Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 13, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ANX 05-1495: BENTON DEVELOPMENT, PP 206 FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 RZN 05-1502: BENTON DEVELOPMENT, PP 206 FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 RZN 05-1449: PAYNE, PP 755 DENIED PAGE 8 ADM 05-1568: BOTANICAL GARDENS, PP 99 APPROVED CONSENT PPL 05-1509: MOUNTAIN RANCH, PP 478 APPROVED PAGE 13 PPL 05-1510: TWIN SPRINGS PHASE II, PP 357 APPROVED PAGE 18 PPL 05-1511: LYNNWOOD ESTATES, PP 294 APPROVED PAGE 23 PPL 05-1432: SASSAFRAS SUBDIVISION, PP 221 APPROVED PAGE 26 PPL 05-1399: DEVONSHIRE GLYN, PP 475 APPROVED PAGE 28 PPL 05-1528: LAUREATE FIELDS, PP 246 APPROVED PAGE 40 CUP 05-1526: CLINTON HOUSE, PP 483 APPROVED PAGE 57 CUP 05-1527: ANDERSON, PP 362 APPROVED PAGE 61 VAC 05-1521: RALSTON, PP 256 FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL CONSENT RZN 05-1523: HARTLERODE, PP 678 FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL PAGE 71 RZN 05-1524: HONDA PRO, PP 367 DENIED PAGE 74 Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Audi Lack Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught Christine Myres Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Andrew Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the June 13, 2005 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Graves being absent. Ostner: The first item would be the approval of minutes from the May 23`d meeting. Anthes: I have some amendments. Ostner: Is there a motion to approve the minutes with the changes? Anthes: So moved. Clark: Second. Ostner: Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 4 Ostner: The first item is the consent agenda. There are two items on that consent agenda tonight. Item four, ADM 05-1568 for the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks and VAC 05-1521 entitled Ralston At this point if anyone in the audience or any of the Commissioners would like any of these items heard or removed from the consent agenda, please come forward. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Anthes: So moved. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 5 Ostner: The first item on our agenda tonight is ANX 05-1495 for Benton Development. Morgan: This request is with regard to a 10.47 acre piece of property owned by the Paynes. It is located north of Salem Meadows and west of Crystal Springs subdivision Phase I. At this time the property is within the Planning Area and currently vacant. The request is for annexation of this property into the Fayetteville city limits. The property is adjacent to the city limits to the east and the south. With regard to streets, the property is accessible by way of two adjacent streets. Water and sewer are also adjacent to the site. With regard to fire response time, it is six minutes from Fire Station #7 and the Police have indicated that the annexation of this property will not substantially alter population and thereby undesirably increase the load on their services. With regard to findings, we find that the annexation of this property will not create an island of unincorporated area nor a peninsula. The applicant has worked with staff considerably to revise their boundary descriptions for annexation to exclude a 20' strip which would create an undesirable boundary of the city limits At this time with the proposed annexation boundary staff does find that it will create acceptable city limits. The property owner to the northwest has indicated that he too is considering annexation into the city which will extend the city limits slightly in that area in the future. Staff is recommending approval of this annexation and associated with the annexation is a rezoning request. Should this property be brought into the city it would be automatically zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and the applicant is requesting an RSF-4 zoning district. Staff finds that that is an appropriate zoning density. The properties to the east and south are zoned RSF-4 and developed in that manner. We find that that is an appropriate and compatible density in that area and we are recommending approval. Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Hern: My name is Kip Hern with H2 Engineering representing Benton Development. Basically, this project is just a continuation of the other residential developments along Salem Road. We will be submitting a RSF-4 subdivision if we get approval here. It will reflect the same type of development as Salem Meadows directly to the south and Crystal Springs which is located to the east of this development across Salem Road. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Hern. At this point I am going to take public comment for ANX 05-1495. We are also discussing RZN 05-1502. We will vote on these independently. Would anyone from the public like to speak to these issues? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 6 Anthes: Staff, we have a six minute response time to the new fire station, Fire Station #7, is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Allen: Pate: Allen: Pate: MOTION: To follow that same question Jeremy, we talked about asking the Fire Department just what is an appropriate amount of time. I know that in six minutes a house can be damage control and I wondered if you had an opportunity to do that since it is applicable to this and the ones we will be talking about later. I was able to ask, unfortunately, I wasn't able to get an answer from Thursday evening when we had the discussion to now for the typical goal of the Fire Department response time. I think I mentioned in our agenda session meeting that it is my belief from what I have read in past minutes that they are looking for somewhere between four and six minutes response time as a goal. I don't think it is reachable in every instance obviously, because we have city limits that were extended in the 1960's that are well beyond that response time. I was not able to solidify that answer. I wonder if instead of finding out a response time if we could find out if the Fire Department feels that the response time is appropriate. As I said, in six minutes we