they were under the understanding that this was going to be a medical clinic. I just wanted to state that this is not going to be a medical clinic. I see on average five to six clients per day usually for an hour to an hour and a half one at a time. As far as the increased traffic, it is going to be minimal and my clients don't speed away, I assure you of that. I feel like we would be real assets to the neighborhood based on the type of business I run and my priorities for the type of environment I want to have. Wimberly, D.: The parking situation, there is a small narrow driveway with a large open ditch. We plan to expand the driveway. We would like to widen the Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 40 driveway and possibly put in a circle drive so clients can circle in and not have to back out onto Elm Street. That is pretty minimal. We will have a handicapped access to the front porch. Other than that, it will still look like a home. We plan to keep it so that it can be used as a single family residence in the future. Ostner: Thank you. We will get back with you. At this point I would like to open this up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to this rezoning request please step forward and introduce yourself. Anderson: I'm Richard Anderson, I live at 2021 Erstan and am in opposition to the rezoning. Primarily because I am concerned about it further encroaching on our neighborhood. That is one of the biggest concerns. I have nothing against the business that they are wanting to put in. What concerns me is perhaps afterwards what could go in after that once it is rezoned. That opens the door. That is my concern. I did drive by their property over on Sunbridge and I saw that they were making improvements. One of my concerns is as far as the convenience of that area, Colt Square is right on the other side of our neighborhood and there are quite a few empty spaces in that and I would suggest that that would be a centrally located area as well. Thank you. Nesson: My name is Liam Nesson. I recently moved into this neighborhood and have owned a house there for about a year now. I quickly joined the Neighborhood Association and we have had a couple of meetings over the last year. Our last one was at Robert Ginsberg's house and we all talked about this issue. I learned a little bit about the neighborhood and it is pretty neat, most of it used to be strawberry fields. I thought that was neat. That contributes to the atmosphere there I noticed once upon moving in. The people who want to open the business mentioned a quiet, quaint and secluded atmosphere. That is what we have there. I live on Baker Street, that is one of the dead end streets off of Elm and there are about 10 houses on my street and there are 10 children living on the street. I have learned that these plans for businesses in this area that are starting to encroach on Elm Street and they are kind of starting to threaten that atmosphere that we have been mentioning. There are no sidewalks on Elm Street and so that creates this thoroughfare between Green Acres Road and Gregg Street. It is getting dangerous for the kids. I don't think any of the kids are actually able to walk up and down Elm Street on a regular basis. We are getting these issues that everybody is concerned about. I just want to propose that the current plan also threatens that atmosphere. That heavy thoroughfare is a real concern to all of us. I just want to conclude that we value our current environment in this area of Elm, Erstan and Baker and would prefer that more businesses not encroach on our neighborhood. Thank you. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 41 McFadden: I'm Brian McFadden, I have lived on the end of Baker for about 18 years and raised three kids and really love the neighborhood. In fact people come in and say I can't believe how quiet it is here between Gregg and the main business Hwy. 71. That is partly the trees and the neighborhood. I am raising three grandkids now. I don't have anything against the business either but they are talking about the encroachment, we feel a little threatened by the outside world. I enjoy the kids, the neighborhood and I would just like to see it stay the same. Fonder: My name is Nancy Fonder, I live on Baker Street. I also have nothing personal against the business that wants to go in on Elm Street. We have a small neighborhood and when businesses start coming down the street it feels threatening. I would also like to point out that I have a 13 year old son who walks to Woodland Junior High and he walks on Elm Street and it is very dangerous at times. There is no sidewalk, there is no safe place to walk at all and I think if you allow additional businesses on Elm Street it is just going to worsen the traffic there. Bauer: I'm an architect and I understand how these things get graphically presented. We talk about transition so there is a block of land designated for R -O use. There is a housing shortage for single family. About 20% of our neighborhood is presently swallowed up in this Future Land Use Plan apparently discussing a revision to that plan is another hearing, that is another issue. This certainly opens the door to that. Among the threatening aspect of other businesses I want to look a little more at an ample scale. There is a transition between Green Acres and Elm. We are getting chewed up on the other side off of Gregg with apaitinent complexes coming in there. What I propose is a graphic image. There are different ways for example, of orienting one's self from a public to a private zone. In your home you can have a living room and a bathroom right off your living room. You can leave that wide open, that is one way to handle that, but it is probably not the most desirable. Maybe that is what we have right now between the C-2 zoning and the Residential Single Family. Or you can put a door if that is how your plan is laid out if you have a bathroom right next to your living room you can put a door on and that gives you some device to transition from a public to private zone. Here we are, single family residential, very private. The area out there on College Avenue and Green Acres is very public. We could put in a simple little island, we could use a sidewalk and an island as we have at the entry of Dickson Street. It would be a wonderful device to slow traffic down. It solves a lot of issues and identifies our neighborhood as a separate entity from the commercial projects that are going on around us. Again, I have to push on this, it has eaten up 15% to 20% of our neighborhood so that scale wise it doesn't make sense to have a transition of R -O so deep encroaching to our single family neighborhood. Again, we know that the housing shortage is incredible out there. I understand the type of Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 42 environment that these folks are looking for, I'm just proposing the thinking, if they want a residential type neighborhood why not get a Conditional Use Permit and put it up in their own backyard instead of our front yard. We really don't need it. If that is the kind of ambience that they want, which is understandable, to get the gardens going, get the indoor outdoor relationship, I love the notion architecturally but maybe you can do it in your own neighborhood and draw people there plus keep the additional traffic off of Elm Street. More and more younger families, my wife and I and our son moved back to Fayetteville two years ago and are enjoying it immensely. More and more of our neighbors have younger children and the interaction between all of us is wonderful. This again, would be a hurdle to overcome in terms of bringing an additional business and all that a business brings to it even if it is just a few patrons or clients a day. In closing, I know how the taxations and things work, how beneficial is not just this one property, but the whole 2020 Plan for the quantity of the scale of this being rezoned, eating away at our neighborhood, how is that so much more beneficial to this city and this city's public. Weigh that against how detrimental it is to our neighborhood. Thanks. Martin: I'm Betty Martin. My husband is Mark Martin, we own the Martin and Kieklak Law Firm building that is on the corner of Green Acres and Elm. We are just east of where Sally has bought the property. For many years our good friend Rusty Adams' sister owned the property. It was just a really nice comfortable place and it was so nice to see Rusty occasionally. They sold the property. The first thing that came to our mind was now what. Some people were talking about the children going back and forth to Woodland School and it was really dangerous to walk there. I don't know if any of you guys have seen our building and the landscape there but we have benches around it. It is a really beautiful building with the landscaping. We are kind of tree huggers. The landscape there is very pleasant and guess where the children cut through to go to Woodland School. Maybe there are not sidewalks in other places but I think that our property does add a little bit of safety for the children to cut through our lot and head to Woodland. That is kind of where it does offer some security I think. I think anyone who lives around that area knows where the property is that I'm talking about. They get to it mainly through Green Acres Road. Elm Street is not the main way. Anytime we tell people to drive we come through take Green Acres Road. That is obviously, the easiest access off of Hwy. 71. That is a different issue. In describing what they were talking about, number one, they are kind of down the street and down the side streets. I thought they were describing something horrendous and I look at Sally and her husband and what they have already done to the property. They are trying to make it nice and pleasant like our property is. I was worried when the property sold who is going to move there. My biggest fear was somebody is going to move in and have Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 43 it rented out to maybe a single family. I know if it is rented out to someone that the property goes down. You just don't have the same feeling for