Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 23, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 05-1530: (LOWE'S C-PZD/6`l STREET SHOPPES) Approved Consent CCP 05-1492: (TRINITY PLACE, 399): Approved Consent ANX 05-1495: (BENTON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 206): Tabled Page 5 RZN 05-1502: (BENTON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 206): Tabled Page 5 CUP 05-1494: (TGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Approved Page 7 LSD 05-1468:(TGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Approved Page 7 CUP 05-1493: (BANK OF AMERICA CONDOS, 523): Approved Page 18 CPL 05-1536: (MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT) No Action Necessary Page 26 ANX 05-1488: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Tabled Page 36 RZN 05-1489: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Tabled Page 36 ANX 05-1490: (DIXIE DEVELOPMENT, 321): Denied Page 54 RZN 05-1491: (DIXIE DEVELOPMENT, 321): Forwarded to City Council Page 54 Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Audi Lack Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo James Graves Christian Vaught Christine Myres Candy Clark MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 3 ADM 05-1530: (LOWE'S C-PZD/6th STREET SHOPPES): Submitted by Gary Ryel of Hight Jackson Associates for property located at W. 6th STREET. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. The request is to approve a major modification to the approved project plan. CCP 05-1492: Concurrent Plat (TRINITY PLACE, 399): Submitted by CHARLES SLOAN for property located at FRANCISCAN TRAIL. The property is zoned RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO AND THREE FAMILY, and contains approximately 2.355 acres. The request is to approve a concurrent plat for a residential subdivision with 6 lots to be developed for three-family dwelling units. Ostner: Welcome to the May 23`d meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Ostner: MOTION: Allen: Clark: Roll Call: Thomas: Ostner: MOTION: Allen: Clark: The first item is the approval of minutes from the April 25th and May 9, 2005 meetings. Before any motions, I have a few corrections I would like to enter into the record, if you could just pass these to Renee. I would entertain motions for approval of the minutes. I move for approval of the minutes. I will second. Upon the completion of the roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries. There are two items on the consent agenda tonight, ADM 05-1530 for Lowe's C-PZD the Shops at Sixth Street submitted by Hight Jackson Associates and item number four, CCP 05-1492 for Trinity Place submitted by Charlie Sloan for property located at Franciscan Trail. If anyone in the audience would like these items moved from the consent agenda, please speak now. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. I move for approval of the consent agenda. I will second. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 4 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 5 ANX 05-1495: (BENTON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 206): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at SW CORNER WEIR AND SALEM RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.66 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 05-1502: (BENTON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 206): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at SW CORNER WIER AND SALEM RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 10.66 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre. Ostner: The first two items have been requested to be tabled by the applicant. Pate: That is correct. The first two items under new business, ANX 05-1495 and RZN 05-1502 for Benton Development submitted by H2 Engineering for property located at the southwest corner of Weir and Salem Road for annexation and rezoning to RSF-4 for 10.66 acres. In discussions with staff the applicant has requested that this item be tabled until such time as we can work out a few details. Of course, these items were advertised so by ordinance, we do put these on the agenda for anyone who shows up from the public to comment on them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. If the applicant would like to add anything he can add something now. Otherwise, I will open the floor to public comment on ANX 05-1495 and RZN 05-1502. Would anyone like to speak to these issues? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. If I could have a motion to table item number one. MOTION: Allen: I move to table ANX 05-1495. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 05-1495 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. MOTION: Allen: I move to table RZN 05-1502. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 6 Clark: Second. Ostner: Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1502 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 7 CUP 05-1494: (TGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 16B OF CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE II. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to permit 116 parking spaces (26 over maximum allowed) for the proposed Large Scale Development. LSD 05-1468: Large Scale Development (TGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 16B, CMN II, 463 E VAN ASCHE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to approve the development of a restaurant with approximately 6,586 s.f. and 116 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is item number five, CUP 05-1494 for TGI Fridays. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: Certainly. I would request that the Commission look separately but at the same time the Large Scale Development for TGI Friday's, LSD 05-1468. the preceding item, the Conditional Use is a request for excess parking over what is allowed with our current ordinances. The property is located on Lot 16B of CMN Business Park Phase II. It is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately two acres. The request is to approve the development of a restaurant with approximately 6,586 sq.ft. with 116 parking spaces proposed. The allowed number of parking spaces for this type of development with the square footage is 90 with the 30% increase allowed by ordinance and therefore, the Conditional Use request is a request for 29% over that permitted 90. As you can see in your Conditional Use staff report, that is definitely within the percentage that the Planning Commission has approved in this area as well as other parts of the city for additional parking for the restaurant use. Staff is supporting that Conditional Use request for excess parking with the findings of fact in your staff report with two conditions. Approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development plan and Planning Commission determination of the requested signage, which we will go into here in a moment. As I mentioned, this property is located in CMN Business Park. It is between two other existing restaurants, Fuddrucker's and Logan's Roadhouse. It is located within the I-540 Design Overlay District. Therefore, there are specific requirements that must be made and the applicant must comply with for curb cuts, lighting, exterior appearance, building materials, site coverage, outdoor storage, access and green space and signage. Those are specific requirements above and beyond our standard commercial design ordinances. This property does have street frontage and ingress and egress on both Mall Avenue and Van Asche Drive, which are collector streets. The access proposed along Van Asche Drive is a new access point. The one along Mall Avenue however, is a Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 8 shared access point that was planned when this property was subdivided and they are complying with that requirement. The proposal is to construct a TGI Friday's restaurant in this location. As I mentioned, it would be approximately 6,500 sq.ft., staff is recommending approval of this particular application and find that the development meets our development ordinances. There are a few issues with the signage that we will go over with you in our conditions of approval that we have drafted. Beginning on page 6.4, the conditions of approval are as stated, Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. We are looking at commercial structures, this falls under the purview of the Planning Commission's findings with regard to both commercial design standards and exterior appearance of the building in the Design Overlay District. Based on materials and elevations submitted to date, staff does find that the elevations and materials submitted meet the design standards set forth in the Unified Development Code. I believe full color elevations are to be presented tonight. Item number two, Planning Commission determination of a Conditional Use request for 116 parking spaces. Again, staff has reviewed the percentages in this area and finds that they are compatible to the amount of requested overage. There is a lack of ability to share parking here because they are all similar uses and therefore, they have the same parking demand at the same time. I would reference one restaurant where a Conditional Use was not requested for a very good reason. O'Charley's has additional parking that could be shared in that shopping mall area. They did not request a Conditional Use for additional parking. However, this did not have that same opportunity without a significant hike to get to this property. We are supporting the Conditional Use request for additional parking on the property. Item number three, Planning Commission determination of sign variances. As we said at the agenda session, there are several variance requests that are on this property. I will go through those. Staff is recommending approval of the monument sign requested. The reason this is a variance request is because the logo that is typically is associated with TGI Fridays which states "In here it is always Friday." Is not part of the actual business name The Design Overlay District specifically only allows the business name. There are other restaurants in this area where we have submitted signs and the Planning Commission has approved signs of this very nature and we feel that this is in keeping with those monument signs and therefore, are recommending approval of the sign as proposed. Staff is also recommending approval of the two larger wall signs proposed given that they do meet size requirements. Those will be permitted separately at the time of building permit. That is not actually a variance request, that is just a finding in the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the smaller slogans underneath the large wall signs unless they are incorporated into the overall larger signs and also meet the Design Overlay District size requirements. The reasoning for this finding is that to be compatible with the decisions the Planning Commission and staff have made with regard to Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 9 sign permits those slogans are typically associated to the actual sign face, the overall larger sign. If you see some of those projects out there, all of them to my knowledge are incorporated with the overall larger sign. Of course, all of the signs are Planning Commission determination and if a variance is determined that they could be separated by the Planning Commission then that is your decision. That is something that you are able to grant at this point because it is a Design Overlay District requirement. Staff is recommending though that those be incorporated within the same sign. Staff is also recommending denial of the additional TGI Friday's wall sign on the west facade. This was discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting in an effort to articulate the structure more and provide identification for the pick up area. The findings that we utilize by ordinance for this particular case such as poor visibility, inability to provide a monument sign, unusual conditions and circumstances that are not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the district that would require additional wall signs. We couldn't make any of those findings for this sign. And therefore, are recommending denial of that request. This site has high visibility from two street frontages and staff was not aware of any special conditions that would warrant this particular sign variance request. Staff is also recommending a change on the sign that currently states another slogan, "easy come, easy go" to comply with our standards a maximum four square feet to identify directional signage such as curb side pickup or customer pickup or something else of that nature to identify that in order for us to permit that. I believe that the rest of the conditions of approval are relatively standard and have either been discussed or are standard ordinance requirements. If you do have any further questions feel free to ask. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us a presentation. Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan. I'm from McClelland Consulting Engineers. We have with us in the audience today Mr. Ken Alexander, the architect for the TGI Friday's project and Design Works Studio. Mr. Steve Bell, President of Tricorp Management Group, TGI Fridays. We are here this afternoon, we certainly appreciate working together with the city to come to where we are today. As Jeremy said, we have received a lot of conditions placed upon us not only from Fayetteville but also within the Design Overlay District. It looks like it is coming down now after green space and everything else to a couple of issues here being the signage. We would like to work through these issues one by one. It is the Planning Commission's decision to come to a medium ground here. The first one he was talking about are the existing two main signs at the entry of the TGI Friday's. TGI Friday's has traditionally used the logo "In here it is always Friday" as part of their corporate identity for some time now. I am going to turn it over to Steve Bell who can speak about that. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 10 Bell: Thank you very much. We are excited to be in Fayetteville. As Mike indicated, there are a couple of issues on signage that we would like to review with you tonight. Ken Alexander has some elevations that we would like to present to you that are our building elevations that we would like you to review. The designs, as you see, are in compliance with the plans that our Dallas Franchise has requested. There are currently 745 TGI Friday's around the world. This is a new design that they have recently imposed and you will start to see more and more of. It has the higher detail on the entry and then higher awnings. The rest of the elements we tried to go along with staff recommendations and there were some issues regarding articulation which we tried to address. The western elevation, the use of this additional sign, we feel like there is somewhat of a hardship because the monument sign that we are requesting at the corner of Van Asche and Mall Avenue is skewed a little bit because of the landscaping requirements. Our signage is in other directions. In driving around the area we noted that Fuddrucker's has three wall signs, Logan's has two logo signs plus another neon sign. O'Charley's has three wall signs. I think the only other sign variance requested was over the front door. The slogan "In here it is always Friday" has always been traditional with the Friday's logo sign. In this particular case we have included a canopy, this is an aluminum canopy. Those are backlit letters with Plexiglas. They are in front of the actual sign. We saw that Smokey Bones down the street and Logan's has slogans separated from the same sign. The "Easy Come, Easy Go" sign I'm sure is less than 4 sq.ft. It doesn't say customer pickup but we are trying to keep with what is appropriate for the theme. I was going to conclude the presentation with the screening wall in the back and I didn't hear whether or not there was an issue with it. The elevations we first submitted had a masonry wall across the back. We have in fact, raised those almost 3' and twisted it around to give it more detail and articulation. We have another set of windows here on the south side and some masonry columns. To the average person driving by or in the adjacent parking lot it looks like the building. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment if anyone would like to speak to this. We are talking about two items, the Conditional Use and Large Scale Development for TGI Friday's, please step forward. Seeing no public comment, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Vaught: The signage issue, are we looking at that on both items? Pate: We are. There are specific findings with regard to signage, lighting, things of that nature within the Conditional Use request so the findings could be made in either place. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 11 Vaught: l didn't know if we needed to make it specifically on the Conditional Use and then have the Large Scale refer to it. Pate: The conditions I have drafted refer to signage and so once those issues are determined you could include those in the Conditional Use motion. Allen: The applicant made mention of signage different on surrounding buildings and I wondered if in your opinion there were any inequities, do you think we are requiring something different of them than existing restaurants? Pate: Obviously, there are some. I honestly can't say that I know right off the top of my head of slogans that are separated. Unfortunately, I didn't go out there this weekend to check that out. Most of the permits that were issued that we pulled actual sign permits, the drawings showed the slogan incorporated with the sign and that really is the basis of our recommendation. Fuddrucker's is an example. I think it says "World's Greatest Hamburger" on it. It is incorporated into the actual sign face. The Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Spirits I believe is incorporated from my recollection to the actual sign face of that. I think that honestly we are not opposed at all to having a corporate slogan. It is not something that outside of the Overlay District would be an issue at all because it would be considered all part of one sign. Typically what we do when we issue a sign permit is we draw a box around the TGI Friday's and the "In here it is always Friday" to determine the square feet and if it meets the square feet number we permit that as one sign. It is the fact that it is within the Design Overlay District that it really requires the variance request. That is why you are seeing it. Obviously, as we see more and more development in that area within the Design Overlay District we will probably see more and more of these types of requests to facilitate a little creativity. Again, it is Planning Commission's determination, we just felt that it was more appropriate that it be incorporated given the majority of the signs that we have seen being permitted in that area. Allen: You do not feel that we are asking more of them than we have of the existing buildings? Pate: Honestly, this has not been that large of an issue. I feel that we are recommending approval in situations where we have recommended approval in the past for other restaurants. Vaught: On O'Charley's we allowed a third wall sign just because of the view of the building coming from Steele. How does this compare? There is an issue with their monument sign being able to face which road and being able to see the monument sign before you have to turn in. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 12 Pate: For the O'Charley's project specifically, which is in this area as well, within the Design Overlay District, that applicant actually requested a third wall sign, they only have two frontages, so it would be much like the TGI Friday's sign on the west facade. However, in that instance, they removed the monument sign to replace it with the wall sign to allow for another sign that was their offering to get another wall sign in that location. The reason was the monument sign was very difficult to locate because of the existing utilities in that area. Vaught: On directional signage for pickup windows in the area, I know we allow four square foot wall sign, is that displayed on an awning or is that typically a sign on the wall next to the door? Pate: It can be on the awning or the door as long as it is parallel to the plain of the surface and it is actually part of the exemptions so we don't permit that particular sign as long as it meets the four square feet and is considered directional, we don't issue a permit for that sign. Vaught: So the issue here is the wording? Pate: Yes. The fact that I'm not really sure if that sign is four square feet. We have never seen the size of that particular sign so we just wanted to make sure that it was no more than four square feet. Vaught: I guess from my perspective, that is the least problematic as long as it is four square feet and it is serving as a directional sign, it is just saying something other than drive up pick up, it is a more fancy phrase. That doesn't bother me as long as they meet the four square foot requirement. I don't know how the other Commissioners feel. Anthes: I have a separate question. How does the additional paving that is part of the Conditional Use request affect the floodplain and deed restricted area? Pate: You can see on page three of five in your report, that the 100 -year floodplain line is shown to the west of the property. It is not encroaching much into that area. A portion of property to the west is deed restricted and therefore, they cannot encroach into that area at all. Floodplain is allowed to be developed and has been developed in several instances with projects in this area as long as it is done appropriately with a floodplain development permit. There may be 8' at it's maximum point into the floodplain along the northwest corner. Anthes: Mr. O'Neal, you are happy with the floodplain calculations that are a result of the additional pavement? Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 13 O'Neal: Yes, as long as the 100 -year flood is not raised over 1/10 of a foot then there can be as much fill in the floodplain as they need. Anthes: Ok. As far as commercial design standards go, do we have other instances where we have allowed a board fence in the Design Overlay District? Pate: Off the top of my head I cannot recall one, that doesn't mean that there is not one out there. Regular commercial properties and projects they do that all the time. In the Design Overlay District we have typically recommended that it be some sort of masonry or dryvit or stucco or something that is more compatible with the actual structure. Ultimately, the idea is to screen that use and to be incorporated into the overall architecture of the building. I think this is the first, I think we saw something similar to this at our very first submittal at Technical Plat Review about a month ago, elevations that we made recommendations on are a little bit different. They do have the masonry wall. I'm not opposed at all to the masonry wall as long as there is something incorporated from the structure into that screening, whether it be the materials on the structure utilizes hardy board or other material such as that. Anthes: I can go back and forth with that. We have restaurants in the area that might back up to an area where they might not be viewed or something like that that might be appropriate. When I am looking on the site plan, from what I understand here is this service court is actually in very close proximity and visibility to all the parking for Logan's, is that true? Pate: It does face the north side of Logan's, there is a landscape strip between the two parking areas but yes, it does face the north side of Logan's. Anthes: I think in that area I would have to agree with what you were saying about using some material such as a hardy board or some other material that is more permanent that might be more appropriate just because of the amount of visibility that site has. I guess while I'm talking, I will go to the signs. My recollection with O'Charley's is we granted the third wall sign because they traded it for the monument sign and we discussed that at length here and therefore, they felt that they would be more visible with that wall sign because of that particular location. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason why the location of that monument sign was so difficult is because there was a tremendous amount of utilities in the area and we couldn't put it over the utility easement. Pate: That is correct. Anthes: The other buildings that may have additional signs is because they have additional street frontages, is that correct? Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 14 Pate: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: I don't believe any of the properties out here have more than two street frontages. This property does have two street frontages because they are on a corner so at least two wall signs would be allowed by right. A variance would be processed to allow a third wall sign when an argument could be made that there was some sort of circumstance that would warrant that. From your report, you are not supporting that variance? That is correct. The lighting of the signs in the Design Overlay District, isn't there some language about backlit? Pate: I believe it just specifies indirect lighting for all monument and wall signage. The ordinance states that only indirect lighting may be used for illumination of all signs. At the time of sign permit we would review the lighting, just as we have done for all of the projects in that area. Anthes: Are back lit signs considered directly lit or indirectly lit? Pate: If it is has a face with a light shining exterior with the light shining on it that would be an externally type of sign or a billboard type of face where the light is actually shining back on the sign. That is something that wouldn't be allowed. Again, we would permit those in accordance with our sign regulations much in keeping with what you see out there in that area. Logan's, Fuddrucker's, Olive Garden, Red Robin are all compatible and do meet those ordinance requirements. Anthes: It seems to me that staff has been really thorough in their report. I have gone through this case by case and looking through the applicant's request and I believe that for consistency that staff has made a very good report and these recommendations to us. The one question I have is the same one that Christian has, whether or not the four square foot sign says curb side pickup, how do you designate that. I don't know that I have trouble with that verbiage either as long as it meets the four square foot requirement. Ostner: Mr. Lack, did you have a comment? Lack: My recollection of requirements are a bit fuzzy about would a wood siding be allowed? That is what I am gathering as an image here that we are actually looking at something that would look more like a wall material than a screen. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 15 Pate: Lack: Yes, it would be allowed and it is actually utilized as the primary material in some structures. Smokey Bones is wood, log lap siding type of material. That is their image. I don't think we are trying to say that we are opposed to that. You may remember the conversation at Subdivision Committee about what is included in the square footage of the building, we decided to include this portion because it is iatrical to the operations of the building and we feel therefore, it should be a portion of that structure and not look like a dumpster screen. It is an iatrical part of the operations that the building should be designed to meet those requirements if it is visible. There are situations that staff has recommended. There is not very much screening when a structure is not visible. It is both fortunate for TGI Friday's in our opinion that this site does have such high visibility and traffic in this area. It is unfortunate in the part that the service area tends to be a lot more high profile and therefore, need more screening from the public right of way and ultimately it is my interpretation that that is why the commercial design standards and design overlay district requirements for appearance really look at those elevations that are visible from the public right of way more so than others. Ultimately you are trying to protect what the public sees from the street right of way. To answer your question, I am not opposed to wood lap siding, I think that it is something that the Planning Commission ultimately does determine and I think if it is incorporated to the building that it would be perfectly fine. I think I do see the distinction between that sort of an image and between a wood fence infill which would appear to be more of a screen and less attractive. Clark: Do you want to consider the lighting variance with the first Conditional Use or go ahead and do the parking and then go to the second one? Ostner: How do you recommend we break this up Mr. Pate? Pate: MOTION: Clark: Ostner: Myres: The way I have drafted the conditions right now there are two conditions of approval, Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large Scale Development plans with all of the conditions of approval as stated. You could just strike condition number two and go on and make findings on that report. I would like to move that we approve CUP 05-1494 with one condition, striking number two. I have a motion for approval of CUP 05-1494. Second. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 16 Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Anthes: Bell: Anthes: Bell: Anthes: Bell: Ostner: MOTION: Clark: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1494 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries. I have a question. Maybe I have interpreted this wrong. Are those panels a wood siding material? What are those panels? That is called hardy plank. It has a 50 year warranty. I am familiar with the material, I didn't understand that that was the material during your presentation. Were you talking about the fence or the building itself? The fence. The fence is another composite fencing material which is similar to hardy plank that is projecting. We felt like if we ran it horizontally it would more closely resemble the brick. We have a brick soldier course and columns there so that would be a compatible use for that material facing Logan's, which, by the way, has a chain link fence on two sides for storage. We do have some specific determinations on this Large Scale Development. The commercial design standards and the elevations are the first topic. The second topic would be the parking and then the sign variances are the third determination. On the sign variances we had talked about allowing the "Easy Come Easy Go" as long as it met the four square foot rule. I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 05-1468 with the following items of fact. Number one, we do agree that it meets commercial design standards. Number two, in agreement with the Conditional Use for parking spaces. Number three, my motion will agree with all of what staff says until we get down to "Easy Come Easy Go" and I will change that to approve "Easy Come Easy Go" wall signage as long as it meets the four foot mandate. All others, I think you can incorporate the "it's always Friday" in your sign. I think some clever sign person can accommodate that so that is my motion. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 17 Vaught: I missed what you said about the rear elevation. Clark: I am going to agree that it meets it. Myres: I will second it. Vaught: My feelings on the third wall sign is that I'm not opposed to it. Most of the sites in this area are difficult because of their visibility and the fact that they are having to go through extra expense on it that they typically wouldn't. This site is interesting because they do have a lot of visibility on the rear and not that much on the front to I-540 which is what the Design Overlay District was designed to protect is that view shed. I don't know that this third wall sign is going to be visible from I-540 because you are approaching from Target and that is blocking a good deal of it. Their other two wall signs aren't visible from this direction so in a way I do relate it to something like O'Charley's even though other Conditional Uses are not precedent setting. I'm not opposed to the third wall sign if we could set a size limit on it. I do think it could help facilitate traffic headed that way. Their monument sign, per those regulations, is not very high and so you don't have visibility from it in this direction either as well as you do from other directions. My feelings are I'm not opposed to the third wall sign. That's my perspective. I do support a third wall sign. Ostner: I believe if you would like to make a motion to amend the current item on the floor you are welcome to and we can vote on your amendment. From my perspective, I understand that that third wall sign wouldn't be that intrusive or visible, as you say. That is almost my exact reason for not seeing it's use. I think monument signs are very helpful. I would encourage the applicant to redo the landscape plan if that monument sign is not working and there are lots of options on the site for placing that monument sign. I guess I'm sort of falling on the other side. I think the monument sign is adequate. We have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion I will call for a vote. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1468 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 18 CUP 05-1493: (BANK OF AMERICA CONDOS, 523): Submitted by ROBERT KOHLER for property located at 1 E CENTER STREET. The property is zoned C-4, DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.76 acres. The request is to permit six residential condominiums in the C-4 Zoning District. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 05-1493 for the Bank of America condos submitted by Robert Kohler for property located at 1 E. Center Street. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This property is located directly east of the Fayetteville downtown square. It is zoned C-4, downtown commercial and contains approximately 0.76 acres. The property is currently developed and known as the Bank of America building with an existing 82,000 sq.ft. C-4 zoning allows a variety of uses, however, Use Unit 26, multi -family dwellings can be used as a Conditional Use. The applicant is proposing to construct six residential condominium units, pictures were in the newspaper this weekend. In 2000 the Planning Commission granted approval of a similar request on the west side of the square for a multi -family condominium development in the C-4 zoning district known as the Campbell Bell project. This project has been highly successful in offering downtown living mixed with a variety of commercial, retail, residential and office buildings. I would mention as well that the downtown master plan, which is a document that the City Council has adopted as a policy, does refer to these types of mixed use residential being a high priority in retaining and creating future residential use in the downtown area. We feel that this application meets the spirit of that plan as well. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use request finding that it will not adversely affect the public interest. Similar requests have been granted in this immediate vicinity. Ingress and egress to the property is adequately provided with surrounding streets and there is no change in access proposed. Construction is currently underway with the demolition of the Mountain Inn to the east and associated structures which will alter traffic patterns for the period of demolition and subsequent construction of that proposed project. However, access to this particular piece of property and other businesses in this area is being retained during construction of that property. Surrounding properties are all zoned C-4, Downtown Commercial. Adequate parking is provided on site in accordance with city ordinances for multi -family development that requirement is one space per bedroom. That is subject to the 30% overage or underage within our parking lot ordinances. These parking spaces are to be in excess of the existing parking spaces provided and utilized by existing businesses. It is my understanding that the spaces to be provided will be part of the project with the Mountain Inn development and located within that development of the parking deck. Staff finds in favor of this request. The very last finding is proposed multi -family development. We are recommending approval of the Conditional Use subject to four conditions of approval. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 19 Number one, adequate parking area is to be provided on site in accordance with city ordinances. Item number two, should those not be available on site to meet the increased demand generated by the addition of this structure, the applicant shall produce a formal shared parking agreement or pay a fee at the cost of $1,200 per space in accordance with city ordinances prior to building permit. I included this because I would rather not process another administrative item of Conditional Use at the time of building permit simply to get parking issues worked out. We do make the findings with regard to parking ingress and egress with this application and staff has found that either one of those options we feel should be available to the developer at the time because our ordinances do allow for either one of those options to be available. This condition shall satisfy the ordinance requirements for approval by the Planning Commission under Chapter 156, Parking Variances. Additionally, on site parking is available, on street parking is available directly adjacent to this property on three sides and of course, the proposed Mountain Inn, in which the city is currently involved, will be producing a parking deck in that general vicinity in the near future. Construction of any portion of the structure which encroaches into right of way of the adjacent street shall require City Council approval. I do not believe that is proposed at this time. Item number four, Conditional Use approval shall not be construed to guarantee building permit approval. As with all projects, we will look at a building permit for this project to ensure it meets all applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Osmer: If the applicant could step forward, introduce yourselves and give us your presentation. Kohler: I'm Bob Kohler, I am the representative of the owners of this project. I think it is really spelled out. Jeremy did a good job of writing up our request. I guess one thing I would like to clarify is that for the new parking of the Mountain Inn, we are hoping that will be about 350 spaces and 100 of those will be over and above what is projected to be required for the Mountain Inn. However many bedrooms, of course, it is up to the people who buy these condominiums how many bedrooms they put in it. We are showing them as sort of a white box unfinished. We are allowing however many spaces in the new garage with a pedestrian connector to that garage for the people who are inhabiting the unit at one per bedroom. As far as the schedule, these two projects will be built concurrently and our projections are that the parking garage will be finished prior to or close to the same time, if not sooner, as what these will be in their finish out when they complete finish out and they get their Certificate of Occupancy. If you have any questions, that is all I have. Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this Conditional Use please step forward. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 20 Davison: Good evening, my name is Sharon Davison, I am here to speak about this issue, the parking in particular. I did have a quick question though because I came to speak to two issues, one I thought was advertised, I was a few minutes late and am not sure if I missed it or if you skipped it. That would be the discussion about skipping Planning Commission and going directly to the City Council for developers. What was the situation with that Sir? Ostner: That item is not on our agenda. I believe it is on the City Council agenda. Davison: Thank you. I appreciate that because that is a very important discussion. Back to this parking here please. It is like can we give them enough, can we give them enough? I am one that has been very outspoken about encouraging our Planning Commissioners to not be too free in granting favors and waivers. I understand that zoning is God in this Planning situation but then it isn't because things change. That is part of what concerns me is how we do come at the beginning of the process and by the end of the process I think we know a lot of things have changed from what we have been told. That is why I appreciate your positions and I don't think they are Supervalu's and I think they are very important steps along the way. In this particular step back to our main complaint about our city, this is a common practice I know to take money in lieu of. I've been upset for quite a while that we have taken money in lieu of for developers in parks. This has created a nice slush fund for our great community park which will help a lot of folks but it seems to be at the cost of providing neighborhood parks to these very housing developments that are supposed to be for families in our community. This is another very important, because parking is everything in downtown Fayetteville. We almost lost the old post office because we needed parking so badly they were going to tear it down and put the deck there. We have to be very careful. I understand our parking deck discussions and I mainly say please, we can't keep giving parking exceptions, be it on Dickson Street for another restaurant where no one can park except for in our neighborhood, on the sidewalks, destroying all of our beautiful places we have spent a lot of money on because there is no parking. We tore down a historic building on West Street to accommodate a few cars while we are waiting for these parking decks to be built, these decisions to be made. I did have two questions about the parking money in lieu of. Specifically, where does that go? Does it go into an interest bearing account for our future parking decks? Would staff or the chairman be able to answer that part please? Does the money in lieu of go into that future pot for the downtown parking or where does it go? Ostner: We will get to your answers. You go ahead and we will get to it. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 21 Davison: I wasn't sure of that. The other thing is it seems they have to only pay $1,200 per space, I believe in some of the projections for these parking decks with the University, etc., it is $2,500 to $4,000 per space that they project is the cost of a space. Not only are we allowing this over accommodation where we can't handle it and we are also not really making them pay their fair share. It gets to me, in this particular case, I'm a little sensitive as you all know, because I've been to many Planning and Council meetings where these very folks that consumed our resources for a year on Mountain Inn, Mr. Alexander stood up and said there is no money, we couldn't do this project without this money. There was plenty of money to buy the Bank of America. There was plenty of money to buy the whole block. There was plenty of money without our money. In that case, I would like to find out if we could find the true money backers of the city as I asked when we first invested and signed it over to these developers. The rumor is it is John Tyson's money. I have asked and asked. I think they can afford their own parking spaces, I think that is my request. Ostner: Ms. Davison, I am going to stop you because you are insulting and talking personalities. We need to talk about the issue. Davison: I'm just talking about the same developers and the money behind it. It is not personalities, it is money. We are speaking money. They have the money to build a parking deck. Ostner: Ma'am, you need to stop now please. Let's not talk about people, let's talk about the issue. Davison: The money behind whoever, the issue is there is plenty of money for these people to pay for their own million dollar heirloom buildings that will change our whole town. If you can afford a million dollar heirloom condo, I think you can afford to pay for some parking. This isn't New York City, thank you Sir. Ostner: Do we have any other public comment? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Anthes: A question of the applicant. Mr. Kohler. As I understand it, you are going to provide parking spaces with the condos. Is that one space per bedroom, or what is the intent at build out? Kohler: The intent is to provide one parking space per bedroom as the code requires. At this point we don't know exactly how many bedrooms there are going to be, it will be somewhere between 12 and 15. If there are six units and two bedroom units or some of them might be three bedrooms, Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 22 until we have the exact layouts, a couple of them haven't even been sold yet then we will commit to those. Anthes: Will those be somehow contracted to go with those units? Kohler: Yes, they will be reserved spaces in the garage that we are paying for, or that the same owners are paying for for the Mountain Inn project. Anthes: Basically, we are covering a construction time line with condition of approval number two, is that correct? Pate: You are covering two things. The options that are available for the type of parking to be provided. This lot is entirely built out so there is no option to take away a portion of the building and provide on site parking. Therefore, there is a recommendation by staff to grant a waiver to utilize either of the two options, which is an in lieu fee or shared parking. Based on Mr. Kohler's comments, the shared parking would be the option that they would like to utilize rather than paying those fees in lieu. The timing issue is critical because by ordinance, if the fees in lieu are due it is prior to building permit, the actual shell. If there are parking spaces to be provided, we would have until the time of Certificate of Occupancy for the interior spot in order to determine how much parking is actually needed. If the fees in lieu are determined by the Planning Commission to be an option we would need to specify and maybe break these out that one of them be prior to initial building permit and one be prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Anthes: I can't imagine that in Fayetteville, Arkansas somebody is going to buy a quite expensive condominium and not be able to park their car. I imagine the owners of these condominiums are going to have cars and that will be something that you are going to need to accommodate. The fact is that a formal shared parking agreement is an option, and it sounds like that is what you are pursuing. I was just thinking that if the fees in lieu allowed the project to go forward without having to wait until the parking deck was completed that would make sense. Pate: Ultimately, that is why staff included that as well because we don't know when that parking deck is going to be finished. We are not even sure what timeline of construction it is under. It has not come through our planning process at all for any type of review. That is something that we were trying to allow for an option to pay the money. By ordinance, it would be $1,200 for each parking space shall be paid to the city. This money shall be held in an interest bearing account and shall be expended for public parking within the district. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 23 Anthes: If they plan to do a formal shared parking agreement, then that paperwork is not filed until Certificate of Occupancy. So, therefore, as long as their time line is tracking, there would be no need for them to pay the fee in lieu at the time of pulling the building permit? Pate: Correct. If the issue at the time became a problem the applicant could always come back to the Planning Commission again and request a waiver to go back to the fee in lieu if, for instance, the proposed condominiums are constructed and the deck is falling behind that is always an option as well. We were trying to wrap this issue up in one so we wouldn't have to see another process for this applicant. Kohler: Both projects are in the Planning stage now and so their exact schedules, we have projected schedules, we have preferred schedules, we don't have contractors yet and they are the ones who determine ultimately what a construction schedule is. We are projecting that the timing is going to work out where we can go with the shared parking agreement. I guess you still call it a shared parking agreement if both parties own the same project. That is the mechanism by which we are going to pursue. Anthes: Staff, you acknowledged that the findings had some errors in them, does that matter going forward for the record here? Pate: I have already marked that out so in the files it will show multi -family use. Anthes: The only other thing I would like to say is that this project brings up our fee in lieu structure once again. Ms. Davison is correct when she is talking about what this $1,200 pays for downtown. $1,200 pays for a surface parking space if you already own the property. It certainly doesn't pay for structured parking. Going forward, if we have projects that are going to require contributions to a parking facility downtown that is structured parking, we may want to examine our fee in lieu structure to make something feasible so that the city can provide those services. On this project, I don't have a problem with it at all. In fact, I would like to move for approval of CUP 05-1493 with conditions as stated but striking the line that says "or pay fees in lieu at the cost of $1,200 per space in compliance with city ordinances prior to building permit." Originally, I thought that it was a good idea to leave it in there. But since it sounds like they want to permit the building and go ahead and build it and wait until Certificate of Occupancy to work out the parking agreement, it is probably better to strike that now. Clark: I will second. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 24 Allen: I have a couple of questions before we get into a vote. I have not been on top of that bank but I was told that there was a green space up there when they first built it. Kohler: We hired the original architects who designed this project. I guess I can speak for him in the original design. That is a concrete terrace. Allen: Then I wondered if you could point to me the six units where they are located. Kohler: There are two story units and they go two stories across the top of the building. They have varying amounts of frontage on the building. Allen: Then I wondered from staff is there any kind of city ordinances that deal with height of buildings? It seems out of scale with the remainder of the square. Pate: We do have city ordinances regarding height. I don't think C-3 or C-4 districts have a particular requirement. There are no height requirements in the C-3 and C-4 district at this time. I know that the discussions for the Mountain Inn have centered on a potential 14 stories there for an increased height. Initially, our downtown district, the most intense district in the downtown master plan, currently our draft ordinances are discussing a much higher type of density and intensity and building height would be one of those availabilities in the downtown area. That is something that the downtown master plan encourages as well. Allen: I understand that it does and that probably would look better at that time. As it is now I think the height of the hotel in it's location is significantly different than right around the four sides of the square. This just seemed out of balance but maybe it won't after we have implemented the downtown master plan. That is just a comment that I felt it seemed out of balance. Ostner: I also have a question. I'm sorry Ms. Davison left because I do want to understand a little bit better where the money in lieu goes and how that is managed from staff if you wouldn't mind. Pate: As the ordinance stated, it goes directly into an interest bearing account that the city maintains, specifically, some sort of escrow account. It is like our tree mitigation fees go into a specific escrow account. Our parkland dedication fees go into a specific escrow account and are utilized. For parking they are utilized in the district in which it is taken. In this downtown district there is a pot of money that is taken. To my knowledge we have only seen three or four projects that we have utilized that. The most recent one is Bordino's on Dickson Street. I believe that was Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 25 Ostner: Clark: Ostner: something in the neighborhood of $47,000 collected for that particular development for parking. I am not aware of many others that we have actually utilized that option. It is relatively new. I can find out though how and when fees were established. It does go back into that district within ten years. If it is not utilized within ten years for a public parking facility it goes back to the City Council to return potentially to the owner who originally paid the money. Thank you. That is a good explanation. I would also like to agree with Commissioner Anthes that our ordinance seems to be a little bit behind the times if you will. $1,200 per space is just about the price of concrete covering the space assuming the land is free and of course, that does nothing to even come close to the price of a parking deck per space. I would just like to encourage the Council to possibly consider that for the promotion of the downtown so these monies can be used better. I commend the applicant for the shared parking agreement. What is right and what is easy is sometimes two different things. It would be easy to pay $1,200, that is relatively cheap. To me, the shared parking agreement is the right thing to do. I have gotten calls from a couple of people who have heard about this proposal and their question to me was where are these folks going to park because parking on the square is already at a premium. I was fully prepared tonight to talk about that issue but Commissioner Anthes steered the course exactly the way I think it should be done. I think shared parking in the parking deck is commendable, I think it is the right thing to do and I think it is the reason that I will vote for this proposal. Were we going to do fees in lieu I would have had to say no because $1,200 is ridiculously cheap. I don't think if you collect $1,200 per space you are going to have money to build a parking deck in 10 years so we are going to have more parking on the square where there isn't sufficient parking now and never have a deck built. I agree with Commissioner Ostner that possibly the Council does need to look at some of our fees and make it in the developer's best financial interest to go ahead and provide that parking instead of paying the fees in lieu. Having said that, I am prepared to vote for this. Is there further comment? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1493 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 26 CPL 05-1536: (MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAT): Submitted by Lamberth-Carlton Investments, LLC. The request is to review a conceptual plat for a Residential Planned Zoning District containing 55 townhouses and 204 single family homes on 126.69 acres located SOUTH of HWY 16 E OFF OF DEADHORSE MOUNTAIN ROAD near the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course and Subdivision. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is a Concept Plat, CPL 05-1536 for Mountain Development. Pate: This request by the applicant is for the Planning Commission to review and provide comment for a potential R-PZD containing 55 town homes and 204 single family homes on almost 127 acres. The property is located south of Hwy. 16 off of Dead Horse Mountain Road. It is east of the property that was recently annexed and rezoned, a portion of which is RSF-4. This is a Concept Plat and the purpose of a Concept Plat is to allow interested parties, the applicant primarily, an opportunity to have the Planning Commission review and comment on a proposal. There is no recommendation, there is no formal action that is required to be taken for this potential project. It is merely for comment purposes only, information purposes only. Just as a little bit of property description, the property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. It is within the city limits and contains 127 acres, south of the Stone Mountain Golf Course and subdivision. The site does contain a high amount of canopy and does contain a significant amount of topography change for a view of the downtown area for much of the property. Properties adjacent are primarily undeveloped wooded and pasture areas or single family homes with agricultural uses. As I mentioned, to the north is the Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. The PZD plans are to consist of relatively large lots. I believe the smallest would be 110' wide by 150' deep resulting in a density of less than two units per acre. Interior side setbacks are proposed to be 15' thereby decreasing the amount of actual disturbed area on the hillside. This is proposed in order to preserve more tree canopy as well. There is a 55 town home site area that the developer has proposed for smaller lots there at the intersection of their proposed drive and Dead Horse Mountain Road. Based on a preliminary review, staff will most likely be recommending improvements to Dead Horse Mountain Road both north and south of the property to alleviate traffic concerns. Additionally, staff may recommend an assessment for other improvements as well based upon the rough proportionality tests of what is developed in this area. There has been some concern with Huntsville Road as well as the Dead Horse Mountain Road bridge, which this does fall within that assessment area which will be assessed at the time of development. As you can see in your staff report, which has been provided to the applicant for their information, there are water lines available. There is potential for a new water tank or another water source to be constructed to provide adequate water pressure in this area and the applicant has been speaking to Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 27 city staff in order to determine the best location and method to provide that. Sewer is not currently available although it is adjacent to the north and will likely be adjacent to the west in the coming months with the development of that property. There are other identified issues that staff has put together for this particular project including street connectivity that will be further evaluated. A potential for development standards that we don't have residential design standards for single family homes. We do look at PZDs which strive to develop at least an architectural standard to which a developer or builder would then meet at the time of that development. Other than that, the developer probably has a presentation and would welcome any comments from the Planning Commission. There does not need to be any formal recommendation at this time. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with 112 Engineering. I'm representing Mr. Clay Carlton and Mr. Mike Lambert who are the developers on this property. Jeremy kind of summed it up pretty well. We had been in discussion with the Water and Sewer Department and Engineering on alleviating some of the water pressure issues because of the height of the hilltop. We also understand the sensitivity of the site with the development of the hillside development ordinance and that was part of the reason why we wanted to bring it to you all so we could get your input prior to spending a lot of time and effort in developing plats and plans and doing preliminary drainage studies. That is also the reason that this is being submitted as a PZD because it will allow us to have some design flexibility to be able to have a lesser impact on the hillside, on the street canopy by reducing setbacks or increasing setbacks, street right of ways and street configurations that would not normally be available to us if this was just submitted as a regular RSF-4 subdivision. I can field any questions that you guys might have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue tonight please step forward, give us your comments. Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: Are the town homes attached or detached? Hennelly: They will be detached. Vaught: As you are talking about preserving tree canopy, if they were attached they would take out a big slot. I think that is a better option than attached. Are there going to be covenants to specifically help protect the trees after the lots are built by the individual owners? Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 28 Hennelly: Yes. Vaught: Ok, so you guys will try to encourage as much tree preservation as possible? Hennelly: We will require a 30' buffer in between homes. Vaught: Even inside the envelope, they are not going to build a house to fill the whole area, they could possibly come clean out the whole envelope. Hennelly: We will have restrictive covenants. Beside the setbacks we will have 30' between homes in that area. Vaught: I guess one of my only concerns is street improvements, Jeremy mentioned it, I am assuming that there is a stub out to the north here to Stonebridge Phase III. Hennelly: That does go to Stonebridge Phase II and III. I believe that stub out street name is Pumpkin Ridge. It actually stub outs onto an easement that was left when all of this property was split up from the Dash/Goff Farm. That was the intent of that parcel of property and that was the intent for that parcel of property was to link it to this hilltop. Vaught: Also, improvements to the road, neither of the roads, except through Stonebridge Phase I lead to Hwy. 16 are we in good shape. I know that we have the rough proportionality test on off site improvements and that is one thing that I know I will look at because with the development next to it that we annexed and rezoned, I definitely want to see some way to try to improve this all the way going out here. Some of them don't actually touch the site but I think it needs to be accomplished. I know one of them is Dead Horse Mountain Road and I forgot what this one further east that goes around Stonebridge, I don't recall the name. Hennelly: I believe it is Goff Farm Road that runs east/west and then it turns into Roberts Road when it turns back to the north. Vaught: Those are the big concerns of mine. Depending on those things, I can definitely give you my opinion on the smaller lot sections. Clark: I like the lower density for this very sensitive area. It is a beautiful mountain top and I am glad you are not trying to put millions of houses on one square acre as it is so tempting to do. The road improvements, as Mr. Vaught pointed out, are about to blow up. We have sat through piece meal development in this area almost every week and we develop it a little at a time. We have got some critical junctures now out there that have just Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 29 been overlooked and ignored and somebody is going to end up holding that bag. I don't know if it is going to be you all or not but somebody has to. Those roads still need improvement. That doesn't even start the issue of Huntsville. I know that is not your concern directly but all of this traffic is going to empty out onto Huntsville and that is already at the blow up stage as far as I'm concerned because I have to travel that road everyday. I would anticipate lots of comments about traffic, lots of comments about even though your density is low, the impact of traffic. The other thing is when I looked at the conceptual plan, there are lots of big, straight cul-de-sacs, which kind of concerned me but I think Commissioner Anthes is going to address that a little bit more. It just looks like connectivity may be an issue but I am not prepared to really speak on that until I see the whole plan but that is something that I am going to look for. Hennelly: We are somewhat limited. In an attempt to minimize the impact to the hillside we were wanting to try to keep the streets as close to the contours of the land as they run as possible, which does make for a uniform layout. That is somewhat limiting in that the overall view. We have discussed with staff the stub outs to adjacent properties and connecting those cul-de- sacs at points where we don't exceed that 500' length that is required by ordinance. There are some constrictions that we are working under in an attempt not to really disrupt the hillside which is the attraction of the development. Clark: This will be a good argument to make when I have all of the information that you have now. Myres: What is the slope generally on this property? Hennelly: Believe it or not it is not as steep as you would think. When we actually got out there and when they first approached us with this I was sure that the majority of the site would be over 15% and ironically, it is not. There are areas that are as flat as 0-5% and 5-10%. There are some areas on that hill that are 15%. The steeper portions, once you get to the top of the mountain where the parkland is being shown, that is the southern edge of that park is a steep bluff and then it flattens out to some areas that have a few year around springs that they are trying to incorporate into the park. The grades are not daunting. Myres: We couldn't get up there obviously. Hennelly: There are roads cut in. Lack: There are contours shown on the plan that we have here, can you tell me what the level of those contours are? What is the increments? Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 30 Hennelly: Lack: Hennelly: Lack: Hennelly: Lack: Hennelly: Lack: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: I believe the contours that you have are 20' increments. Is this plan to a scale? I'm sure it is, what that scale is I'm not sure of. Just in an attempt to try to get a handle on what the slope is to understand that a little better. Of course, when it is a Preliminary Plat it will have the preliminary grading plan with it that will have the city's 2' contours on it so you will get a much better idea on the grades. On the green space that you are designating for the 20' utility easement and park access, is that something that you will plan to build a trail on or just rough space? We have been in discussions with Parks on what level of participation other than land dedication would be required as well as the configuration. Obviously, the intent here is to allow something other than sidewalk traffic to the park as well as incorporate these into the city's master trail system. I can't really tell you right now whether those will be concreted or asphalt or to what level the developer and parks will participate. I think it could make a tremendous amenity for the subdivision overall with the green space and the linking of the green space throughout the neighborhood. That's all that I have. My doctor always told me to ask for pre -approval from the insurance company is to ask for pre -denial so I appreciate you coming forward with this. This looks like a terrific plan. My question for staff is if the smallest lot is 110' wide by 150' deep is that close to the minimum requirements for R-2, since we are going to build out at roughly two units per acre? Yes, a RSF-2 lot would be a minimum lot width of 100' and lot area minimum of 21,780 sq.ft. which is actually a little bit smaller than that, ''A acre essentially but it is 150' verses about 215' in actual depth. I am just trying to get a handle on where this would fit into our current ordinances just so I can understand what I'm talking about. I would like to encourage streets to be narrower on side slopes when you follow contours narrow streets have less cut and fill. That can often be problematic for other city services but I believe it is workable. City services work well in old parts of town that have 20' streets and I would encourage you to consider that. Generally, on side slopes on street Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 31 parking is generally not very workable just as a general rule historically speaking. Hennelly: That was one of the primary concerns why we felt this necessary to bring in as a PZD was to try to use some creativity in the sections that were used on those streets either with one sidewalk or reduced green space to minimize rather than coming in and clearing a 50' right of way on the side of the mountain. It would be nice for the people who inhabit these homes to enjoy the views while the people that are down in the valley can still look at the mountain and still enjoy the mountain and not see just rooftops all over the place and as many trees as possible. Ostner: Thank you. A question for staff. On the layout that you have currently, I know this is conceptual, do you think any of these streets would have to be considered a collector status if you had to guess? Pate: I don't think so. I think most of them fit well within our local or residential street standards. Dead Horse Mountain Road I believe is a minor arterial in that area so it would be a rather Targe street once it is fully built out. The Master Street Plan doesn't really call for any collectors. Obviously, this neighborhood connecting to Stonebridge Meadows subdivision will provide a crucial length there and allow for different means of ways to get places essentially. I would mention that there is also the option to head south from here to get to a controlled traffic signal. Not everyone living there would not go and try to make a left off of Stonebridge Meadows. You can have a controlled signal and if you head out towards Black Oak Mountain Road I believe the industrial park is another option. We will be looking at all of that when we do our traffic generation numbers and assuming that some of the traffic will go in that direction as well. It may take a little while for people to realize that that is there but it is something that is more common as the south part of town develops. Ostner: Thank you. Also, on the street section on these hills, I've often thought that a one sided curb on the up slope and ditch on the down slope might even make good sense. That is what they built a long time ago before we engineered to the extent that we do today. I would like to present that as an option. I am not sure if that is the look that you are looking for but it is a great deal less backfill and it is a different system I understand but as an option I think that could work. I would agree, that if the sidewalk could be minimized and kept to one side it minimizes the impact of the hillside. Hennelly: We would certainly entertain any conversation that we could have with Engineering and staff to be able to propose something alternative rather than what is on the books right now to be able to accomplish that. I am glad that Jeremy brought up that traffic issue. This is located much further Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 32 south on Dead Horse Mountain Road than some of the other developments that have come through. Ostner: My last comment is two of the things we have talked about, the envelope, I believe Mr. Vaught brought that up of not allowing trees to be cut down outside of this envelope, sort of a preserved setback. That and the narrow streets are two of the ideas that the hillside taskforce is considering as a way to minimize the impact of development on hillsides in this town. I understand that taskforce has not presented an ordinance and there is no ordinance but I appreciate your efforts to work in that direction. Clark: If I were to ask you how you conceive this whole PZD to look, what type of houses, what construction materials, could you give me a sketchy idea right now? Hennelly: Tim Cooper is working with us on this layout and we are hoping that he is going to join us with some of the development, especially the town homes and then also in the architectural control committee. We are also hoping that he will buy some lots himself and build on them. Cooper: What we are going to try to do is we know there are going to be some traditional builders out there as well but we are going to try to have the covenants to where we restricted a lot of things that make it just the same old subdivision that you are used to seeing. I think that these building envelopes that we are trying to create on the sides will make a big difference, just that alone. I would also like to point out that this is very pedestrian friendly as far as the trails go. There is some talk about the trails and connectivity to the trail and trail system up on top of the mountain. It is a great opportunity I think. Anthes: Obviously, when we look at a development on a hillside, the first thing we look at is the natural features. I do appreciate that you are lining these streets out with the contours and that we are having this conversation. From the area photograph, and we weren't out there, but it looks like there might be a wash that starts at the hilltop and goes toward the northwest, is that what I'm seeing here or is that some other feature? Hennelly: Actually, you are looking at an old road. Dash Goff is the one who owns this property right now. He has had one of the tenants down there have been taking some of the larger boulders for landscaping and that type of thing and they have custom roads to access the hayfields on top and that type of thing. What you are seeing there that kind of runs in a northwesterly direction is, in fact, an old logging road. Anthes: Is it very steep? Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 33 Hennelly: It depends on which way you go. There are some of them that are easy to get up and they cut back and forth across the contours. Then there is one or two that they have got in that just go straight up. I'm not exactly sure why they cut those in because they are a lot more difficult to get up and down but it is possible to make it up to the hilltop. Anthes: A question about the parkland at the top. Is that considered as a parkland dedication for a city park? Hennelly: Yes Ma'am. Anthes: I guess my comment with that is about the way that the site is currently configured. The park is internal to the backyards of the surrounding houses. If that is a parkland dedication for public use, then to me it would be a lot better to think about that park as not having just a little gate that you can get through and then have it be enjoyed but that it would be available to the City of Fayetteville residents. In order to do that you know, I would ask you to think about a better configuration where the lots face the park, the fronts of the lots. If you need an alley behind it so you don't have a lot of driveways, that is another thing. I heard you say something about a bluff and I haven't been up there and don't know how that lays out but I would hate to see us accept parkland for city uses that is actually contained within the backyards of a lot of people's home. I also think that lots will face that park and then look over and see the downtown beyond would be premium lots that you could sell for a lot of money even if they were slightly smaller. That would be one comment I had. That kind of goes with the trail access. I don't know whether your covenants are going to allow backyard board fences or not or whatever. Right now, the way that park access is, is basically a tunnel that if it builds out like a regular subdivision in town will have board fences on either side and it will just be this narrow strip through and then it might not be accomplishing what you want to do for a city trail. If you don't have fences it could work. If you do have fences maybe you could consider shifting that and having a wider planting strip or setback along a street that would be a trail connection. The issue of frontages was a thing for me when I was looking through the lots for development here particularly around the park and then looking down on the lower part where you are talking about the higher density development. The way the loop is currently configured pretty much ignores or puts back yards to the existing street it looks like is there. Like I said, I am kind of hampered because of what we see but there is an existing road there and also, there is this lovely greenbelt that you are building on this buffer to the north. I guess I would just like you to keep in mind the idea of frontages and the fact that we have sort of a strange Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 34 condition where that road meets and has a little lump where the property ownership is and there may be a way to think about that road going along the greenway and then having lots also face that existing city street so that this development knits into the future development of the area without being kind of in filled in that pocket. It may also clear up a strange corner intersection condition. As far as connections go, thank you for putting in the stub outs that you have shown. It also looks to me that you might be able to stub out additionally on the road heading from the park south on the far east side of the property just like the one that is kind going through the middle there. If it is an opportunity and works with the topography, it might be something that we would like to see. Hennelly: That also may come into play when the issue of this water tank is resolved. There may be some discussion between Mike and Clay and the adjacent property owner to either put it mutually on property from both parcels or just on one parcel or just the other and we would need to be able to access that as well so that may provide another opportunity. Your point about the park and it's interior to the subdivision is well taken and you are not the first one to bring that up. I think that is a problem that may be inherent to a lot of developments in that these guys are paying what now days is premium dollars for land and they dedicate it to the city and work with Parks staff to dedicate a very usable piece of property to Parks and it is much nicer to be able to have that front a street. These guys after dedicating this land then have to build the street where they only get a return on half of it. I understand that your concern is for the benefit of the citizens but I don't know if there are configurations or solutions that could serve everybody's interest. Whether or not there is a tremendous amount of parks money that is being dedicated at almost every one of those meetings. Whether or not a configuration could be designed into the subdivision that Parks would build a stub out into it and all the grading would be done or some type of agreement could be reached where everybody benefits from it and it is not all on the developer. I understand that that is not the most popular opinion but it would make for a lot more open discussion in giving up some really good property to dedicate to the city parks. Anthes: It looks to me like you could do it and dedicate the exact same amount of land. The issue you are talking about is the road construction differential between those two. Hennelly: That is exactly right. They would only gain lots from one side of the street and of course, that is their bottom line. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 35 Cooper: There were some other options that we looked at on that and I think that it is almost impossible to go all the way around the park but I think there is definitely an opportunity to possibly go along the bottom of the park and maybe accommodate that. Anthes: Obviously, that was the first thing I noticed when I looked at this. Then reading through the staff report, I realized that you guys were stating that your concept for the property was sort of like Mt. Sequoyah. If you drive Mt. Sequoyah very often, like a lot of us do, or you go up there to go to the cross or whatever you do, what is so incredibly wonderful about it is there is actually green space. Because it is owned by the Methodist Church, the road that circles that perceived open space is enjoyed by everyone, --by all of the visitors and then there is access and views off of that. If there is any way we can accomplish that with the park land and views on this property, particularly with what you are saying are the views of downtown from here, it would be an incredible park for the City of Fayetteville, for all the residents, as well as the people who live up here. I appreciate you staggering the lots too so you could protect the views for everyone. Hennelly: Tim's guys did this conceptual layout on here and they did a great job of staggering those lot lines so you are not seeing rows of roofs up the hill. Anthes: I guess to summarize that lengthy list of suggestions: My three questions were basically addressing frontages on both the green spaces you are creating, the park and existing city streets. The possibility for as many future connections as possible and the feasibility of a parkland dedication that would feel like it is open to all of the citizens of Fayetteville rather than the ones private to this development. Hennelly: One thing I would like to clarify, I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you said or if you are looking at the drawing differently, on the south side or the bottom of that high density area, I don't know if those were the lots that you are referring to backing up to a street when in fact, that is just a private driveway that runs to a residence in this notched out area. They are in fact, backing up to Dead Horse Mountain Road on the west side. I just wanted to clarify that that is not a street that we are backing those up to. Anthes: On the aerial that we see, it did look like a street. On the ones facing Dead Horse Mountain Road it may be good to not do that. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other comments before they leave? At this point we are going to take a five minute break. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 36 ANX 05-1488: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 6102/6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 05-1489: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 6102 AND 6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 17.64 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 05-1488 for Collins/Kinghorn submitted by Michelle Harrington for property located at 6102 and 6100 Lake Sequoyah Drive. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: Yes Sir. This subject property contains four parcels consisting of approximately 17.33 acres. The property is owned by the Collins and the Kinghorns. The property is located west of Lake Sequoyah and north of Lake Sequoyah Drive. It is north of Huntsville Road. This property is adjacent to city property to the north. This property to the north and the surrounding property that encompasses Lake Sequoyah was annexed in the 1960's as a primary water source. With regard to this application, the applicant is requesting annexation of this 17.33 acres into the City of Fayetteville. At this time we have received no public comment. With this annexation request and rezoning request as well as any that we receive, we have a zoning review team which tours these sites and evaluates these applications. This consists of Planning staff, Engineering, Fire and Police. With each of these applications we get reports from each of these divisions. I would like to go through some of those comments. They are very applicable because with the annexation policy guidelines that we have, there are twenty and several of which refer to whether or not public utilities will be adequate to serve these new areas, the abilities for the City of Fayetteville to provide for them and the timing of extending new services. Currently this site has access to Lake Sequoyah Drive. With development, improvements will be required to this and adjacent rights of way including our typical street improvements. Water is available adjacent to this site. However, there are concerns with regard to water pressure and the Engineering Division has requested that a study of water supply be conducted prior to development. With regard to sewer, there is no access to sewer at this time. The nearest sewer line is approximately 1,000 feet from this property and it is also suggested that a capacity analysis of downstream sewer lines as well as an analysis of the lift station downstream be conducted prior to development of this property. This property is not the furthest east of the city limits. It is quite a bit east to the city limits adjacent to the Lake Sequoyah and at this time city services Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 37 do provide emergency service and such to properties further east. However, the Fire Department has stated that there is a projected 12 minute response time to this property, which is 5.5 miles away from Fire Station #5. A new fire station, Fire Station #3, is proposed at the Tyson complex with a projected response time of approximately eight minutes. However, at this time there is no date of completion anticipated for this proposed fire station. The police have analyzed this request and have stated that this annexation itself will not substantially alter population density nor result in an undesirable increase on their load for services. One of the other policy guidelines which we review is whether or not this annexation will create an island or peninsula. This request will not create a peninsula It will be adjacent to a peninsula that was created in the 1960's thereby perhaps potentially mitigating the existing peninsula situation. However, we have found that the legal description that they have submitted will create an island of property adjacent to Lake Sequoyah and at this time staff has researched owner information for the property with inconclusive results and we have contacted the applicant to make them aware of this and I believe at this time they are trying to resolve the situation of who owns the property. At this time if this annexation is approved the property will be rezoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The property owners have requested a rezoning at this time to RSF-4 and I will go over those findings and that staff report in just a moment. At this time I would like to state that based on the findings that we have made, that we are required to make for annexation, and the information that has been provided to us by the applicant, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request for annexation. This recommendation is based on the review for the city's annexation policies and the availability of services to this property. With regard to the rezoning, should the annexation be approved, the property would be zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The applicant is requesting that this property be rezoned to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The anticipated development on this property as indicated by the applicant will not exceed 56 residential lots for a total density of 3.17 units per acre. Staff finds that a majority of the property adjacent to this subject property is located within the Planning Area and contains large tracts of land developed for single family and agricultural uses. Staff finds that the development of this property for residential uses is compatible and appropriate with the land use plan however, development of four units per acre is not compatible with the surrounding properties. Nor do we find that there is adequate infrastructure, utilities and such to service a development of that density. Additionally, we have included the findings from Engineering, Fire and Police as we have on the annexation. With regard to differences, Police reviewed this slightly different than the annexation request because they are doing so based on population. Annexation with a zoning of R -A is considerably different than with density to RSF-4. They have stated that it is their opinion that the Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 38 Ostner: Harrington: rezoning will substantially alter the population density and will possibly create an undesirable increase on police services. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the requested rezoning to RSF-4 based on the findings herein. Staff would encourage the evaluation of an alternate zoning district or designation that is more compatible with the surrounding properties. Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. I'm Mickey Harrington. I'm here representing the Collins. Mr. and Mrs. Collins are here with us and Mr. Steve Brannon, the engineer on the project is also here and may want to address you in addition. First of all, I wanted to say, I don't know how you can do this, maybe by just helping us with your comments, but it is very important to the Collins to understand the zoning along with the annexation. They don't feel that they are ready and able to annex if they are not able to rezone in this manner. I am sure that others have asked for this before and so I would encourage you to make your comments on both of these topics if you are negative on the one but positive on the other so we can make a decision about that in the process. I always appreciate the hard work of your excellent staff but I do have a few things I want to factually correct if I may. Water is at this site. There is a water line through this property so it is already present. The island that they refer to is I think an odd use of the word "island". As they told me on Thursday, and I have been researching with the title company ever since, if you look at the map, this one is the closest one to be able to tell what I am going to describe to you. The history of this land before the Collins owned it was with a family named Roberts from about the 1890's forward. The land was always described as the boundary going to the center of the river. The river is of course, now Lake Sequoyah. When Lake Sequoyah was filled up and the city annexed that land the city drew a boundary and annexed up to a point and that line sort of runs down the right side of this page. The little gray area between the dark line and light line with the solid gray and little corners on it is the "island" that they are referring to. It is not really an island of separate ownership of land, it is actually a gap in the legal description that must have occurred when the city annexed this land. At a point there the Roberts who owned this land prior to the Collins, started conveying this land down to their family after the annexation of the city land and Lake Sequoyah fill up to the edge of their street, which is a little county road along the lake there. Their property line description runs to the dark gray and then the city's line is this hard dark line and the gap in between that is sort of a piece of no man's land. The title company is still researching. They have several questions, which Kit might find interesting, it is not clear that the Roberts family ever deeded the Lake Sequoyah land to the city, I'm not sure what that means. I think that we will probably find when they are done with Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 39 their research, and they have had this for three days, that this little strip of land was probably owned by one of the Roberts family before and at the time of annexation and that something didn't get squared up with that boundary. I would propose that regardless of what happens here tonight the city and the Collins, we will find out the answer from the title company. It may be that the city should just acquire the rest of that piece so you have up to the edge of where the Collins have taken title. I think you just have a discrepancy that does occur over time sometimes with how people go to the edge of a road and this happened, I think the city is actually the reason that this discrepancy occurred when the city filled up the lake and the city annexed that land. It is not really an island of separate ownership that I think would affect your policy, I think it is a legal discrepancy that can be cured and will be cured if you give us permission to go forward. The police have been patrolling this land since 1979 and a map I really would like you to watch while we are talking about this is this map in your packet that shows the subject parcel in dark. All the white land north, east, partly south and a very large portion of land going to the east from here is all already in the city limits of Fayetteville. We are aware, you aren't aware yet, but this is going to be happening very soon, that virtually the land from this parcel to the highway and some up around it is all looking to come to you for annexation and rezoning. Some of it doesn't have to be annexed, it is already in the city limits. They are looking at RSF-4 development level. When you drive up to this area you go through this section on Baldwin Lane and Lake Sequoyah Drive, it is all very small lots. There is a little subdivision north of this, it is a county subdivision with very small lots. Deerfield is very near and there is pressure to develop in the area and all of it is going to be RSF-4 coming in because in order to get to an RSF-2 or less type of density you have to end up, as I understand it from the people who do the number crunching and engineering, you have to end up with approximately $400,000 type homes. The Collins hope to put in $200,000 plus type homes and make it very nice and make the entire area an improvement to what is already there. They have already removed chicken houses, which were Mr. Collins' source of income with the thought that this would be something that is now ripe to come into the city. The reason is, as I mentioned a few weeks back when I was here, it has not been that long since the city was holding numerous conversations and there were articles in the paper, and all of these owners out there saw this, that this was land that the City of Fayetteville was going to on it's own bring in all the way out to the lake. We are getting some mixed signals out here in the public. Everybody that lives out there thought that this was slated for annexation by the city and as these are coming in it is becoming very difficult for you all to feel ok about these being annexed this far out. I would submit to you that when you have a city that is over here and all along the way here and a big patch here, that people between that are going to expect that if they are right there by the city almost surrounded by the land that it would be ok to be Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 40 annexed because again, you are going to want to control land around that lake, one of your water sources. You have a little peninsula sticking out to the north, this would fatten that up. It mitigates that peninsula and it just makes sense to go with the type of development that is happening in this area and is going to be increasingly happening in this area which would provide much needed homes of a price range that people can afford out there rather than only $400,000 plus homes which you would almost have to have to get to a lesser density lot. The applicant has already acquired easements to the nearest manhole and so those are in hand. They are aware that you will require studies but they believe that the services in the water and sewer area are going to be sufficient and back to the Police issue, I know I was in here a few weeks ago talking about land not quite this far out, the Police are patrolling the land now. There are all of these residences and all of this white around the lake, there are homes all over the place out here. This is already receiving police patrol. I recognize that there may be political and budgeting reasons for taking the position that they are taking on the load that will be brought upon police services but this is not like a place that police have not been going. They are going there now. They are there all the time. I don't know that police service, in and of itself, is an issue if they are already currently adequately patrolling this area. Deerfield is near and of course, we believe that this subdivision will be a little higher end than that and we are hoping that the removal of the chicken houses of course will be something favorable for the city and that we are able to develop in a manner expressed. 