are only being able to control the fire enough to make sure it hasn't spread to other homes rather than save a house. Could that be something that we look at rather than getting the Fire Department to give us their best guess as to how much time it would take to put the fire out with some of the home still standing. Certainly. At the City Council meeting on Wednesday night we will hopefully be able to discuss some of those options with the annexation working session we will have. Honestly, whether this piece of property is developed in the city or the county, the Fire Department does respond out in this area already and without a new fire station that is really going to be the response time that we have to live with for the time being. Clark: Seeing no reason to go against staff's recommendation, I will move that we approve ANX 05-1495. Trumbo: I will second. Osmer: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 7 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1495 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: Our tandem item is the rezoning request for the same piece of property, RZN 05-1502. We have heard the staff report and have heart public comment. Is there discussion? MOTION: Allen: This seems appropriate with the surrounding area so I will move for approval of RZN 05-1502. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1502 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 8 Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1449 for Payne. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This item was first heard back on April 25, 2005 at which time the rezoning request was to go from the current zoning district, R -A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-7, Single family, seven units per acre. The property contains 3.86 acres and is located near the west end of Bailey Drive which is about a '/2 mile dead end street. This property accesses onto S. School north of the airport so it is in the very far south portion of Fayetteville. It is on the edge of the city limits and the Planning Area boundary. The property consists of one large tract owned by the applicant. There are a couple of structures that have been removed. The Planning Commission did tour this site at that time and at with the original request of RSF-7 there was considerable public comment and the Planning Commission voted to table this request allowing for some more time for staff and the applicant to look at a more appropriate zoning district at that time. The applicant has since requested RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre in this location. The property as you will note on the map attached to your staff report on page 3.34 and 3.33, it is entirely surrounded by R -A property or property within the city of Greenland. There is a small portion of property rezoned back in the late 90's or 2000 that is zoned RSF-4 to the southwest. Staff is not supportive of this particular zoning request. The applicant did make contact with the Greenland Mayor to look at potential street improvements. Staff also went and looked at the street once again to make an evaluation. It essentially came down to the timing of the request and the timing of the infrastructure and services that we have out there currently. We have a half mile street, only part of which is within the City of Fayetteville, most of which is in the city of Greenland. There is limited opportunity at the time of development to require substantial improvements. Our off site improvements when we look at a subdivision of land are based on a calculation made by rational nexus or the rough proportion of this development's impact onto the infrastructure of the city. The amount of infrastructure improvements that would be needed off site of this property would likely exceed the improvements that the city could require in order for this property to have safe and adequate access to development, even with the 15 units that are proposed. 15 units would increase the vehicle trips per day by 150 vehicles on this particular street which is smaller than 20' in some sections. The pinch point of the staff report really was the railroad. There is also floodway and floodplain in this area with evidence of flooding and closure in some cases. This would increase the problems for emergency response should that road be closed because if there is an emergency at the end of the street there is no other way in or out without traveling onto adjacent private property. As I mentioned, staff is not recommending approval of this particular rezoning. Those are potentially the reasons, the inadequate infrastructure that does access the street at this Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 9 time. We essentially feel that the timing of the request is not appropriate. In regard to some of the other findings more specifically, RSF-4 is a typical zoning district within the city that we do recommend most of the time. A lot of these areas, as you saw with the annexation and rezoning request before, they are very near to public infrastructure, water and sewer lines and streets too are a chief component of that recommendation. Finding number two, a determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time of the rezoning. That is included in this particular recommendation as well. The additional traffic generated by the rezoning request, as I mentioned, that is approximately 150 vehicle trips per day with a full development of this property with a '/2 mile long dead end street with existing drainage problems, a railroad crossing that is currently not up to any kind of safety standard with regard to the City of Fayetteville, I'm not sure what kind of Greenland standards are with regard to that, we do not feel that this zoning district is appropriate at this time in this location. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Payne: I am Ron Payne with Rain system Homes. We had asked for this rezoning with the intent of building single family energy efficient homes on this property. The area where I would like to build in I suppose most realtors would call starter homes. They are in the neighborhood of $120,000 to $140,000. They seem to be hard to find in Fayetteville as far as new homes go. I'm sure everybody knows what land prices are currently doing. It is very hard to build a home in this price range if you have $40,000 on the lot. The only way we have found that we can buy land at prices that we can afford to sale these homes at is on the outside edges of town, not necessarily outside of the city limits but in areas that maybe are not so sought after for $200,000 or $300,000 homes. In our meeting with the residents in this area one gentleman asked me can't you build one or two large homes and put them on an acre or acre and a half or something like that. Bailey is not a neighborhood of $200,000 or $300,000 homes. Most homes out there are in the 1,500 sq.ft. range. We would probably expect a net amount of 10 to 12 homes at RSF-4. When the amount of street frontage and dedication area there is taken out, there were two residences on the property when we purchased it. Those two are no longer there so I assume there would be a net of 10 new homes on the street. There is only one house between this property and Hwy. 71. Some of the other concerns that the residents raised were with the street, which is a concern of mine too. I met with SWEPCO. They said that they are willing to move their brace pole which creates the most narrow place in the street, which is down near the railroad track. Also, by the survey it indicates that Bailey has a 30' right of way from center of the street to the right of way take line. In talking to the Greenland Mayor who is also the Post Master, he indicates that if we wanted to do it at our expense that he Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 10 would have no objection to us widening Bailey from the railroad up to the Fayetteville city limits, which is about 40' from our property line. We would expect to widen Bailey on our frontage of the property and curb and gutter it of course. The main problem that I understood from the residents was the width of the street. Obviously, on a street that a school bus has to use width can be a major problem. We also talked about drainage and I explained to them that we have an excavator and a bulldozer and we can do quite a few things with that which would be one way that we would widen the street in the Greenland city limits area. However, in asking the residents if there were any other concerns, they came up with a concern that frankly I don't believe there is any way that I could do anything about it. I guess you could say that they indicated that they had concerns about the quality of people who might buy these new homes. I explained to them that they would be new homes and that I wouldn't think that someone would go through all of the trouble and such of buying a new home and not take care of it. They indicated they thought that some of them may turn into rentals and I told them I had no control over that. That is an objection I don't know how to address. That's all that I have. Thank you. Ostner: At this point I am going to open this up to public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this rezoning request please come forward. Gallo: My name is Lee Gallo, I live southeast of the subject property. I urge you to support the staff on this particular issue and certainly the street is our major concern. It is not really adequate to increase our daily trips by 150, I didn't think it would be that high. If you come into contact with a school bus on Bailey Drive you better find a driveway because there is really not room for a school bus, let alone a garbage truck or anything bigger than a Honda on Bailey Drive. We like it, it is a wonderful community, we are all R -A except for one very small part, we like our rural nature and certainly development is inevitable, it will happen, but we would like to try to protect the quality of life we have on Bailey Drive, as modest as it is Thank you very much. Bradley: Gerald Bradley, I do not live there, I am a former resident. My father lives there, he has been there 25 years. We want to commend the city staff again for the recommendation that they have made on this. They hit the nail on the head. There is no need to go over it again, you heard it. There are petitions in there, I think I counted 22 names. I would like everyone who is here to raise your hands whether you are going to speak or not so they will know you were concerned enough to be here. Hatfield: I'm Steve Hatfield, I live at 3707 S. Butterfield Trail. It would just like to endorse the staff recommendations for this project. I do really, really want Fayetteville to have affordable housing but I would like to see it Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 11 more appropriately located within walking distance of the services that people really need so that we don't have to keep relying on our automobiles. That's all I have. Thanks. Ostner: We have a petition in our packets with at least 22 names, it was the petition that you all signed the first time that this came through so I want everyone to be aware that we do have that and we have all of your names Reynolds: I live at 1268 W. Bailey. I would just as soon for this property not to be rezoned. The street, the neighborhood is just a little quite neighborhood and I would just as soon for it to stay like it is. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? I am going to close the public comment portion of this and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Anthes: On the finding about fire response time I noticed that you said the property is located 3.8 miles from fire station #1 and the normal driving time is seven minutes. Commissioner Clark brought to my attention that there is a fire station at the airport, is that considered? Pate: I believe there is fire response at the airport. I'm not sure how that equates into this by the phone message that I left for them. I'm not sure that they actually respond outside of that area though. Williams: There used to be a fire station at the airport. I don't think it is actually an actively maintained fire station at this point in time since it was required for commercial air service that has left the airport. Anthes: Basically, the response here is that it is normally seven minutes but because of the possibility of inadequate infrastructure and drainage, that could be increased depending on the weather conditions, is that what this statement means? Pate: Clark: Correct, weather conditions, closure of the street with train crossings or stops on that area would, of course, not allow any other access going into that area. The way that the response times are calculated are normal driving times. They are not with sirens on, they are actually stopping at intersections, I do believe that they stop at stop signs, it is normal driving time just to get to, just to let everyone be aware of how response times are calculated. The last time we saw this as an RSF-7 request and I opposed it at that time. I'm still not comfortable with RSF-4 as I look at the packet. I don't think it is necessarily compatible with the area, the infrastructure, I have driven that road and it is absolutely horrible. Even though the developer is Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 12 willing to widen Bailey to the west of the train track, that railroad track is pretty rough out there. Plus, it is the Fayetteville and Greenland joint situation. I really don't see anything substantial in this proposal to cause me to change my vote from the last time so I am going to have to agree with staff and vote to deny this application. Trumbo: I appreciate the applicant coming back with some solutions. You mentioned improving the part of the road in Greenland, what about the part of the road in Fayetteville? Payne: We would expect to improve it also. Trumbo: I would agree with Commissioner Clark that there is not the infrastructure there at this time to handle anymore traffic. With that said, I will go ahead and second her motion. Ostner: Was there a motion? MOTION: Clark: Sure. The motion was to deny RZN 05-1449. Ostner: Is there further discussion on this issue? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1449 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The request is denied. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 13 Ostner: Our next item is PPL 05-1509 for Mountain Ranch. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This property is located southeast of the planned Persimmon Street and Rupple Road, both of which are under construction as of today. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 59.88 acres. This is a portion of a larger piece of property that was rezoned last summer to RSF-4 for this Phase I of the Mountain Ranch development, which the Planning Commission also has seen a master planned development for. This particular request is for a residential subdivision with 117 single family lots. It is located south of the Boys and Girls Club which is north of the planned Persimmon, and east of the under construction Fayetteville elementary school, which is to the west of Rupple Road, which is under construction. To the northwest is Rupple Row PZD and Cross Keys PZD, which are also under construction. The property to the east and south is owned by the same developer. He does have a rezoning request in review at this time for approximately 450 acres. This property is Phase I of a large, master planned development. Water and sewer lines are being constructed along Persimmon and Rupple with this development. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Rupple Road, a minor arterial to the west, and Persimmon Street, a collector, which with this development, would tie Rupple Road all the way over to Shiloh to the east. Staff is recommending approval of this particular request of a Preliminary Plat with 21 conditions of approval. Three or four of which I would like to go over this evening. Item number one, Planning Commission determination of Rupple Road street improvements. Staff is recommending that the developer construct a full street section 28' in width including storm drains, curb and gutter, sidewalks and street lights for Rupple Road south of the adjacent Rupple Road school improvements to the southern boundary of this project. As you may remember, one of the conditions of approval for the Rupple Road school was that they construct the entire street section south of the intersection of Persimmon Street to the south of their first entrance into the school. This was to enable full street movement, both sides of the street to be fully functional as opposed to half a street, which would not really do the school, or anyone else any good. This potentially would carry that street section through to the south of this property. The same recommendations that I mentioned for the Rupple Road school was approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional width, I know the city has spoken recently about potentially having a boulevard cross section along Rupple Road. It has been discussed with some of our City Council members, if that does occur, any additional width would be referred to the City Council to cost share to include that boulevard width. Item number two, determination of Persimmon Street improvements, which is north of the property, staff is recommending a cost share to the City Council in order to construct Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 14 Persimmon Street at it's collector width at this time for a portion of that street. The developer will be responsible for the southern lane of Persimmon, which is one lane, and all of the infrastructure south of that street, that includes the curb, gutter, storm drain, and 6' sidewalk and street lights. Staff is recommending to cost share for the center lane of Persimmon. That includes the construction of that center lane. Staff is also recommending a cost share for the northern lane of Persimmon including curb, gutter, storm drains, sidewalk and everything else associated with that infrastructure adjacent to the city property owned by the city on which the Boys and Girls Club currently is located. At the time of Phase I approval Persimmon Street will be constructed as follows: Essentially, this will connect a two lane street and a three lane street, different parts of Rupple Road, all the way from