property if it is not yours. I was thrilled to death to know that Sally was going to move there with her massage therapy. People are not going to be speeding out. They are going to be going nice and slow down the street. People who get massages are not teenage, that is not the clientele. The clientele will be very relaxed by the time they come out and one or two cars going in and out of there is just not that big of traffic compared to other things I think they are an ideal business to go in there and I think we should be thrilled as property owners and as people in the single dwelling houses, should be thrilled that someone like Sally is moving into that area. Thank you. Thoma: My name is Eileen Thoma, I own the reading clinic about a block away from the property in question. Before I had the reading clinic where I am now I was two buildings to the west of her current location and loved watching them make that place fabulous with the flower garden and beautiful trees and they maintain it really, really well. When she told me "Eileen, I am going to move close to you." Number one, I was delighted but I thought where in Colt Square could she put the kind of place she would like because all we have are parking lots and concrete. Then she told me about this little house and then I drove by and thought "Oh, I don't know, it kind of looks like a little rent house and it looks like it needs a whole lot of help!" We walked all around it and she told me all of her plans as far as this tree and that tree and flower beds here and a little lovely path going up for her little old ladies to walk through. I think that it could be just absolutely fabulous. As far as my business is concerned, I would rather a business owned by Sally Wimberly be a block away from me than a rental house be a block away from me. That's all I have to say. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Thoma. Is there further comment from the public? Edwards: My name is Bud Edwards, I'm a client of Sally's. The only thing better than getting a treatment when you leave Sally's is approaching her current facility. That is the beauty, the care, the inviting of you into the clinic. I did drive by when I heard she was moving because I was taking my granddaughter who was visiting from Maryland for some Reflexology. When I found out she was moving I was not pleased because I like the environment that she has created there. If you haven't been there you will have to see it, it is a beautiful facility. I understand also the neighbors. I am a neighbor. I'm not in that neighborhood but I'm a neighbor because I am from Fayetteville. I think what would happen with Sally's facility is an improvement in the environment. It will be beautiful. It invites customers like me to come and visit. They are one at a time. I seldom run into anybody else coming in, if I do, it is on my way out and their way in. I think if the neighbors were with her for a while they would find it to be a Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 44 very pleasant type business to be there as opposed to what I think isn't a very attractive facility right now. There are going to be some resources put into that place to bring it up to speed. Just as a client I wanted to talk. I didn't plan to do that tonight, I just came to listen. I'm glad I had a chance to visit with you. Ostner: If anyone else wants to speak please step forward. I am going to close the public comment session at this point and bring the discussion back to the Commission. I would like to add that we are discussing the rights and attributes of a piece of land. We are not discussing these nice people. We are not discussing what they do with their building or what they will not do. These issues run with the land whether they own it or not. Allen: I sound a little bit like Lee Marvin tonight but I'm going to speak up because I feel strongly about this. I am certain that the Wimberlys are lovely people and have really good intentions for this property. As our chair just said the zoning goes with the land. They won't be there forever. Other things that could go on the land could be government facilities, trailer parks, offices, we are talking about if the zoning is changed. I can tell you from my neighborhood that a parole office that serves 500 parolees could go into that building. The people bought it surely knowing the zoning of the land so it was a risk that they took. I'm sure that it would be very serene but you have to kind of look into the future when you are talking about land use. Something very near and dear to my heart in Fayetteville is the lack of affordable housing. This particular neighborhood does have some affordable housing. There is quite a buffer that comes off of both ends of the street from a busy Green Acres to Gregg Street on the other end and there are already businesses that have given us some buffer. Mainly, I feel that the transition is already there and I will be voting against this rezoning. Myres: Staff, is there a reason that the applicant didn't apply for a Conditional Use Permit rather than a rezoning? Pate: There is. This massage therapy type business could be allowed as a Conditional Use for a home occupation for this property to us and the probably the neighbors, I think it would have been an easy recommendation to make. However, the applicants do not intend to live in the structure and for a home occupation it has to be owner occupied for that type of business. Myres: I thought that would be an easy compromise. I have to echo some of Commissioner Allen's concerns. It is not the present day and it is not the present proposed use. I know having a delightful relationship with my massage therapist that it is something that everybody could avail themselves of if they can possibly afford it as often as possible. What Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 45 concerns me is the encroachment into a neighborhood that has already been encroached upon by an R -O district. The fact that in the future somebody could purchase two or three of these parcels and put up a high rise or something and who knows what is going to happen in the future. I can't in good conscious support this recommendation and so I am going to vote against it. Vaught: I would tend to disagree. If you look at the map of this piece of property, it is surrounded by R -O. The majority of the sides are touching R -O. It is just an inlet of RSF-4 in an R -O district. If anything, I could see holding the line two properties to the west where the Future Land Use Plan draws a line. I think I would support this rezoning. R -O does limit a majority of the commercial type uses and is a good buffer zone. I understand the concerns of the neighbors and I also understand the desires of the applicant. To me it is just like we are filling in a little peninsula. It is not actually encroaching into the neighborhood. I would see if you went much further to the west that you would be encroaching. To me this is to straighten out the line and give it a little more of a cleaner transition. I would like to remind everybody that this does go to City Council for their blessing. To me at our level we do have certain findings and one that is compatible with the 2020 Plan that the City Council put forth for us to follow and that is one of the main reasons that I will support this. Lack: In reviewing this I think it has been a struggle to think about encroachment into a neighborhood and to think about propagating that or denying it. I have been down that street several times in the last week and have looked at the neighborhood. I would commend you all on a beautiful neighborhood that is well kept. I think that this particular house I did not find as well kept, which is not any issue. In that, I think that this house, this property is surrounded on three sides by R -O. I think that it is somewhat choked off from the sense of neighborhood that I think we would find beautiful and difficult to encroach upon. In reviewing the current zoning, the building across the street seems to be R -O and the building to the west also. There is a substantial amount of R -O currently surrounding this building with the one exception to the houses to the west. I think with that, I am finding in favor of going with this zoning change as compliant with the 2020 Plan. Ostner: I have some comments. Some of my comments have already been addressed. I believe R -O is a good buffer between the pretty heavy commercial on Hwy. 71 and this neighborhood to the west of Hwy. 71. When the buffers keep expanding into the neighborhoods why bother with a buffer when you don't have a neighborhood left over? That is really the way I see it. On a map it looks like this parcel is cast out and ought to become R -O but when you stand on the street it doesn't read that way at all. It reads that the line has already been drawn clearly at the Martin Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 46 Clark: Kieklak building terrifically. That is a great transition. I believe most of Green Acres is R -O as I read the map. The first property abutting an R -O usually has to tow the line to protect the neighborhood. When R -O expands the next property will have to tow the line. Someone will sell, it could become a rental and there is less motivation to upkeep that rental. Then we drive by and that has weeds grown on it and no one has painted it, we should rezone that one too. It just follows. I believe the line has been drawn clearly. I believe this is a terrific neighborhood that has multiple uses already which we promote. It has walk ability and I think this is throwing the baby out with the bat. I think there is a good thing to protect and in order to protect it you have to stop and not keep going. I will be voting against this tonight. I appreciate the applicants and their forth right nature explaining everything that they want to do. I feel very confident that you will do those things but when I have to talk about land use I have to flip over here to 10.5 and think about granting the Wimberlys the right to build a duplex, the right to build a manufactured home park, the right to install offices, studios and related services, which includes a