56 is not the maximum density. Two of the homes would be the existing homes so really it would be 54 more units than presently. The fire response is the same thing you hear regularly. It is a little long but you are planning a new fire station out that direction. It will take it from 12 minutes to 8 minutes. People who buy homes out there are going to be aware that they are a little far out and time is going to take care of that in fairly short order we believe so we don't believe that the fire service alone is enough to cause it to be a problem to bring this property in. We did note that this is appropriate and compatible development with the future land use plan to bring this in and I tell you, if I'm looking at this map and I see all of these city limits, it doesn't make any sense to me why you would take a parcel that is nearly surrounded by city and say sorry, you can't come in because we don't have the services, even though we are taking care of this whole piece of land all around you and further east and further north than where you are. I've been a little confused at the reluctance in support for the project. Especially since we know that there are a lot of folks watching this project and they are looking at the entire area for doing the same kind of development. Basically, what I think has happened is a lot of these folks that are living out there have been next to the city limits for years. As time has gone on the city's discussions have gone on, these people are now thinking it is time to go ahead and get into the city along with the land all around them and join the city and do a similar kind of Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 41 development that is sort of below, beside and above them already and that there is a big pressure on the need for these kind of homes out in that area. We are hoping that you will support both of these projects and help us find a way to make this work. We believe that the services can be made to work with what this project proposes. With that, I would like to see if Mr. Collins would like to make a few comments. Collins: My name is Joe Collins, this is my wife Frances. We have come requesting that you consider this annexation. As you can tell, I'm not the youngest person here. We purchased the land, we moved out there in 1979 and have had use of this land since 1980 and actually purchased it from the Roberts Family and the Johnson Family in 1990 with the hope that we could develop it at some point to add to our retirement. We are at that point that we want to retire. I appreciate the work that these people do on your staff. I think they are wrong. The area, as far as the number of houses per acre, if you look at the immediate area on Baldwin Avenue and on Deerfield on Hwy. 16 and Mally Wagnon Road, if you look at those areas, our subdivision is similar to that. We want a nice area there. We want to have 85% brick we would like to have architectural shingles, we would like to have an 8/12 pitch minimum on the roof, we want a nice area. There was something said about water pressure. I did have two poultry houses there and we have at least 100 psi of pressure on that main line and I do want to emphasize that the city run a new 6" line on the southeast portion of this subject land. I hope that you will find in favor. If you feel that the requested number of houses per acre, you can't do that, I don't want you to annex me into the city. We will have to do something to recover our loss in income and I can't do that if you put me in the city. Thank you. Harrington: I quickly wanted to clear up a statement about that road with the gap in the legal is, apparently the county thinks that is a city road and the city apparently thinks that is a county road. The road itself is a little bit in question. Also, when it comes to the access of this parcel off of Hwy. 16, it is likely, and it is all subject to your approval of course going forward, that as these landowners to the south between the highway and this parcel come to you for development permission, if that is approved, that there would be a new road that would connect all the way to this without having to use Lake Sequoyah Drive through that subdivision right there. I think that you may be seeing the beginning of a little bit of a pop out in this area if you are willing and if you are able to allow this to go forward that you will have access develop as part of that entire property. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Harrington. Collins: Concerning the Lake Sequoyah spur road, that would be the road to the east of our property, the city did in fact, blacktop that road and they keep it Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 42 up. Their trucks come out and patch it as it is required and so the city does maintain that road. Brannon: I'm Steve Brannon, the engineer on this project. Everybody has been talking about Mr. Collins tonight but there is also another owner there, Mr. Kinghorn. Although I represent Mr. Collins I think you need to be aware of the fact that Mr. Kinghorn was very anxious to be annexed into the city. He contacted me and wanted to be a part of it. There have been other land owners around who have contacted me and we have plans to approach you in the near future also. One thing that I noticed hasn't been mentioned is that the city is currently picking up garbage along that road. That is another city service that is being provided. I see no public outcry against this. Everyone out there seems to be in favor of it that I spoke with and I visited several homes along that road. Thank you. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Stroden: My name is Charlie Stroden and I live behind where this development is going to be. The thing that I'm concerned about, when I bought that about 18 years ago, the reasons that I bought it was it was outside of the city limits and it had good water. Those were the two main things. The chicken houses that Joe had there didn't bother my water at all. I'm on an underground spring and I was talking to him about what they are going to do with the sewer. He said if you approve it they are going to pump it to the city and as long as it doesn't mess my well up I'm fine with that. I would like to know is how soon do you think you are going to have before you annex all of this? I will be moving. I don't want to be inside the city. Another thing, that road, of course Joe told me he is going to fix it, but that road is about wide enough for a log wagon and that's about it. If you turn from Lake Sequoyah to Lake Sequoyah spur you take your life in your own hands. I have seen probably 30 wrecks where the spur comes out to Lake Sequoyah. I've been hit twice and without a miracle of god I wouldn't be here today. A cop ran into me and almost killed me. The first time I got ran off the road there I had to call the police from Joe's house when he lived on the corner before he built his new house. Those are my concerns. Something is going to have to be done with that road. It says 25 but there is not one out of 100 to drive 25. The only way you are going to get people to drive 25 is if a cop moved there and camped out. Those things are going to have to be addressed. I don't go Hwy. 16 in the morning, I know how to go the back way up on Wyman Road and if you plan on being somewhere at 8:00 if you don't leave by 7:00 you are not going to get there just from just a few miles. Those are my concerns and as long as those are taken care of then it is up to you all I guess. Joe said they were going to take care of the sewer and if he is going to have a development then there in front will be taken care of but the rest of that if Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 43 you come back across the bridge if you happen to blink for just a minute you are going to get hit. I don't know how many times I have got out of the way to keep from getting hit. I wish they would've come to talk to me. The Engineer said he spoke to people but he didn't talk to me. Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to speak about ANX 05-1488 or RZN 05-1489? Burnett: I am Ken Burnett, I'm a builder in Springdale and I build in Fayetteville. A couple of years ago, I don't know who put this article in the paper, but I'm sure most of you will remember, they talked to some developers in Fayetteville that do some lots about having some affordable housing. You can't have affordable housing on $70,000 lots. I build houses for a living. If you get a $70,000 lot you are going to have over a $400,000 house. You can't make it work otherwise. You just can't do it. With the price of land these days you can't have '4 acre lots that sell for $45,000, it just won't happen. As you go down Lake Sequoyah Drive, the majority of those houses down through there are probably 1,200 or 1,300 sq.ft. My brother built one of the first ones on lake Sequoyah Drive years ago and it was about 1,200 sq.ft., had a carport and siding. A lot of those houses down that drive are like that I think what he is proposing as far as the aesthetics of a neighborhood when you do a 1,500 sq.ft. house in brick and a two car garage 1,500 sq.ft. for instance, and I don't know what his minimum is, I don't have any idea, but if you have that as a minimum most people are going to build a little bit bigger in the neighborhood than what the minimum is. I was just involved in a development in Springdale on Oaklawn, the minimum was 1,500 sq.ft., the majority of the houses was 1,800 to 2,000 sq.ft. they are nice houses that are on basically the same size lots that he has got proposed on this from what I understand. I think that if you are going to have some affordable housing in Fayetteville you've got to have some affordable lots. They can't be ''4 acre lots to do that. Property is just too expensive. I know some of them say the houses around there are bigger lots, some of them are, some are on four or five acres, but they were put on there 60 and 70 years ago when land could be bought for $30 an acre. You can't find that today. If you want affordable housing in Fayetteville you've got to have affordable lots. The only way you are going to have them is they are going to have to be smaller, it doesn't work any other way. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who are not affiliated with the developer who would like to speak? At this point I will close it to the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. We can talk about both of these issues at once but will vote on them independently. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 44 Vaught: I would like to ask the City Attorney about that strip of property and how we should view that in our consideration. Williams: I think I probably agree with Ms. Harrington on that. It seems to be just an anomaly. I think one way or the other either the city or the current owner will wind up owning that so I think that that should not be the deciding factor. I think one way or the other that is going to be closed up whether the city or the owners take over. A lot of surveys were not done exactly right. I've had to change some surveys on my own parent's land that came down from the early 1900's and not all the surveys are exactly right. We ran into that also when we did the island annexation, there was a problem we had out west where there was a little strip of land that looked like it was county land that kind of jetted in, we weren't absolutely sure then that we totally surrounded this particular island of county land. We run into those problems fairly regularly and I think that just on a common sense basis, I would not recommend to the City Council, you will recommend something to the City Council, but my recommendation to them is that they shouldn't base their decision on that little strip. There are lots of other things to think about. I told you before that when it comes to annexation basically the city has complete discretion. Either you want the land in or you don't want the land in. That is your decision to make but I would not base it on that little strip of land, I believe that can be taken care of. Brannon: I just wanted to point out that the gentleman over here who mentioned a dangerous intersection that in one of my first conversations with Ms. Morgan that was one of the issues that she pointed out and we have already worked out a design that I think will be acceptable. We have spent quite a bit of time talking about it and that is something that we are aware of. Allen: I was going to say that it seems an inevitability that at some point this piece of land will be annexed but based on the information that has been given to us from staff and comments that have been made by the applicant, it seems that maybe this is a little bit premature so I was going to move that we table ANX 05-1488. Ostner: Is there a second to this motion? I believe it fails for lack of a motion. Vaught: From my perspective, I am not opposed to annexation. I think that filling in these islands, this area between here and the city limits is something that has been discussed. It meets our goals. It adds to this peninsula and hopefully reduces it, as well as, it helps control development around one of our primary water sources, which is important to me. I'm not excited about the idea of 10,000 sq.ft. lots with 50 septic tanks. I don't know about a perk or an effluent system although I've heard those are really Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 45 well managed but I don't understand the science of them and they are still yet to be proved long term, which is a possibility in this location if we don't annex it. From my perspective annexation is an easy question. It is rezoning that is a tougher question. Anthes: I'm trying to remember back to when we were talking about a lot of the annexations west of town that were based on a lack of city services. Didn't we wait for a certain number of those to come through, but that was based on sewer capacity? Pate: There were a few annexations north of town that we waited on for a period of about a year and a half I think for a sewer capacity study, as well as response time which was in the neighborhood of seven or eight minutes at that time. Fire Station #7 was not finalized and we did not have an anticipated date for that time period and staff did recommend denial and the Planning Commission voted to deny that recommendation until such time as there could be a better response time and better timing of public services with regard to that annexation. It brings up a very good point because it is something that we utilize some of those recommendations and reviewing our timing of services is one of the components of our annexation policy for these types of development. The applicant mentioned water, I don't disagree that there is a 6" water line but the amount of capacity of water to serve that area is an extreme concern. Mr. O'Neal had some preliminary numbers that suggest that we don't have the water pressure necessary for our typical fire hydrants in that area. These are the types of issues that we would like to do a little more research on in order to come to a final recommendation of approval or denial. I think that timing of service from the fire department is critical. Right now there is a 12 minute response time. Although they do serve this area it is very low density at this time so you probably don't see as many responses in this particular area of the city as the 16 response calls for service that the fire station projects with the full build out of just this 17 acres. The City Council instructed Planning Staff to get together a zoning review team. We look at their recommendations and formulate a recommendation. I agree with the applicant's representative that it does make a better boundary, it starts to fill in some of the gaps that were formed back in the 1960's with that actual boundary and I agree that it likely is inevitable that this property is contained within the city limits. The timing I think is the critical factor with any annexation request and how can we serve the residents at a higher density in this particular area of the city. I would mention, we talk about it almost every annexation request. There was an annexation task force that looked at this area and identified this as a high priority area for annexation sometime in the future. A lot of the reason for that was to be able to plan future facilities, future fire stations to perhaps the police department be able to plan in a more comprehensive manner over time as opposed to piece meal and I think that is why you see some of Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 46 Pate: these recommendations come in as a will or will not be able to support those because it is very piece meal and that is essentially the process we have. The City Council has not adopted a policy, has not made a recommendation with regard to those types of annexation and are not going to vote at any time that I know of. We work with what we have right now which are the established policy guidelines and enough of the findings of facts for us for those guidelines were not together to be able to recommend approval at this time. I guess I can agree with Commissioner Vaught that there is some environmental sensitivity in this area and that would provide pressure but I also agree with staff at this point. Particularly when I think about how we have looked at similar properties north and west of town that we were waiting for information about provision of services. That 12 minute number is really large and now with this information about the water line and some additional things, I find it hard to recommend to City Council at this point. I feel like we haven't done all the work that we need to do in order to whole heartedly make that recommendation. I guess what I would like to know is what is the time frame if we considered tabling this item, what would happen? I'm right now attempting to get a meeting together with our three fire chiefs and police chief and everyone else on the taskforce and trying to get an idea of future recommendations both quantitatively and qualitatively about how we need to proceed forward with this type of request. As Ms. Harrington mentioned, there are several and we are very well aware of them because they come to us every day in this area and we do have concern. If it is something that the Fire Department can qualify, a 12 minute response time is just hard to get around, but they are serving this area already to a certain degree. A higher density is going to result in more response time so maybe they could support a lower density so I think it comes down to getting together with a discussion as well as some information provided by the applicant and working with the City Engineering Division on water pressure capacity. I think the capacity is ultimately the issue in this area. Not far east of here is where all of the water starts heading towards the Elkins area so I think that is a Supervalu's area that we need to determine right now because it determines even if the Fire Department can support an annexation and rezoning, it is going to determine fire flow and capacity to be able to support an area if there is an emergency response call. As many of the public comments responded, there are obviously police out there. I think we can get beyond the island issue. Approximately two weeks ago we determined that this was an issue when our GIS Division returned our legal descriptions and we contacted the applicant and a lot of the information tonight was new to us as well so I think it is a matter of getting to that point, working those issues out in order to get to a recommendation. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 47 Anthes: MOTION: Allen: Anthes: Vaught: O'Neal: Pate: I think Mr. Pate has convinced me that we don't know everything that we need to know in order to make this recommendation. If the applicant has owned the property since the 1970's perhaps you will bear with us a little while until we can get these details worked out so that we can do the job that we need to do in order to make the recommendation. If Commissioner Allen wanted to restate her motion I might be willing to second it. I would like to move that we table ANX 05-1488. I will second the motion. All of these issues sound like density issues, not necessarily annexation issues, Toad on services. My question is if there is a water line across this property, are they using it? There is currently a 6" water line that runs along Lake Sequoyah. I just recently had a fire hydrant test run on either the east or west side of the bridge, but to my knowledge, at that time, I probably did that and someone to the south of there probably did not have water in their shower. Mr. Collins is correct, the pressure is available there. He mentioned it is 100psi, we actually about 170 psi. The problem is the flow rate. The flow rate is only around 660 gallons per minutes and we typically like to see around 1,500 gallons per minute. The typical ISO ratings for insurance, that is what their benchmark is. As the size of the home increases then that flow rate needs to also increase. I don't have those numbers with me but that is what we have to look at from the fire fighting capacity issue. Just to follow up on that too, I agree, density is part of the issue but as the policy guidelines that we are given, timing of services is a critical factor and so we do look at the timing of public services in the annexation. If those public services are there is the city going to have to spend a whole lot of money to help facilitate or allow for growth in this area when there are areas in the city currently that have potential problems for development and rezoning. As Mr. Williams mentioned, it is entirely discretionary by the City Council whether they want this property or not and I think we have to take a look at all of those issues. It is a 40 day process that we have right now from the time of submittal to the time you get here and that just unfortunately, has not been enough time for us to get everything together for us to make that recommendation. If the Planning Commission is comfortable making that recommendation to the City Council by all means, vote in that manor. Staff at this point is not comfortable with that recommendation. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 48 Vaught: Pate: Timing of services, I guess if you annex it but don't rezone it then Fire and Police both would not change their response times at all because you would be dealing with the same density and they are already serving this area. I don't know if there is a joint response agreement on these properties on Lake Sequoyah but I imagine that there would be so the water and sewer become the services that you are concerned about on that? All services. Again, as you increase property into the city and it develops that is property within the city that the city has a responsibility to serve. As Ms. Anthes mentioned, we tabled an item for a year and a half for a seven minute response time. That property is now developing because we have Fire Station #7 on line but it is something that we are going to have to come to grips with as the city continues to grow. I am not sitting here saying that I won't ever support this request because I think there is a point at which hopefully we can come to support this. Again, Planning Staff feels it is a good policy decision to create this type of boundary and to start filling in those gaps and I agree entirely with a lot of the comments made by the public and by the applicant. For us it is a matter of timing and a matter of those 2020 Guiding Policies that we are required by the General Plan to review when we review an annexation. Vaught: We have also annexed a number of properties with eight minute response times. That is kind of where I'm stuck in that respect. To me it is more of a density issue but that is my perspective. I feel comfortable with the annexation, the density is what I do not agree with and I would not support an RSF-4 at this time. After this develops out and there is better access and better facilities to serve this property possibly, but not at this time with the current state. I don't think this project could support running the sewer line this far and doing the improvements necessary to increase the water pressure and all of those issues. To me annexation makes sense, what I'm worried about is it is county property, they are free to do what they want there right now. They have the freedom to withdraw their application as well. In my perspective, it is an environmentally sensitive area and that is why I would annex it but not support the rezoning to that density. Myres: I believe I heard the applicant state that if we did not want to approve the RSF-4 he didn't want to be annexed so I think it is an all or nothing sort of thing. Can you clarify for me if we do not table this, it comes up for a vote, we deny it, they have to go through the entire process again? Pate: Myres: They would have the option to appeal to the City Council. You always have the option to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. If it were denied at Council then what? Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 49 Pate: Unless there was substantial change in the application, potentially more property or something of that nature, then it would take at least one year before they could reapply. Myres: Potentially we are making it easier for them, or making it more possible for them to gain approval if we table it and bring it back at another time after more information is gathered. Pate: That is really up to you. You are going to make that call. You are going to make that recommendation I think but staff might be able to be prepared in discussions with the applicant and discussions with various city services potentially to have another recommendation. Whether that is approval or denial, I can't tell you right now. I think that is the issue that is critical for staff is that we have some issues that we need to sit down and address comprehensively. Graves: I have a few questions. This relates to some of the things that came up with the annexation taskforce, which by the way, met for several months and submitted a report nine months ago that is still sitting out there. That would be nice if we had some kind of action taken on it. The tests that you mentioned on the water pressure, first of all, I have a question about that. Is that a case where it is insufficient for fire hydrants or whatever the standard is for the property out there that is already in the city? O'Neal: That is correct. Graves: So somehow, is all that property out there the part that was annexed back in the 1960's or is that stuff that has been brought in more recently? Pate: The high majority of it was brought in with two annexation requests in the 1960's. There have been small portions, the little R -A portions that created peninsulas were brought in a little bit later. We have a map when we did the island annexation, we had a map created that showed annexation by decade and we can get that together for you. When we looked at that most of this was created by two annexation requests. Graves: When we had a similar situation a couple of years ago or a year and a half ago with the property that we have discussed before, what action did we take at that point in time? It seemed like we let a few of them stack up for a while somehow until some kind of study was completed. Pate: I think in that case, not that that is going to be the case study, but there was one where we identified some issues with response time for the fire department, we identified some capacity for sewage capacity problems. At that point in time we were in the process of contracting with an Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 50 Engineering Firm to do a sewer capacity analysis on that west side of Fayetteville for several of the lift stations, Hamestring Basin, Owl Creek and one other lift station in that area. It really came down to a capacity issue in that area with those lift stations. We identified how many units for instance, were able to be put on line at that time. We are actually right now running another model because of the recent developments out on the west side to determine how much more it can support and timing of services again on that west side. When is the west side treatment facility going to be available and how much time do we have before then. You are right, there were annexations that stacked up until we could get to that recommendation. Most of the applicants that came to staff we told them that we would have to recommend denial as we had in the first case simply because we were lacking information on timing of services. It just wasn't there. That didn't mean that the City Council would not have approved those, because ultimately they make that decision but staff would not have recommended that at the time. Graves: So on those we tabled them at the time? Pate: 1 believe that is correct. Graves: My only concern here with tabling and I'm not necessarily opposed to it because I think that there is a potential that a few more properties in the same area might come forward over the next couple of meetings or so and we might have more of a picture of what might be going on out there than we do right now with just this one property. In that situation we at least had an idea, as hazy as it may have been, that there was a finish line to it. That we had somebody under contract that was figuring out how we were going to remedy the situation. It doesn't seem like we necessarily have that on line right now. Before we knew there was a fire station being built and we knew we had contracted to have the sewer capacity study done. In this situation I don't know that we have anything on line to figure out what we would need to do to increase water pressure out there. I know we have the Tyson Complex situation in the works. I don't necessarily know what we would need to do to increase water pressure out there when we know that these are properties that are out there that it makes sense to bring them in and they are probably going to be coming forward pretty soon. Pate: I think that those discussions are ones that we will have as well because if there is no target date it really doesn't matter what the vote is or what the recommendation is. I think that honestly we can provide you with some more of that information. One piece of the puzzle is the Tyson Complex and we can get together and get a better idea at least of where, from Planning's understanding, there may be dates and things that have been discussed and we haven't gotten to that point, the question needs to be asked from administration, from the City Council, but I think we could sit Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 51 down at least and get an idea and that would help alleviate some of those concerns. With the water pressure issues, we saw a development tonight that has water pressure issues that would potentially be having a water tank or some other source to utilize for development of that property that is already within the city. That property is in the city and can't be served by our current water system. That is a situation of fact in many areas of the city there is not either the capacity or ability to serve some properties without some major infrastructure improvements. This is an area outside the city that we are looking at serving. Even if it develops outside the city within the county we still provide that water service and so it would be an issue regardless of how and when this property develops unless we have some idea of where to go from here. I understand your concern entirely, what is the end gain here about how we can recommend. Maybe there is not one, maybe there is just a point in which we can feel comfortable together with the Police, Wastewater Superintendent, and everyone else involved to make that positive recommendation. Graves: It just seems like everyone agrees that this is a property that needs to be in the city and that it is an environmentally sensitive area with a primary water source out there. If everybody knows that then it seems like we ought to be working towards fixing whatever problems we have discovered out there that might cause us to have to delay things right now. One related question I had, I know when the annexation taskforce was meeting, our City Attorney had told us something to the effect that some services have to be provided immediately, some don't. I guess I wanted to ask about that situation too. Williams: If you have an election you can choose to promise to deliver certain services and then you have to deliver those services. I don't think you actually have to do that. You can look at Goshen. They basically did a very major annexation and I don't think they provide any services. Water is already provided by Fayetteville. They didn't provide sewer, police or fire. Basically, you have to provide what you say you are going to provide within a reasonable period of time. Graves: That is just an election situation and wouldn't necessarily apply to an individual petitioner trying to come into the city? Williams: Except that I think that any person within the city would be entitled to at least the fire, police and trash. We require developers to extend water mains and sewer mains to their property so we would not necessarily extend water mains and sewer mains throughout any area that we would annex. That would be something that we might have a major trunk line going out if that was City Council's decision. I don't think we would be required to do that. Instead, it would be the developers who would be required to tie on to our closest water main and sewer main. Of course, I Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 52 think we provide water service all the way throughout here because it is already in our water supply area. The city is already doing that. Except for outside the city limits we are not required to do fire hydrants because we don't provide fire protection as a right like we would within the city limits. Pate: I just want to clarify one thing. The primary water source for Lake Sequoyah is not the primary drinking water source. It is just a lake that is utilized for recreational purposes only. Trumbo: My question is to ask the applicant, it sounds like we want to table, do you want to pull this item or do you want us to vote on tabling? Collins: I think tabling it would be fine. I would like to make a couple of comments. I believe the gentleman said we have 175 psi there. You are requiring us to put in an 8" waterline which will serve as a reservoir, so that will to some degree, assist that particular area. The other thing is in 1976 we were promised a fire station on Hwy. 16 East and it was built on Hyland Park so we could be past that had that fire station been built. Vaught: We provide water to this site, do I understand that correctly? O'Neal: Yes, we do currently provide water service for domestic use. Vaught: What happens then if it is in the county and they bring a development forward that is pretty dense? We have to provide water to all of those homes or can we say no, we don't have capacity? Do we require improvements? O'Neal: We could require some improvements but it would be for domestic service only, which we can supply in the area. Ostner: Domestic service meaning no fire protection. Harrington: If the applicant withdraws verses you choosing to table him, what is the difference from our perspective, the timing of when we come back? If we withdraw we choose when to come back, if we table, you choose when we come back? Pate: If the Planning Commission tables and it is not a date certain we can work together to bring that back whenever you guys wish to bring it back. If you withdraw you have to go back through the entire process again and I would not recommend that. You would have to start over with the city Planning Division. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 53 Williams: Ostner: Roll Call: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Williams- Ostner: MOTION: Myres: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: The other potential option that you would have is if you wanted to have them vote and then you could appeal. Either they would recommend approval and it would go to the City Council or if they recommend denial you could appeal to the City Council as long as it is tabled you are in this forum. I just wanted to make sure I bring that up. I believe we have a call the question and we are going to vote. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to call the question was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The question was called, that was not a vote on tabling, now we are going to vote on if we are going to table this annexation request. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ANX 05-1488 was approved by a vote of 7-0-2 with Commissioners Ostner and Vaught voting no. The motion carries. Now you need to vote on the rezoning. Yes, that is correct. It is on our docket and it has been advertised, we have to vote on it. I make a motion that we table RZN 05-1489. I will second. Will you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1489 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 54 ANX 05-1490: (DIXIE DEVELOPMENT, 321): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at NE CORNER MT COMFORT AND HUGHMOUNT RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 24.35 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 05-1491: (DIXIE DEVELOPMENT, 321): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at NE CORNER WEST COMFORT AND HUGHMOUNT RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 24.35 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: The next item is ANX 05-1490 for Dixie Development submitted by Steve Clark for property located at the northeast corner of Mt. Comfort and Hughmount Road. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: Yes Sir. This property is located north of Mt. Comfort and actually, east of Mt. Comfort where Mt. Comfort heads north and then turns into Hughmount Road. Mt. Comfort to the south is a minor arterial and to the west of this property is a collector street. This property is located adjacent to city property to the east where it abuts Wildflower Meadows Subdivision, a recently approved Final Plat and subdivision in this area. It is also located adjacent to other subdivisions such as Bridgeport and Clabber Creek. The applicant proposes annexation of 24.35 acres into the City of Fayetteville at this time. It is adjacent to several collector and minor arterial streets. With development of this property we would require assessments for the nearby Clabber Creek bridge as well as study with regard to water and sewer. Fire and Police currently service the many subdivisions that are in this area. It is a very developed part of town on the western side of Fayetteville at four units per acre density approved in that area. There is, however, as you can see on page 11.18 an island which would be created with annexation of this property. Staff finds that the creation of this island would be problematic in this area and would not meet the policy of one of the annexation guiding policies 11.6(a). We do find that annexation and future development of this property would result in an increased amount on water and sewer services, however, these areas are already currently served by water and sewer and there would be no extensions required to serve this development. The annexation does consist of 24.35 acres. Staff recommends at this time the inclusion of the adjacent three acre tract to the east of the property and potentially the adjacent tract to the west along Hughmount Road. Staff finds that this will create a better city boundary. For the reasons mentioned, staff is recommending denial of this annexation request as it would result in an island of unincorporated property and based on the findings within the staff report. The applicant has also submitted a request to rezone the property to RSF-4 at this time. With regard to this, if the approval of the Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 55 preceding annexation is granted property will be zoned R -A and they are requesting this rezoning, if the annexation is not granted, this rezoning may not be voted upon. However, with regard to the density that is requested, it would allow for four units per acre and the applicant is proposing a subdivision with 63 single family lots. Staff finds that the density requested is compatible with adjacent developments in the area and finds that Fire and Police are currently servicing this well developed area just adjacent to this property and that there are the arterial and collector streets which access this property will allow for adequate city services to the property. Therefore, should the annexation be forwarded with a recommendation for approval staff does recommend approval of the requested rezoning.