parole office or professional offices. By Conditional Use the R -O would allow eating places, multi -family dwellings, wireless communication facilities, a lot of things. As a land use issue, I don't think those are appropriate for this piece of property. Those are my comments on this issue. I have struggled with this particular request since I saw it. I have driven by the house several times and the neighborhood several times as well. I used to own a house on Baker Street. I think that preserving neighborhoods is something that the 2020 Plan also talks about and I'm not really sure that encroaching further into this neighborhood with R -O is advisable. I think this applicant is absolutely exemplary and wherever you open your business it is going to be to the benefit of that surrounding area as long as it is not in a residential neighborhood. Because we are talking about land use, we are talking about what happens after you go out of business, move to Tahiti and retire. We are talking about what comes next. When I look at the next two or three pieces of property that the R -O encompasses in the 2020 Plan that really opens the door to something larger that will encroach even further into a neighborhood setting. This is such a unique neighborhood. There are a lot of people in Fayetteville that don't have a clue that there are houses back there, which is what makes it so unique and so wonderful. I am in support of this applicant's right to have a business. I think from everything that I have heard it is a wonderful business but my conscious will not allow me to vote for this particular rezoning. I am also troubled that the 2020 Plan has R -O extending so far into this existing neighborhood and hopefully when we are talking about the 2025 Plan maybe we will talk about a different line. I know this house needs a lot of work, it is not in very good repair right now. I think this applicant could solve that but it is not just this applicant, it is what goes on after this Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 47 applicant leaves this area. I have finally determined I will not support this rezoning. Graves: I would echo several of the comments made by Commissioners Vaught and Lack. There are a number of R -O properties in this area of course. I wouldn't necessarily characterize this just as a transition or buffer type of situation. What we look at when we look at the General Plan and the Future Land Use Plan is that we want also a mixture of uses. When you are talking about R -O you are talking about the opportunity to have a mixture of different types of low impact uses, whether it be single family or whether it be low impact businesses. This particular zoning request fits right in line not only with that ideal of the land use plan but it also fits with what is touching this piece of property which are other R -O pieces of property. Although it hasn't been necessarily an easy question for me, I can understand struggling with the concept of how far you keep allowing R -O to move. When you look at the Future Land Use Plan as it stands now and not as we hope it to be it allows this piece of property to be office, it says that this piece of property should be office. When you look at the ideal of what you want in these types of neighborhoods, walk ability, services that are within walking distance of single family residences, hopefully low impact types of services, this zoning request fits right in line with that ideal of the General Plan. I would support it for those reasons. I would also support it for the reasons that I understand the neighbor's concerns regarding the lack of sidewalks in the area, but leaving this as a single family residence doesn't solve that problem. There aren't sidewalks out there. It is a cut through right now between Gregg and Green Acres and whether this is a single family home or whether it is R -O, that situation is still there. We would all rather it be different but that is how it is right now. I will be supporting this particular request. Ostner: I would like to add some questions for staff about this guiding policy, the Future Land Use Map. As I understand it, this is probably a question for Mr. Williams as well as Mr. Pate, as I understand it, the Future Land Use Map and the General Plan are general guiding documents, they are not specific laws or ordinances set in stone. As I recall, we have abrogated on the other side many times that the General Plan and the 2020 have recommended one thing and in good conscious voted against it. Williams: That is correct. It is a guide. It is not something that you have to follow in locked step. It was prepared and done by the Planning Commission and the City Council with many meetings but obviously, as you are looking at the entire city it is hard to look at every particular parcel exactly right and therefore, it is a guide. It is not the final word. It is something that the Planning Department is certainly going to look at very carefully and I would recommend that you look at it carefully too. Usually I think that you all follow it. You are free to look at each situation independently and Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 48 Pate: see if in fact, in that particular situation, the 2020 Plan is the correct plan or maybe you disagree with it in that case. You don't have to follow it exactly. I would echo that. These are not ordinances, these are guiding policies. I will quote directly out of that guiding policy. "Future Land Use Map and the policies upon which it is based are the official guide to be used when the Planning Commission and the City Council consider Rezonings, Conditional Use and Annexation requests." That is the basis of our recommendation. There is no magic in this job. This was a difficult decision for us to make a finding as well. We had some of the same concerns that the Planning Commission has voiced tonight. We felt ultimately though that when the Planning Commission and the City Council did prepare this plan that there were considerations made. This neighborhood was in it's exact state probably, maybe not as well kept, but it was only five years ago when the plan was adopted. That decision was made at that time with this particular piece of property to be on the Future Land Use Plan as professional office. We are following that recommendation. We feel that it would be a compatible use. We feel that most of the residents here are primarily, if you look on the larger map, the neighborhoods really consist of properties a little further to the west and south along Baker. We saw a Conditional Use request not long ago on Baker for a child care facility at the end of that cul-de-sac and the Planning Commission went and looked at that. We have seen a couple of requests for things of that nature in this neighborhood. You will find most often that Planning Staff does not support the encroachment into neighborhoods and that does disband the integrity of that neighborhood. Most of those rezonings don't come before you because we are not recommending them and therefore, the applicant typically walks away. We feel though that in this case that this recommendation is a sound recommendation while it does have implications for the neighborhood, we do feel that the R -O zoning district, with the guiding policy of the Future Land Use Plan does make it appropriate for our recommendation and obviously, your consideration for that vote. Ostner: We are lucky to have that document by the way. Most municipalities strive and wish they had that guiding policy for their professional staff to try to make this recommendation. Williams: I think we should probably advise the petitioner that we have eight Commissioners up here. In order to recommend a zoning change to the City Council it requires five affirmative votes. If the Commission is split four to four then there will not be a recommendation to support the zoning. If they recommended in favor of it then it would automatically go to the City Council. If they do not then you would have an appeal right to take it to the City Council. Basically, in the final analysis, the City Council will Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 49 make a final decision one way or the other on rezoning. I just wanted to let you know that we do have one Commissioner absent today and normally you are given an opportunity as a petitioner if you wish to have a full Commission here to ask to table this if you want to or else you can simply go forward and let the Commission go forward and vote and then you can either appeal if it comes out against you or if the Planning Commission recommended in favor it would automatically go to the City Council. Ostner: You understand that you need five of our votes and you have the option to withdraw right now, or table, or we can go ahead and proceed. Wimberly, S.: We just today learned about the Bill of Assurance possibility and I guess we wanted to talk about that and see if that is an option here. Wimberly, D.: It sounds like from the Commission's standpoint that the future use once we sell is a primary concern that was not expressed in the petitions of the residents where they listed primarily just encroachment and traffic. Again, we found out about this possibility late on Friday evening. We just got a copy of a sample document that could be used of this nature. We are certainly open to something of that nature. Wimberly, S.: We wouldn't want to do that to that neighborhood. We wouldn't want a trailer park to go into that neighborhood. It would not be our desire to sell the property to whoever. Ostner: We have no jurisdiction with Bills of Assurance. Mr. Williams, you can help me out, they are done between property owners. Generally you would deal with the POA or the neighborhood group. Williams: No, the Bill of Assurance actually does run to the city. You are thinking of Restrictive Covenants. A Bill of Assurance though must be volunteered by the property owner. The government, whether it be the Planning Commission or the City Council, cannot ask you to limit the uses or whatever you would do. It would be something that you would need to look at the Use Units in the ordinance and the Planning Staff can help you, maybe just pick out the one that you need and restrict the use to that if you felt like that would be something that would make it more acceptable not only to the Planning Commission but also to the City Council. It would have to be a voluntary decision on your part to offer that to the City Council in order to gander their support for this rezoning. Ostner: Those Bills of Assurance are in place of this rezoning? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 50 Williams: Trumbo: Vaught: Williams: Vaught: Ostner: MOTION: Trumbo: Ostner: Wimberly, D. Ostner: No, they are a condition of the rezoning. They are enforceable. I have drafted up a form for the Planning Department. It runs with the land and if someone violated a Bill of Assurance then I would sue them. I guess we are counting votes to see if this is going to get forwarded. I am going to vote in favor of the applicant's request. We are talking about .26 of an acre. There are no mobile home parks that are going to be built on that. It is currently a rent house. I think R -O is appropriate and I will vote for it. If we were to vote on this and recommend or deny and they either took it forward or appealed forward, could they offer a Bill of Assurance to the City Council? Yes. In my opinion, I would like to just keep it going. Either way, the City Council is going to look at it. They can make those changes then and offer it to the City Council based on some of our discussion or if it gets denied on the comments by people denying. I'm not big on tabling stuff and asking the public to come back for another meeting and another meeting. I would not vote to table it. I would like to take a vote and send it forward since it will all get reviewed again. I would agree. I would like to go ahead and vote if you all don't want to table. I will make a motion that we approve RZN 05-1479. The applicant was about to speak, one moment please. : We are very confused by this whole process. Needless to say, this has been extremely trying deciding to purchase knowing that it was subject to rezoning. Again, this Bill of Assurance concept coming up very late in the process, we are trying to work and get through life as it is. Sally is going to be out of a place to practice very shortly. The process for rezoning is very lengthy. I guess the immediate question was if we decide to table it does that mean that we can introduce the Bill of Assurance later, is that going to be better but is that a whole other month or two weeks? It would be a two week delay but what might happen here in two weeks is you could get the five votes and instead of proceeding to the City Council with a 4-4 split you would be appealing at that point you would possibly Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 51 have a 5-4 and you would be at the City Council. It is the same difference either way. Wimberly, D.: The same City Council meeting? Ostner: No, there is a definite time lag. It would be another two weeks. Graves: Noting for the record that we can't request anybody, and aren't requesting anybody, and I'm not requesting anybody to make a Bill of Assurance but assuming that that was the decision that you all made, I just want to clarify with the City Attorney that my understanding is that that can be done regardless of how we voted tonight. If you got a 4-4 and you are appealing or if it went forward on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, it is my understanding that if it is your decision during the next two weeks, you could decide whether to have that Bill of Assurance. Williams: I would like to say that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation one way or the other. The City Council is going to look at a 9-0 recommendation different than a 5-4 recommendation. It is obvious that the Planning Commission is fairly split right now down the middle on this I think whichever way you would go you are probably starting off almost with a clean slate in front of the City Council because they realize that the Planning Commission has stated good arguments on both sides and so they are going to be looking not just at the recommendation of course, but what you will be presenting to them, the Bill of Assurance if you decide to go that way, they will also be listening to the neighbors and the Neighborhood Association. I would think that if you really want to go forward with this you should not ask for a tabling now because it is just going to take you two more weeks at least to get to the City Council level. Then it is an ordinance that is supposed to be read three times so I don't think it will be decided on the first night that the City Council hears it. I know it is a long process because I have rezoned property myself'. It is a very long process but if you ask for a tabling it is even longer. Allen: Mr. Wimberly, have you all had a formal meeting with the neighborhood association? Wimberly, D.: We asked to be invited to a meeting and apparently the meeting occurred later without our invitation being extended. I personally know Robert Ginsberg just casually. When I found out that he lived on Elm Street very shortly after the rezoning sign went up I emailed him and kind of told him what we were doing, provided him the document that was in your packet about what our plans were. He informed me then that there was a neighborhood association and I immediately volunteered to meet with them. We did focus primarily on contacting the adjacent neighbors. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 52 Allen: Clark: Again, time to pursue this effort. Later we did make several trips down the street to try to meet the neighbors that we could. We didn't get down Baker Street. We did go down Erstan and Elm Street and visited with quite a few of those people. That is where Sally commented about some of them were informed that it was going to be a medical clinic. It would be my recommendation that between now and the time that this goes before the Council that you request to meet with them and maybe some problems can be cleared up through conversation with the neighbors. Although I am not asking for a Bill of Assurance nor requesting one, nor any of the other legal language I need to use, had a Bill of Assurance been presented tonight I would have reconsidered my vote. I want to see this as a neighborhood. If anybody is reading the record, depending upon how it is written, what you decide to do if you decide to do it, that would've been a deciding factor in my vote. Ostner: The applicant still has quite a road in front of the City Council. It sounds like this will go to the City Council regardless of our vote. We were in the middle of a motion I believe. MOTION: Trumbo: I will make a motion to approve RZN 05-1479 agreeing with staff's finding that the Future Land Use Map designates the subject property with office. Lack: I will 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 RZN 05-1479 to the City Council failed by a vote of 4-4 with Commissioners Ostner, Allen, Myres and Clark voting no. Thomas: The motion fails. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 53 ANX 05-1451: (LANE, 571): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located 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 24.191 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 item on our agenda is ANX 05-1451 and RZN 05-1452 for Lane submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at the end of Country Ridge Road north of Hwy. 16 East and west of Deerfield Way. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This property contains 24.191 acres. It is owned by the Lanes located north of Huntsville Road north of the existing city property line which is 300' from the street. The property is also adjacent to the city limits to the east where it adjoins Deerfield Way Subdivision. At this time the property is currently used for pasture with one single family home located on the property and it is within the Planning Area at this time adjacent to the city limits. At this time the applicant is requesting annexation and expects future development of this property for single family use. The General Plan 2020 identifies the portion of the property within the Planning Area as residential and all city departments have reviewed this application for annexation as well as the accompanying request for rezoning this property. Fire reports that this property is located approximately 9 1/2 minutes from Fire Station #5. This does not however, take into account the decreased response time for the future fire station at the Tyson complex on Huntsville Road, which should be much closer. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not substantially alter population density and thereby increase the load on these public services. Annexation of this property will not create an island of unincorporated area and does not exasperate problems created by a peninsula. In the 1960's the City of Fayetteville annexed a large peninsula of property to incorporate Lake Sequoyah, which is east of this property. It is a primary water source within the City of Fayetteville. Thus, the motive to annex this property. Since this time, the city has annexed several properties north and south of this 600' Huntsville corridor. This property is one of those adjacent to Deerfield Path Subdivision. Staff finds that the boundary that would be created by annexation of this property will become more desirable city limits. It is adjacent to the West Fork of the White River to the north and it is adjacent to two properties which are further on the agenda and will thereby create a much larger area of annexation. By annexation of this property the city will ensure that Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 54 Ostner: Milholland: Ostner: Milholland: appropriate development and preservation of existing natural features such as tree preservation along the riparian corridor will be taken into account with development. Staff finds that annexation of this property will be beneficial to the city and create an appropriate boundary. The rezoning request is for 30.872 acres. The reason that this is different than the area that is requested for annexation is because the Lanes do own property that is within the city within that 300' city boundary adjacent to Huntsville. Therefore, the rezoning request includes additional acreage. At this time they are requesting to rezone the property to RSF-4 from R -A, if the annexation requested is approved, and C-1. The current property within the city limits is zoned C-1. The General Plan 2020 reflects that zoning for neighborhood commercial. Police have reported that the rezoning will substantially alter the population density and will possibly create an undesirable increase on police services. At this time staff is recommending the annexation but is not requesting in favor of the rezoning request. This is due to the fact that the applicant is wanting to rezone that C-1 property to RSF-4. Staff supports RSF-4 zoning in this area, it is compatible with the other single family residential properties surrounding this. We feel that a policy decision was made to create commercial property in this area to serve the surrounding homes. The nearest commercial node is the intersection of Crossover and Huntsville and we believe that preservation of this C-1 area is going to be beneficial for the neighborhood. Therefore, we are recommending for Annexation yet for denial of the requested Rezoning. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the Lanes in these two requests. I assume that we are looking at the annexation or should I speak to both parts? We are going to discuss both items and are going to vote independently. First, if I could, the third line of the background says that this property is currently used as pasture and it is not. It has been a commercial blueberry farm for 20 some odd years. I think this may have got misplaced by staff somewhere else but it is not pasture, it is actually a commercial blueberry farm. Just for correction purposes, on the fifth line it says the western property line of this property abuts Deerfield, it is actually the eastern boundary of this property that abuts Deerfield. In the handout, the last two maps shows the annexation in a grid and also the rezoning. If you look directly below this grid you will see that the C-2 for this commercial blueberry farm just to the north side of Hwy. 16 but if you look across the south side of the road where Ed Edwards Road, the county road, comes in Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 55 Ostner: Milholland: Morgan: Milholland: Ostner: there, there is RSF-4 across the road. In your table on page two it shows on the south side of this being C-1. It is RSF-4 not C-1. That table is correct because it is the land south of the annexation proposal which is C-1, also your property I believe. Ok, it has C-2 on the rezoning table. The rezoning table is incorrect. That should be RSF-4. To the southeast there is C-1 property but to the south it is RSF-4. I guess my point is that across the road from this project it is not C-1 zoning. Actually, 867' from the southeast corner of this property over to Malty Wagnon Road there is a four way intersection there in which they had a store named Hot Wheels and a Car Wash, which that business has been shut down for quite some time unless it has recently opened back up. I guess my point is C-2 on the south side that exists, I have always understood this but there had been a commercial blueberry business there and when that was annexed from Elkins somewhere along the line it was changed over to C-1. I am assuming that could have been for the blueberry farm because it was a commercial business. We feel that that is not a desirable location to have C-1 on one side of the road when there is only 800 some feet from a major intersection where commercial can be accessed from all directions. Our feeling is a good access should be at a four way intersection that is already there and probably have a red light there one of these days. Presently and in the past there has not been sufficient traffic to support Hot Wheels nor the Car Wash. Back the other direction, there are other businesses between there and the Crossover Road intersection that have struggled to maintain business. Even the building on the south side of Intersection of Hwy. 265 and Hwy. 16, half of that building is vacant and has not been able to maintain a commercial business. We would like to propose that the Annexation take place and that the Rezoning be as requested for all RSF-4. We feel like that is the best use of this land at this point. Maybe 10 or 15 years down the road and there is a major intersection 800' down the road to the east will be appropriate for some type of business that will survive. Right now it will not survive, has not survived and we don't feel like it will Thank you very much. At this point we will take public comment on both the Annexation request, ANX 05-1451 and RZN 05-1452 if anyone from the public would like to speak to these issues please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: The C-1 portion, how deep is that? The applicant indicated it is 800' of frontage. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 56 Pate: I'm not aware. I believe it is about six acres of C-1 property. Williams: It is probably just 300' from the other side where we did the annexation all the way out. Milholland: There are some other things relative to that. The Master Street Plan on that 300' into that would be a four lane highway in the future so it would take a strip of land out of that 300'. Ostner: Staff, on the rezoning request on page 12.2 I am reading that the Fayetteville Police Department says this rezoning will substantially alter the population and will create an undesirable increase on police services. Can you elaborate? Pate: With their calculations, as well as what we do, they take the maximum density and based on their findings of fact, I'm not sure what all service numbers that they utilize to make this call, their finding, which we agree with, will substantially alter population density. Honestly, it might not because there is no zoning in the county. It could be similarly developed with multi family development. Potentially if it were in the city and not zoned agriculturally it would substantially increase the responsibility of the Fayetteville Police Department to respond to that area if it were in the city. We are citing the potential creation of 120 homes, 2.6 persons per home would be a potential maximum increase of about 312 persons on that particular piece of property. That is just a rough calculation. However, most of these developments do not develop at four units per acre but that is what they are requesting and therefore, that is why we calculate those numbers as such. I'm not able to elaborate much more than what you have been given in your packet. Ostner: From my logic it is just too many people, too close together too far out it would seem. Police calls would have to go too far to handle it adequately it would seem. Pate: I would mention that there are hundreds of acres of property that the Police Department does have to serve all around this. All around Lake Sequoyah, those are service areas that the Police Department does respond to currently quite a ways east of this property. Those properties could be developed currently without Rezoning or a potential Annexation request. They have not in the last 30 or 40 years but areas of them have, Deerfield Way, the property directly to the east off of Lake Sequoyah Drive, there are other developments in this area as well. Ostner: I appreciate the Police Depaitinent being frank and forthright with us and giving us information that we need. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 57 Clark: Jeremy, if you could put on your fortune teller hat, when is the fire station on Huntsville Road projected to be finished? I read this and fire response time is nine minutes. That is clean up detail at that point and that troubles me. Pate: I'm sorry, I don't have any way to project that. Williams: I think that they have already selected the architect but they still have to finance it, the City Council has to appropriate the money. They are committed to doing this though so I would suspect that it would be the end of 2006 or 2007 before that will be on line. Part of it depends on are they going to remodel the current buildings or are they going to knock them down and start from scratch and I don't know if that decision has been made yet. Clark: I have absolutely no problem with the Annexation to be perfectly honest with you because if we annex it we can control how it is zoned. The rezoning with the Fire and Police both saying it is going to be a strain, especially the Police Department. Never in a year have I read the Police Department saying this in all of the Annexations that we have done so I am going to pay attention to it. Vaught: Emergency response vehicles already service a number of these areas due to shared service agreements do they not? I know my family grew up on Ed Edwards Road and we had fire and ambulance service through shared service agreements is that correct? Pate: That is correct. The city does have certain shared agreements. I am not sure what jurisdictional boundaries those are. I don't know where those lines are drawn but there are agreements that the City Council does enter into for all types of public services surrounding the city. Graves: We did have a convening of a task force last summer on annexation issues and we got a number of reports from emergency services. This area out this way, although it wouldn't be served by the Police Department when it is in the county, this is an area that the Fayetteville Fire Department is already servicing so whether it is zoned RSF-4 or not, this is an area that our Fire Department would have to go to. Those response times are there and you are looking at the number of calls would they have if you zone it at this density because there would be an increased number of calls depending on what density you zone it at. Vaught: If it were in the county though we could have another Cherry Hills situation where they can build 10,000 sq.ft. lots, we have no control over those things, and the Fire Department still has to go there. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 58 Ostner: Milholland: Williams: MOTION: Clark: Allen: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Ostner: On the issue of the projected fire station that we have been reading about, our current station is on Hwy. 265 maybe half way between Hwy. 16 and Hwy. 245 and that is not but'' 'A mile or maybe'' 'A mile further than the new station, which is important but I don't think it is like the proposed fire station is being built next door. On a previous project the same discussion came up on the fire station and the Fire Chief was here at that time, and it was determined about what Mr. Williams said, a year and a half or two years. On a subdivision like this the build out of houses would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 '/2 to 3 years before all of them were built. Even if we got the ok tonight and had to come back with a Preliminary Plat, we are looking at another several months. We are looking at bidding it at the very earliest in the Fall and a year of construction so you are looking at a year and a half before the first lot is ready to be built on and then it takes time to build those houses. The time frame to build out this subdivision will be after the revamping of the fire station. The Tyson plant is also being considered as a new location for a police station. Nothing has been confirmed. The difference with police as opposed to fire is that police are on patrol throughout the city and so even though they are going to be moving closer to the site it doesn't effect much because police cars are on patrol through the city. I will move that we approve ANX 05-1451. Second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1451 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. The tandem item is RZN 05-1452. We have already heard the staff report. We have already heard the applicant. Would anyone from the public like to speak to RZN 05-1452? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: Staff, with the Master Street Plan in this area, how much right of way dedication is required? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 59 Pate: It is a principal arterial so it would be 55' from centerline for Hwy. 16. Vaught: So we would be left with a strip of C-1 800' long and 250' wide basically? Pate: No, there is already existing right of way out there. It is not necessarily the entire 55' of that property. Most properties along Hwy. 16 are about 80' wide in right of way so it would probably be an additional 15'. Vaught: I'm not an experienced builder or architect, is that adequate to produce C- 1 properties on a lot of that size? I don't know if Commissioner Lack wants to address that or staff. Pate: I would say so. We see properties all the time that are less than an acre develop for commercial use. This is about 5 1/2 acres for development on a principal arterial. I would assume with that depth that there would be adequate space. Ostner: We rezoned a home on Hwy. 71 across from the jail C-2 a couple of weeks ago. Vaught: That was an existing structure and you would be building something here. Lack: I would concur with Mr. Pate that that does seem to be a reasonable depth. Beyond that, you might start seeing out lots or something of that nature. Ostner: On that note, I would like to look at the map. Mr. Milholland mentioned that this property faces RSF-4 across the street and mentioned that that might not be the best commercial situation. The C-1 property to the east also faces residential zoning across the street. I believe commercial zoning can mix perfectly across the street with residential uses. We call that mixed use. I don't think that is a reason to turn the C-1 part into residential simply by when it faces a major arterial. Vaught: Staff, on the next item, not that we can consider that, but it is next door and we are recommending to approve that one all RSF-4. Why wouldn't we want this commercial to extend further down with the major road frontage? Pate: The Future Land Use Plan shows that piece of property as commercial. We are trying to get away from a strip commercial type of development as you have seen on 6`h Street in recent actions by the City Council and Planning Commission. That is in our Land Use Plan to attempt to get away from those and establish these nodes of development. On the Future Land Use Plan you can see nodes at these intersections. The reason we are recommending approval on the property to the west is it shows as residential on our Future Land Use Plan. We would recommend also for Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 60 approval on the Lane rezoning were the C-1 property not located within it. It is under the jurisdiction of this body to recommend at least that portion of property to the City Council for rezoning if they choose to vote in that manner. We would support RSF-4 zoning north of the C-1. You can consult with the applicant to see if they would like to go forward with that as well. I think that is an option we have utilized in the past for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. Williams: I wouldn't be comfortable in cutting their property without their permission and separating a parcel out even though right now it is zoned two different ways. That would have to be something I think the applicant would have to agree to. You can recommend a different rezoning for the entire parcel but I don't think we can cut parcels up without the permission of the applicant. Vaught: We see stuff all the time, this was a blueberry farm in the past zoned C-1 that we changed the zoning on. The difference on this is the Future Land Use Plan which was just done five years ago, they specified this as Neighborhood Commercial. Most of the time they will overlay it with residential if they think it should change to residential at the time that they did the plan. That is where I have trouble with it a little bit in wanting to change it to RSF-4. I don't know if it is an ideal location. I was curious about the lot size. I would like to see an intersection just for access and people leaving the site. It is a unique situation I think for sure. They did on the 2020 Plan specify this as Community Commercial for a reason. Clark: I will move that we deny RZN 05-1452 for reasons stated. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Milholland: I guess we submitted one application for all of it to be rezoned to RSF-4. If the body here is going to deny the whole thirty acres where does my client stand as far as bringing it back in? We would like if nothing else, just the part behind the C-1 that Jeremy was talking about. We don't want all of it denied if we are going to have to wait a year to come back. Williams: Your options obviously, you have many options. One is to appeal and go to the City Council and they make the final decision. If you wanted to change your zoning so it is not the identical request as has been denied by the Planning Commission then you could certainly do that and not have to wait a year for that. Milholland: Can we do t tonight? Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 61 Williams: Yes, I will go along with what Jeremy said as long as that is what you all are offering and that is what you want to do. I didn't feel like we had the right to separate the parcel for you. I would think that if that is your choice and the City Planner is going to agree to that then I will go ahead and say that you can do that. Milholland: Ostner: I don't know how everybody is going to vote. If I could read your mind I would know what to do. If we could request the Commission vote on the area that is being annexed in separate from the C-1 at least give us some feeling about how you feel about it and probably the Commission too. In essence you are asking for... Milholland: Two votes. Ostner: Milholland: Ostner: Milholland: Williams: Graves: Milholland: Pate: On the rezoning it is the same request but the area has changed. You are still requesting RSF-4 but you are only requesting the area north of the C- 1. The existing city limits which is 24.192 acres. If it is possible I would request also after that to vote on the 6.68 acres that is in the city limits. I think that would be a new item. Mr. Williams? We have not had a staff report on any of that so I would not be comfortable scrutinizing changing that piece from C-1 to anything else but I would have to hear from staff. We would like to walk away going to City Council with something. I think we know what everybody feels and I am sure that staff feels that what they have made a recommendation on is what they feel because of the 2020 Plan. I am going to defer to Jeremy Pate, our City Planner on whether or not, there has been a staff report that covered the entire 30 acres even though it covered it together. I will leave it up to him whether or not he feels like it would be appropriate to allow for a separate vote, one for each parcel. I don't feel like it is legally not allowed from my point of view but I am going to leave the final decision up to Mr. Pate because he is the interpreter of the zoning code. Is the request that we vote up or down on the part that we just annexed and then vote up or down RSF-4 on the part that is C-1? Yes. In the interest of time, that is exactly what I was looking for when I said maybe we could split the property into two and look at those separately. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 62 Clark: Pate: What I would like not to happen is for Mr. Milholland and his client to go back through our 40 day process plus three weeks to get to City Council and we are going to make the same staff report I think we have discussed the relevant issues tonight. We do have in our possession legal descriptions for the annexation and a legal description for the C-1 property and therefore, we could pass both of those recommendations forward to the City Council. Should they be voted for or should the applicant feel within relative ease. Staff recommends RSF-4 on the portion north of the C-1 and recommend denial for the rezoning to RSF-4 on the portion currently zoned C-1. We would recommend that you vote either in favor or against those tonight and forward this onto the City Council for finalization. First, I am going to withdraw my motion. I understand that staff is recommending not rezoning this because of the C-1 property. What is the rational of the Police Department to be opposed to this rezoning? I am assuming it has nothing to do with the C-1 status. I am assuming it has to do with the proximity of how far out the land is. I would assume so. The letter you have in your packet is what we received. Just to correct you, we have had in the last few months a couple of those police reports that stated in the negative on those rezonings, specifically out east and one application out in west Fayetteville that they had concerns with the population density. You are correct though, most often it is the case that they have typically the same recommendation. There is that paragraph at the end now that the Police Department does include. Honestly, I hate to speak for the Police Depaitment. It is our job to compile these reports, based on our Planning Policies, our Future Land Use Plan and the City Council's direction with those policy documents to make that recommendation. It is not in my opinion, and we've seen it in the past, the Council is not always going to agree with the Commission or the staff, the Planning Commission is not always going to agree with staff, but those are policy documents that we are attempting to forward to you with recommendations based on those. We feel that it is appropriate that the property is zoned RSF-4 if it is annexed into the City with City Council's vote. Allen: Was that a factor in your decision making process about what to recommend to us? Pate: It always is. The City Council has required us to form a Zoning Review Team. The Police Depaitment, the Fire Department are both part of those. That is why you have those reports. Whereas, a year and a half or two years ago you did not have those reports. The City Council found it prudent to include those and those representatives are present for City Council meetings. They have not been required to be in the Planning Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 63 Commission forum by the City Council but they are there to answer questions by the City Council in making those land use kind of decisions. Allen: I would just hate for us to make a decision based on the probability of the building of a fire station or police station. Pate: I entirely agree. That is not the basis of our recommendation. That is just another factor to throw in there. That may never happen and we are not banking this recommendation on that fire station by any means. That is a very good point. Graves: I didn't read the letter from the Police Department to be a denial or a recommendation that this not be rezoned as requested. I read it as they are concerned about the number of calls it might generate. I don't think they said we should deny it. There was some negative language in there but it wasn't a recommendation for denial. I would note that our experience on the Annexation Task Force last year with the Police Department on these issues is that they are concerned about piece by piece things coming in and it makes them difficult for them to plan for man power and things of that nature. That is sort of how they are looking at it as how this body has expressed several times that they wish they could look at it. The Police Department wishes that they had it the same way, that there was a lot of annexed property out there and they could sort of plan accordingly. They are dealing with the reality of the situation that we have right now which is things come in piece by piece and we have to do it with all kinds of things that present issues, sidewalks, the width of streets that are going out to these neighborhoods, those present challenges in development and we try to do it piece by piece. As a piece comes in then we try to get improvements to the roads in that area and we try to get sidewalks in that area. I would say that the same thing is going to happen with the Police. They are already traveling out this far. There are going to be a number of extra calls that are generated by a neighborhood of this size but they are already patrolling out that far and beyond it. The concern is just that until you rezone it and build it, the police man power is not going to have a reason to catch up. I guess the only way that that happens is as the city grows. I am sure that the police force was much smaller 50 years ago in Fayetteville than it is now. As you grow the city they are constantly trying to keep up. I'm sure that there is concern about that but that is the only way that it happens just like it is the only way that street improvements and sidewalk improvements and things of that nature happen. Lack: In trying to assess some logic in the change of direction here, I looked ahead as I know that we have a very similar condition coming up and with specific relevance to the Police Department's recommendation, that the Police Depaituient also had a very similar verbiage for the next rezoning and that was not sufficient to deny a recommendation for approval on that Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 64 so I would apply that logic to this. That there must have been other things that caused staff to make that recommendation. Ostner: Yes. I believe since staff has altered it's recommendation with the change in parcels of land that goes along with your opinion. Vaught: Staff, in making a motion, how do we do that, Lot A and Lot B? Williams: I would just say "A" and "B" with the original number that you have there. Vaught: For the reasons stated by a number of Commissioners and staff I do find that RSF-4 is a suitable zoning district in this area for the northern tract which we will call "A", the annexed portion. That being said, I will make a motion for approval of RZN 05-1452(A) for the north session of this request to RSF-4. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: We have a motion to recommend to forward the northern Tract "A" that has just been annexed from R -A to RSF-4. Trumbo: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1452(A) to the City Council was approved by a vote of 6-0-3 with Commissioners Clark, Ostner and Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Vaught: That being said, on the second tract I will make a motion to deny the RSF- 4 rezoning for the C-1 session based on Staff's findings and recommendations. I think it is something that at our level I feel comfortable denying, the City Council has the right to find differently if they view this to be something to change. In the policy set forward, they specifically call this out in the 2020 Plan as C-1 and it is a good way to break up the monotony. I know we face the same issues further up Huntsville Road trying to change some R -O and RSF-4 so it is not a constant band of commercial. I will make the motion to deny RZN 05- 1452(B). Ostner: I will second your motion. Is there further discussion? The motion is to deny the rezoning from C-1 to RSF-4 on the southern tract "B" of this piece of property. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 65 Myres: We have recommended to deny and if I agree with that I need to vote yes? Ostner: That is right. Lane: I am Forest Lane. I own the property in question. The piece of property you are describing here as Section "B" has been in my possession as C-1 from the time that I purchased it 18 years ago. That has never been utilized as C-1 property and I believe that it should be adjusted because there is no other C-1 property on that same side of the highway. I believe that it should be adjusted to RSF-4 as was the first portion. Ostner: We do have a motion to deny this rezoning request. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1452(B) was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 66 ANX 05-1470: Annexation (PHILLIPS/BAGGETT, 571): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 5150 AND 5270 E HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.59 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 05-1471: Rezoning (PHILLIPSBAGGETT, 571): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 5150 AND 5279 E HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 36.99 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 tonight is another annexation request, ANX 05-1470 for Phillips/Baggett, if we could have the staff report. Morgan: Many of the items and findings for this annexation are similar to the annexation that we just heard. Actually, one of the reasons that the Lane annexation was tabled at the last meeting was so that it could come in with this item. This property is approximately 30 acres and it is located just west of the subject property which we just heard. It contains two pieces of property owned by the Phillips and the Baggett's. Staff finds that annexation of this property along with the adjacent property will create an appropriate boundary for the city abutting to the north of the river. We have found therefore, that we are recommending in favor of the annexation. As for the rezoning, it is somewhat of a similar situation as the previous application. The rezoning encompasses a portion of the property that is currently in the city. It is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural at this time and is shown to be residential on the Future Land Use Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending for the RSF-4 zoning rezoning all of that property to RSF-4. Thank you. Allen: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Harrington: I am Mickey Harrington representing both the Baggett's and the Phillips who are here this evening. We made a significant effort early on talking to some people before they ever came forward with this project. We certainly spent time talking with the Police Department and were advised in our early contacts that there were absolutely no concerns. So when we saw the letter come through we were a little surprised because it was contrary to what we had been specifically told. The only thing that we can observe is that they did change personnel as to the persons writing these letters not too long ago. Captain Brown is now responding so I am thinking that as Commissioner Graves