\ Ostner: Thank you. Will the applicant step forward and give us your presentation please? Clark: I'm Steve Clark, Clark Consulting, representing Dixie Development. I think the only issue at hand on this one is the creation of an island. The history on the project was my client found the piece of property. They did ask me to do a feasibility. We did a layout and determined that we could develop the property and make it work. Most of the work that I had been doing at that point in time had been working in Springdale and Bentonville. I honestly was not aware of the fact that you guys had the policy about not creating islands when you annex property. Had we known that, we probably would've looked at it a little differently. Based on the numbers and the land and the location and the contiguity with city property we assumed we could get it annexed and developed and brought into the city. I was sitting in a Planning Commission meeting several months ago and the discussion was out at Stonebridge Meadows and you brought up the issue of creating an island and I said "Uh oh, we have a problem." I went back and we have talked to the owner of the three acre property. We asked her if she was interested in selling. We made her a much more than fair offer, a very generous offer. We spent 60 plus days trying to negotiate with her, trying to contact her, trying to acquire her land to no avail. We tried to get her to agree to annexation and she hasn't said that she was not willing to do but she is very difficult to get a hold of and difficult to make a decision. The long and short of it is we have a piece of property that we would like to develop. The only hold up that I'm aware of is the issue of creating a small island. I would hate to see a three acre island cause us to stop this project. If we are not allowed to annex we would have to look at other options, which would be either a step type system or going to slightly larger lots and going to a septic system. We don't want to do that. I don't like step systems, I don't like septic systems but sometimes that is the only alternative. We would appreciate your comments and recommendation for this one. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 56 Ostner: At this point I am going to open it up to the public for comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please come forward. We have no public so I am going to close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for comments. Anthes: I believe I agree with the applicant when he says that the island is the issue in this case. As we all know, the City Council made a policy that we follow. The policy is very clear that we can't create an island. However, City Council can. No matter how we vote on this issue the City Council is going to see this item and therefore, I will move to deny ANX 05-1490 based on policy knowing that you can now go forward. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Trumbo: To me this property, if you look at the map on page 11.19 it lies right between several water ways here. When I look at this I have to say to myself is it worth letting this property develop right now with a septic system over three acres of an island? I understand that we have a policy of not creating islands. I am not going to vote for your motion because the City Council should know that the development pressure is there and they need to move forward on this taskforce that has already been mentioned tonight. I would rather have an island than 150 septic tanks personally so that is why I am going to vote against this motion. Graves: We know that there is a great deal of developmental pressure out here. Things have been building out rather quickly out here. North on Salem Road we recently had some county developments out there on septic and we have also recently approved Cherry Hills subdivision on septic, which is right near this area. When we have the opportunity to bring something into the city which is contiguous to other city property like this that I think is an environmentally sensitive area near these creeks, I don't believe it is that you weigh one particular factor to consider in the annexation guidelines heavier than you do the others. There are a number of reasons to annex this and there is one reason to not annex it. It seems like this island factor really seems to be the prominent factor that gets looked at all the time to the exclusion of others and for that reason, I'm against the motion as well. Vaught: To me this is a little different than the last one dealing with the island issue. Do you feel like with some more time you could possibly talk with the neighbor about joining your annexation? Clark: We have been talking with her for about five months, I don't think two weeks is going to make a difference. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 57 Vaught: I was going to extend you the same courtesy we gave the other applicants. Would you want to table this and possibly, I think if you had her it would be a pretty easy call. Without her it makes it a difficult question. Clark: I am torn. I really am. If I thought in two weeks it would make a difference or get her on board I would say let's table it in two weeks. However, with the time frame that it takes to do the annexation, even if she agreed, we would be 90 plus days away. We would certainly like to have your support and we think it is appropriate to overlook the island. I don't know if you guys have the authority to overlook the island and base your vote on a recommendation over this island issue. Vaught: Jeremy, if this is denied if they talk to that adjoining property owner and get them to join their annexation request is that substantially different where they could reapply? Pate: Again, it goes back to the applicant does have the opportunity to appeal to the City Council. The vote here tonight is either a recommendation to table which then would provide more time to get back to this committee to then recommend forwarding to the City Council or deny which then the applicant could appeal with this particular request. A new application could come in at a date in the future. Vaught: That would be substantially different enough adding one property? Pate: I would believe so because it would be a different legal description, a different property, a different parcel. We could look at that. The City Council makes that decision so if they deny that is really what would kick in that year requirement. You are just making a recommendation. Vaught: Correct. I'm saying if City Council denied it over this island issue as well if they were able to get that property owner to join them would that be substantially different enough? Pate: I think so because honestly, that is the hang up issue for staff to recommend. We contact Ms. Jones, one of the applicant's representative as well, many months ago and sat down and had a conversation with her about this very request and told her that we would not be able to support this request at this time because of the island policy. This is where we are now. Like Mr. Clark mentioned, we didn't see any progress in that. Vaught: I have one more question for the City Attorney on the guiding policies. I guess they are just policies and one of those would be islands. I know you were probably more involved in writing those guiding policies than any of us were. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 58 Williams: The annexation policy is just part of the 2020 Plan that was adopted two or three years ago. Actually, I think it came out of the Planning Department. It simply is one thing to consider. You are not bound to follow any one of those items that are considerations for the annexation. You look at that as a guide and then you make a decision on a case by case basis on what you think is best. Do you want this land in Fayetteville or not. That is your basic question. You have some guiding principals to look at including response time and everything else including whether or not it is a peninsula or an island. Those are all part of your decision but none of them makes your decision. Your recommendation to the City Council is do you want this land within the City of Fayetteville. Do you think it is in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville to have this land within the city limits or not. Vaught: With that, I think I am going to have to agree with Commissioners Graves and Trumbo on this item. Allen: I think that Commissioner Graves makes some good points about reasons why this land should be annexed. However, in lieu of guidance from the City Council, which I am looking for, I am going to go with the guidance of our staff and will vote to deny. Ostner: As I understand it, this issue of islands is not just a detail. The City Council went through a great deal of effort last summer to forcibly annex islands that had been overlooked or left out or whatever. As I understand it, there could be big problems if a piece of land is annexed with a piece of land in the county adjacent to it. Do we not have future trouble requiring sewer and water and requiring a lot of things through land that is not in the city? Pate: There are always those issues with services. This is a relatively smaller tract than some of the other ones that we have seen. Improvements adjacent to this property, dedication of right of way, for instance, sewer connection, this will remain on septic until it is within the city limits for this particular piece of property even though sewer would be readily available. Those are the kinds of issues that we look at. Mt. Comfort with the development of this property would be improved except for this section, which leaves a gap. It does create situations which are problematic. I believe that was one of the purposes of that guiding principle was to help alleviate some of those issues. Ostner: Part of what we refer to regularly is basically an orderly system of growth outward not let's just do it so they won't put in septic. There are developments all over that could put in septic tomorrow but they are waiting. You know why they are waiting? It is because there is Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 59 tremendous value if they can get annexed, if they can sell police, water, sewer trash and all of those things with that house. There are going to be Cherry Hills and they are going to say we are going to do it anyway but those are few and far between in the big picture. The reason these came to us is because there is a great thing going on, one of the best things, Fayetteville. We shouldn't give it away. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be annexed ever, I'm not saying that this shouldn't be annexed tonight. Without Ms. So and so's piece of property I am against it. I am not against it per say, I'm just against it the way it is happening tonight I don't think is good for the betterment of the city. Clark: You were talking about services and utilities, water is across her property. Ostner: Not just infrastructure though. Police are not allowed to drive outside of the city limits, etc. Clark: There are some issues with police services, although I don't think they can be prohibited from driving across the county. They just can't provide police services in the county. Sewer would be to the west along Sunshine Drive so sewer wouldn't be an issue. We would extend sewer and propose to construct sewer so that she would have sewer accessible so that would be a motivation factor for her to annex into the city and eliminate this island after the fact. We are prepared to do many things to try to make this happen. Clark: This land should come into the city, I wish Cherry Hills would have come into the city. However, I am going to follow staff's recommendation because I do believe not creating islands is a good guiding principal. Having said that, I also think the annexation taskforce report that Commissioner Graves mentioned has been done for nine months and we still have not seen it. Please, we need action on it because of situations like tonight. If the City Council would give us some definitive guidelines then we would know better how to make our votes with confidence I don't have that confidence tonight so I am going to error on the side of caution knowing that you are going to appeal to City Council in two weeks, they are going to make the policy decision whether or not to create an island. I have begged the City Council I am also asking for that report to get a hearing. We haven't even discussed it, the Council hasn't discussed it. It needs to see the light of day and we need to have dialogue about it to get hopeful guidelines in place. I am going to respectively vote to deny knowing that the City Council can and possibly should override it but that is their policy to make. Ostner: I also just want to point out that I don't think that we are doing our job any less because we don't have more direction on annexation or these guiding principals or whatever. Council is stuck with the same set of principals as Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 60 we are. They do have the ability to change those whereas we don't. Otherwise, they do count on us for our opinion. The opinion of what we have in front of us tonight so I would encourage you to go ahead and see this for what it is. As Mr. Williams pointed out, we do have total discretion. The island issue does not have to control your no vote, it could control your no vote because we do have the ability to make that decision tonight. We have a motion to deny and we have a second. Is there further discussion? Will you all the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ANX 05-1490 was approved by a vote of 5-0-4 with Commissioners Vaught, Graves, Trumbo and Lack voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Williams: I would recommend tat you go ahead and consider the rezoning petition. Although, the City Council will not consider a rezoning without approving the annexation but I do think that it would be unfair for the applicant to not have any action taken tonight, I do recommend even though it would be contingent upon the City Council reversing your recommendation I still think you ought to go forward and give the recommendation to City Council with the assumption that it will be annexed. Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1491 for Dixie Development, the same piece of property we were discussing previously. Staff, you wrote a recommendation of approval of this rezoning based on compatibility with this and adjoining properties but I am looking at the land use map on page two and note that north of this property is residential development on large lots in the Planning Area south of this is large lot residential development in the planning area and west of this project is large lot residential development in the planning area. East of this property is RSF-4. I guess I would like you to talk about why when this is bounded on three sides by large lot subdivisions you are saying that rSF-4 is a compatible transition. Pate: A few things have changed. In the very recent future Cherry Hills, which is a 10,000 sq.ft. lot subdivision almost 200 lots have been approved directly northwest of this property. Of course, Wildflower Meadows is to the east. Property from this property all the way east to Rupple Road is developing residential. One of the largest subdivisions in Fayetteville, Bridgeport subdivision and subsequently Fairfield Subdivision, one property removed to the south is developed at single family. That is zoned RSF-4, it is not developed at that density, it is somewhere around 2.6 or 2.8 units per acre. In that regard, staff found that it was compatible with the properties being developed in that district. The property directly south I believe was actually requested to be annexed several years ago. It was already developed. It was not brought forward in its entirety because Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 61 Clark: Clark, S.: Morgan: Clark: of issues with the development and services provided. The applicant at the time was not proposing to bring those services up to city standards and so it was not brought into the city. There are a number of properties that would not be allowed in RSF-4 districts. There is a very large nursery operation in this area. That is going back to the annexation policies and creating islands that is obviously one of the concerns with not having land use controls because that could become a storage unit or other industrial property As of right now we felt generally in the area that properties were developing in a manner that was compatible with the RSF-4 district. While there are existing large lots, we feel that the trend in this area, even in the county, is to develop with that type of density. Mr. Clark, does your developer intend to develop at four units per acre? No, we are intending to put lots in that are 85' wide and 130' in depth and so it works out to about to about 2.6 to 2.8. I believe there is a schematic in the packet of a proposed design. The letter from the applicant stated 63 lots and on this 24.35 acres it is 2.58 units per acre. I asked that question because certainly if I would've had the opportunity to vote against the Cherry Hills Subdivision I would have because it wasn't in the city because of density. We certainly looked at a lot of other things. I think RSF-4 to develop at that density would be still very high for this there is no transitional housing in this area and I am much more likely to support what you are talking about. Clark,S: We don't want to put small lots, very narrow lots, small lots, anything that would develop at a true four units per acre isn't the size of lots that we are looking at. MOTION: Myres: I would like to make a motion that we approve RZN 05-1491 contingent upon City Council annexing. Osmer: We have a motion to forward, is there a second? Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there further comment? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1491 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 62 Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned 8:58 p.m.