mentioned, the police may be telling you that as you grow you are going to need to be considering adding services in the Police Department to cover your growth. They did not tell these applicants don't bring that forward, we can't service that area. Of course, looking at the same map that you have with all of the Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 67 other developments out there and all of the land to the east of there that is already in the city, it does seem that it makes sense to me that long ago the city in the 1960's brought in this whole corridor out to Lake Sequoyah and I feel the long range plan would be that these lands would fill in over this corridor that was brought in so the city could control the growth along there. I know that there is also some concern about controlling the riparian corridor along the river. You are aware because of all the ones that come to you about the problems with County development and septics and the newer more untried community sewage systems that you have run into with other projects, the step system and all. I know that a lot of people have a lot of worries about how those are going to work. I would submit to you that this land will be in the city at some point and it certainly makes sense to bring this one in along with the Lane's property at this point and make it RSF-4 across the board. That will be the best way for the city to control this property and the services I believe will catch up as the growth occurs because this won't all happen over night. It will take some time. I think that the Phillips don't have any intent on moving fast and the Baggett's will be slower along with the development process in the same manner as Mr. Milholland's client moving on a pace that isn't immediate at one time. I believe that your city will make choices to keep the services at pace all over the place and city services including police will be able to handle this. We submit this to you for approval and are here to answer any questions that you have. Ostner: At this point we will take public comment on two items, ANX 05-1470 for Phillips Baggett and RZN 05-1471 for the same piece of property. If anyone would like to speak to these issues please step forward and give us your comments. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: I am going to move that we approve ANX 05-1470 for reasons very similar to what we just did. Myres: I will second. Ostner: We have a motion and a second to forward this Annexation request, is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1470 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 05-1471 for the same piece of property. We have already heard the staff report and the applicant's presentation. The request is to rezone from newly annexed area, R -A to RSF-4. Once again, Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 68 I will ask for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Williams: Just one point of clarification, this also includes the R -A that was in front of that so it is slightly larger than the recently annexed area. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Williams. Commissioners? This land is abutting the project we just discussed. Has anyone changed their mind from the last item? MOTION: Trumbo: I think that RSF-4 is appropriate zoning for this piece of property so I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve RZN 05-1471 agreeing with the findings of staff. Graves: I will second. Clark: I must admit I am mystified by the apparent flip flop of the Police Department that Ms. Harrington points out. Hopefully when this gets to the Council they can do a little more in depth research and hopefully make a better informed decision than I feel like I'm making right now. Ostner: May I ask what flip flop you mean? Clark: Ms. Harrington indicated that as they were talking about bringing this property in the Police had no problems with the rezoning and now they do so things have changed. Ostner: The zoning of an annexation is R -A and that is what they look at with an annexation. They look at whatever one unit per two acres. Clark: I am talking about the rezoning. Ostner: I thought you were referring to the Police said ok to the annexation. Clark: No, apparently with their discussion on the rezoning the police were supportive and now they aren't. That is the confusion I have and so hopefully the Council will have a little more time to do fact finding and find out what is going on. Vaught: I agree with the rezoning, I know it sounds odd that we just said no right next door but for the reasons stated in the 2020 Plan I think is the difference that they called out that C-1. It is the decision that the City Council made then and it is a decision they can revisit when that appeal Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 69 goes forward. Just to emphasize, it is not a contradiction in our overall goal of mixed use along that corridor. Ostner: I am going to vote against this tonight. I wondered how the Police Department would ever give us anything but a complete green light and the fact that they are at least warning us. I am going to read into the record what they say exactly. "It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will substantially alter the population density and will possibly create an undesirable increase on police services." It gives another sentence to support that. That is part of why I'm voting against this. I am reading the report that I've been given and that is the information that I have tonight. We need to wait on our eighth voting member who is taking a break. Is there further discussion? Vaught: I think it is a chicken and egg situation when you talk about city services in these areas. Ostner: There is a motion to forward RZN 05-1471, hearing no further discussion, could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 05-1471 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-0-3 with Commissioners Ostner, Myres and Clark voting no. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 70 ADM 05-1504: Administrative Item: PZD Ordinance Revision Ostner: The last item on our agenda is ADM 05-1404 entitled PZD revisions. Pate: We spoke about this at length at agenda session so I won't go too much in depth. You are entirely welcome to email your comments to me if you would like to not discuss them too much tonight. Obviously, City Council will be looking for minutes and any comments that you have so I would recommend that you get those to us so we can forward those this Friday to City Council. Background for the public listening, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward the PZD revisions to the City Council in January, 2005. The Ordinance Review Committee reviewed that, had suggestions for changes, staff made those changes and went back to the Ordinance Review Committee about a week and a half ago. There were some revisions and one of the major revisions was to have the master development plans come through without going to the Planning Commission. That is obviously, a significant change for this type of request. It is a rezoning request that is tied to at least a conceptual master development plan and would be a different scenario than what you experience now. Currently anything to do with planning that goes to City Council is made by a recommendation from the Planning Commission as well as Planning Staff. The Ordinance Review Committee is looking for feedback from you on that process. I've outlined as much as I could here. I have also included the current ordinance, we have yet to add this portion into it but we will by Friday for the agenda request to City Council. Essentially, what we are looking for is feedback on how you feel about that process and whether you do that now verbally or in writing is fine by us. We will forward those comments to the City Council and they are very interested to hear what you have. One of the big things is it does allow for an incentive for a developer to come through this process with a master development plan, PZD because it does forego some of the time associated with processing a project. Instead of 40 days to get to the Planning Commission plus 21 days to get to the City Council plus two readings, which is another two weeks which can be quite a lengthy time. It would essentially come in, we would review it with the Zoning Review Team and it would go straight to City Council with a recommendation. What the Planning Commission would be faced with then is looking at PZDs that were approved by the Council as land use decisions much like the zoning districts that you see now. As Mr. Ostner noted at agenda session, it would be a custom zoning created for that piece of property and staff would make a recommendation to determine if it met the intent, spirit and all of the commitment and development standards that were approved by the City Council. That would be the biggest change that you would not see the conceptual part of it, you would just make a recommendation on the development. With that, I would be glad to take any comments for the record or you can email me if you would like. Planning Commission May 9, 2005 Page 71 Osmer: Do Commissioners have comments that they would like to share on the PZD proposal? At agenda session when this was presented to us, I have to say from a development stand point the incentive to have any kind of fast track in this slow wheel is incredible. I think that is a real benefit and I think that will get the attention of a lot of people and I think that is important to not slow things down when they don't have to be slowed down. I'm also mixed because I do think we offer in sight. I understand that we do not grant rezoning requests but I believe our discussion and what happens in the audience with staff and neighbors is beneficial to the City Council. However, I am willing to be cut out of the custom rezoning business if the Council thinks it was a good idea. If anyone else has anything to say about this issue you can say them now or email to Jeremy. Myres: I plan to email my comments. Ostner: If there is no further discussion, this is an administrative item which does not require a motion. Meeting adjourned: 9:38 p.m.