where it dead ends currently. Item three, the developer shall be responsible to pay an assessment in the amount of $4,729.73 for a future traffic signal at Rupple Road and Persimmon Street. A similar assessment was also assessed with the Rupple Road School. I would like to add one condition in addition to the others that we do have currently. That would be the Engineering comments on page 5.5 as conditions of approval for this project. Additionally, item number seven mentions a Property Line Adjustment that has been processed to create this legal tract of property. The specific condition states prior to approval by the Planning Commission that final revisions for the Property Line Adjustment shall be submitted for review and filed with the County. That has occurred with exception of being filed by the County. Evidently the Engineer was about five minutes late this afternoon so they were not able to file that Property Line Adjustment. However, we feel confident that it will be filed in the morning and would ask to have that prior to construction plans being approved for this development. There are a couple of waiver requests in the city street design standards that have some unique situations with regard to the street design. Staff is in support of those waiver requests. We have evaluated their proposals for safety and find that they do conform with safety standards to ensure safe traffic movement and are recommending approval of the requested waivers. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jones: I'm Kurt Jones with Crafton, Tull & Associates and the developer, Tom Terminella is with me. We are here to answer any questions if you have any. Ostner: Thank you. We might get back with you. At this point I will open it up to public comment Would anyone like to speak to PPL 05-1509, Mountain Ranch? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 15 Anthes: Terminella: Anthes: Terminella: Anthes: Terminella: Anthes: Terminella: There is a lot going on good in this plan and I thank you for that. I just have some questions about the lots that are facing Persimmon Road and Rupple Road. It looks as though the rear of those lots are facing those roads and that is something I'm disappointed about. Can you tell me what happens at the backs of lots 33,34, 5, 11 and 12 on Rupple and what happens at the back lot line of lots 79-88 on Persimmon? There are the lots that back up onto major roadways. Is your question directed at access? No. My question is directed at how do those lots contribute, or not contribute, to those prominent streets and what can we expect, as a city, when we are driving down those streets to see? On Persimmon I would expect that you would see some type of contiguous screening, whether it is berming or wild grasses or some type of fence material. I don't see a contiguous board fence one sided running down the road. The project is 1.7 units per acre on an RSF-4 zoning. Our intent is to build a bigger property as far as the size, footprint and price point that currently does not exist on the west side of town. With the price point and subdivision of that nature you will find more of a turn key product at the end of the day. That meaning fences, amenities, pools, landscaping, foliage and things of that nature. Based on the tree mitigation that has been requested, 330 trees for 117 lots, one would imagine that type of aesthetic look. I really don't have anything to compare it to because we have not done it here in Fayetteville before. Is there a grade differential that the berming would make sense? Are you planning berms? The area, which is in the northwest corner of the subdivision, will be a retention basin that will be maintained for the aesthetic features and really an area to gather. It is a multi -function deal. Yes, we are not going to be able to sell a $350,000 home with a clear view to a three lane collector street. The question I guess is there is going to be some type of screening, whether it is berming, ultimately, as you can see on the plan, the hard corners are held out. That far corner to the northwest is held out and my vision would be something aesthetically pleasing. But we don't know what. No, I haven't nailed that down. I can assure you that there is going to be some type of screening because anybody that would be buying that type of property is going to want it for a safety issue more than anything. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 16 Anthes: My question, Mr. Sloan is building larger lots to the west of here, and those lots actually face the street and I think that is nice and a good contribution to our city streets. I am concerned with the fact that a lot of places in the west side of Fayetteville are creating streets with fences on both sides that become tunnels and aren't really part of the community. I was just wondering what you were going to do here. You are doing so much within your subdivision to create community that I wondered how far it would reach out. Terminella: With that being a collector and all of those points of access, I'm sure somebody will be throwing a red flag. You will be pleased with the next phase, there is some density and some vertical development packed in there for you. We will do something that works good with that street. MOTION: Anthes: Those are all of the questions I had. With that, I will move for approval of PPL 05-1509 with all of the conditions as stated as recommended by staff, and with the additional conditions as stated by staff. Vaught: I have one question. On the recommended cost shares, what happens, I assume hopefully City Council will approve, but let's say with all of the stuff going on, they surprise us and don't, will this have to come back to us or what would happen? I doubt that we would want them to construct half of a street on Persimmon. Pate: Correct. That is something that ultimately is going to be a decision of City Council that doesn't have to come back to this level. Our recommendation is to go forward. I think the three lane section, in discussions with Mr. Terminella, is important in this location. It is going to benefit the school, it is going to benefit this development. Having a connection as well to the east to Shiloh is going to benefit everyone involved to be able to get to the interstate as well. While I can't make a decision for City Council, it is our recommendation that these improvements be made at this time and that way we have infrastructure in place for future phases of this development as well. Vaught: I just didn't want it to have to come back. Pate: I can honestly say it would not come back through the entire process. If the City Council wanted to send it straight back to the Planning Commission that is one option. I anticipate that that decision would be made at that level. Vaught: With that, I will second the motion. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 17 Trumbo: Terminella: Clark: Pate: Clark: Terminella: Williams: Anthes: Vaught: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Mr. Terminella, reading the conditions of approval, do you agree with all of those? Yes, I am in agreement with them. There are a few things that will have to be fine tuned and tweaked with some and/ors, etc. but I am confident that I can work that out with staff. They have done a great job up to this point. At Subdivision I know we talked about the park issue and the parkland dedication, has that been solved? No, it is an ongoing discussion. There are 400 plus acres left with this development, we anticipate though that that will be nailed down prior to Final Plat and we will have a better idea of where the overall park will be located. It is nothing that Subdivision was really concerned about, we were just hoping that we could see that here. I have worked with Allison, she is needing some topography. We are looking at a regional park as a land bank, it will be some 20 or 30 acres required for the overall project. What makes sense to me is do something centralized to where the whole world can use it. There are many different opinions about park ground and natural features and aesthetics and things of that nature so this might be a relatively interesting type park with some beautiful natural features. I just want to ask the motioner whether or not your motion included the waiver granting all of the waivers in condition number four? Yes, all of the waivers. Every recommendation as written by staff, t believe that was one. I concur. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1509 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 18 Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1510 entitled Twin Springs Phase II. If we could have the staff report please. Gardner: The subject property is located within the city's Planning Area on Double Springs Road north of Wedington Drive and contains approximately 30.5 acres. The property has street frontage and ingress/egress on Double Springs Road. The undeveloped site has relatively steep topography and is heavily vegetated. The Concurrent Plat for Phase I of Twin Springs was approved in August, 2004 for five single family homes and is currently under construction. The applicant is proposing Phase II of the residential subdivision with 23 single family lots. All surrounding properties to this subject property are within the Planning Area and consist of large lots, single family properties to the north, south and east and undeveloped open space to the west. This property is outside the city limits so many of the city's development regulations cannot be enforced. However, the project is within one mile of the city limits and we can regulate appropriate division of land, lot area, lot width, right of way dedication in conformance with the city's Master Street Plan. On and off site improvements needed to reduce a dangerous traffic condition, grading and drainage, streets, sidewalks, and street lights in compliance with ordinance requirements, septic system approval from the Arkansas Health Department for lots less than 1.5 acres and street connectivity. Water will be extended to the proposed 23 unit development and individual septic systems are proposed on lots ranging from just under one acre to 2.5 acres in size. The applicant bas submitted a letter from the Washington County Public Health Center verifying approval of the soil test locations and suitable soils for septic systems as a preliminary approval with conditions. The applicant proposes dedication of right of way for a total of 30' from the centerline of Double Springs Road. The internal streets are shown with a total of 50' of right of way. The applicant has indicated stub outs for connectivity to the north and to the south of the property. Staff recommends approval of the project with relatively standard conditions of approval. I want to point out condition number two on page 6.2 of your packet is related to sidewalks. Staff has had several conversations with the applicant regarding sidewalks because of the steep topography of the site and since those conversations have taken place and as requested by the Subdivision Committee, the city's Sidewalk Administrator and other city staff have visited the site. Our recommendations are that the Master Street Plan sidewalks be constructed along the project's Double Springs Road frontage prior to Final Plat with a 6' width and that all interior sidewalks be constructed, or guaranteed, in accordance with Master Street Plan standards for a street with 50' right of way with 4' sidewalks on both sides of the street. We feel that construction of sidewalks on both side of the street is consistent with the city's requirement for similar projects in the Planning Area with similar topographical constraints. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 19 Ostner: Gabbard: Ostner: MOTION: Clark: Vaught: O'Neal: Vaught: O'Neal: Vaught: O'Neal: Ostner: Myres: Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. I'm Leonard Gabbard with Gabby Hills Enterprises. At the Subdivision Committee we talked about the sidewalks and we said that whatever city staff decided to do we would go along with that. We still concur with that and so we have no problems and accept all of the conditions stated herein. Thank you Mr. Gabbard. At this point I will open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this Preliminary Plat please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. I would like to thank staff for going out to look at this as we asked you to in Subdivision. The developer is willing to meet their recommendation, which is great. I will move that we approve PPL 05-1510 with all conditions listed. Staff, this is the second site we have seen in the Planning Area where there is no detention called out. I understand that we have grading and detention requirements, how come there is no detention area? We have been working with the applicant and they are providing detention down in the common area on Lot 24. Ok, it says common area, it doesn't say detention. That is correct, on this version of the plat that does not state that is detention. But they will be detaining within that area. All of the streets meet our city code for the required maximum grade of a street? Yes. They are right at 10% and the length of the street is within our street standards at that grade. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Is there further discussion? I have to ask. This is really steep. I understand that it is meeting our guidelines. I don't really know how to phrase this, how are you going to build houses on some of these lots? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 20 Gabbard: Anthes: Gabbard: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Gabbard: Sir, I think that you will find that on these particular lots, what we are finding is for these higher end houses the market advantage goes to those that have a little bit of personality on those lots. We actually field surveyed, TOPO the lots and spent a considerable amount of time, over a year, before we even turned these plans into the city. We went through two separate scenarios in house. We know that it can be engineered because we have engineered it already. Yes, it is a challenge but we feel like once it is built, and I am sure that at Final Plat when you have your agenda tour you will further understand what I'm talking about there. Yes, it does meet your street requirements. Yes, it was a challenge to get it to do so. We also feel that all of the lots, we think that it is going to be really pretty once it is done. On the drawing that I'm looking at here it appears that you have shown the 4' sidewalk on the interior streets on only one side of the street. We did, when we came to Subdivision Committee there was considerable discussion there about the sidewalks. We decided that what we would do at that point is yield to staff comments by the time we got to Planning Commission and if staff wants to see sidewalks on both sides we are prepared to do so. I seem to recall that we have allowed a 4' sidewalk on one side in certain subdivisions but I'm not putting my finger on them, have we? In certain instances when we do have a 24' wide street that is actually called out as part of the Master Street Plan, there is a sidewalk on only one side. Like you, I can't recall off hand if we have waived the sidewalk requirements per our Master Street Plan specifically. This is because this is a 28' street? Correct. I am just recalling a lot of the discussion during the consultant's visit for the hillside ordinance and one of the things that they were talking about is looking at not only sidewalks but curb and gutter requirements on hillsides. I look at this and there is a typical street section shown but I can't really tell what happens on either side of the road in the steepest condition. I don't know if the sidewalk requirement is actually best. Actually, this street section requires a 10' section behind the curb that is on a .02 slope or 2" or so in rise from the top of curb whether sidewalk is built or not. That is a typical section that is going to be constructed. We intend not to bond for these sidewalks. Because of these lots being so large we do not want the land owners to come out there and have to build Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 21 a sidewalk. We considered that into our Engineering costs and our construction costs and we intend to build the sidewalks as well. When the Final Plat comes through it will be a complete product. We understand that there will be some collateral damage from some of the construction of the houses but we are going to in our protective covenants set up so that construction access to each one of the lots will be at where they intend to build their driveway so that when they do damage or tear out the sidewalk from doing construction at least it will be in an area where drives will ultimately be located. We have no problem building those sidewalks. We really don't have to in certain parts of it but we feel like it is a benefit to the whole thing so I have no qualms whatsoever doing it. Anthes: I was kind of leaning towards the side of not having to build them frankly, because of the amount of slope. If we require the full 10' to be leveled on either side of the road that is one thing, although I believe we will be looking at options to that on our hillside ordinance. You are ahead of that and you are in the Planning Area, I realize. I wasn't at Subdivision when all of this went back and forth, but it seems to me that that is an awfully wide section in some very steep places I'm looking at. Around the east side of Lot 17 and on the east side of the property all together and then on Roadway 1 between Lots 19 and 4 and 3 and 18 you have got a lot of topography. Clark: That is the exact reason we asked the City Engineer to go out and work with the developer to see what they recommended. We had the same comments and then they did and this is what they recommended. Anthes: Without seeing the sections drawn it is really difficult to tell but it looks very steep. Pate: The only thing I can say is that both staff and the Planning Commission is bound by our current city ordinances and whatever those street sections are, that is what we have. That is one of the reasons we are looking at a hillside protection ordinance. Though it wouldn't necessarily apply outside of the city, if this were in the City of Fayetteville we would also require the same standards, because that is what our current ordinances require. I think we are all bound to follow the law and the Planning Commission is required to vote to approve or deny plans based on the same law that the developer is following to design that project. I think that is important to keep in mind. Anthes: Correct me if I'm wrong, we can allow a 24' street section with a sidewalk on one side? Pate: That is correct. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 22 Anthes: Ostner: Pate: Vaught: Pate: Anthes: Myres: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: So one could entertain the idea of a motion that would allow a 24' street with a sidewalk on one side verses a 28' street with sidewalks on both sides. Condition number two says we are talking about Master Street Plan sidewalks. All streets designed within the City of Fayetteville and within one mile of our Planning Area have to meet our Master Street Plan design requirements. That is the cross section. Those numbers are typical based on the trips generated. In this case, we do have three stub outs and we would likely recommend that those stub outs be in an area where some sort of connection at some point in the future, which typically generates more than 300 vehicle trips per day. I think there is maybe potential for one section to go to a 24' wide street. Of course, we have had that discussion with the applicant and they designed it at a 28' wide section for a reason. Which street has the possibility of being reduced to 24'? Would that be Roadway 3? Correct. It seems less of a steep topography than the other ones. The applicant has gone through a great deal of trouble to work with staff on the sidewalks and they have come to a solution to this problem and so I think we need to accept his willingness to meet our requirements for a sidewalk on both sides of the street. There is a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion, I am going to call for a vote. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1510 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 23 Ostner: The next item is PPL 05-1511, Lynnwood Estates. If we could have the staff report please. Gardner: This property contains 4.77 acres in northeast Fayetteville on the east side of Crossover Road just north of Township Street. The applicant proposes to develop a residential subdivision with six single family lots that would be accessed through three shared driveways on Crossover Road. The property was rezoned in April of this year from R -A to RSF-2. The site is largely undeveloped and vegetated with dense tree canopy with one existing single family dwelling on the southernmost lot. The property is surrounded by single family detached homes on the north, south and east with the existing St. John's Lutheran Church located to the west along with the Hickory Park Subdivision that is currently under construction. Staff has received comments from four adjacent property owners with two of the owners not being opposed to single family development on the site and two of the property owners objecting to the project stating property value devaluation and increased traffic. One of the commenters encourages that sewer lines crossing on the north side of Hardy Lane. Water and sewer lines would be extended to serve the proposed development and street right of way be dedicated to result in a 55' right of way from the centerline of Crossover Road. The site is covered with 89% tree canopy and of that, the project will preserve 71% of the canopy and the required preservation is 25% so tree mitigation is not required. Staff recommends approval of the project with 11 conditions of approval. Most of the conditions are relatively standard. I just want to call your attention to some of the conditions, number three is related to sidewalks and requires that the applicant construct all driveways with 6' sidewalks through the driveways at the Master Street Plan right of way. Grade the project frontage along Crossover Road for 6' sidewalks. Provide a cost estimate to the city for construction of remaining areas of 6' sidewalk. Upon approval of a cost estimate by the city the applicant shall pay an assessment to the city for fees in lieu of sidewalk construction. Condition number seven, this is with regard to the safety of the vehicles pulling out onto Crossover Road through the shared drives. It states that the houses and the driveways shall be designed and built to provide adequate driveway space for vehicles to turn around, ensuring that vehicles do not have to back up onto Crossover Road. Building permits would be reviewed to ensure that there is room for vehicles to turn around on the driveways and leave the property in a forward motion instead of having to back out. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hern: My name is Kip Hern with H2 Engineering representing Jerry and Lynn Rogers Jones. This is a very low density, low impact subdivision that we Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 24 are proposing. The sewer, which is the majority of our construction efforts, there are three options that we have to connect to sewer. We will try to accommodate the property owner to the north, Mr. John Brown. We have done some preliminary work in the field to see where the most appropriate place to be at the high end. That has been a drive more than anything for our sewer extension that we have been pursuing. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Hern. At this point I will open it up to public comment. This is PPL 05-1511. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for comments or motions. Pate: Just to address a couple of the concerns from citizens that we have received and that are in your packet. One was the widening of Hwy. 265. Our Highway Department does have plans in this area to widen Hwy. 265 and that is one of the reasons that the Planning Commission has been reviewing recently assessments for improvements along that, including a sidewalk, so that those could all be coordinated at one time. Additionally, as Mr. Hern noted, on at least two of the notices here, Mr. Brown, regarding a sewer connection, and I think that they are working with him to attempt, if possible, to connect that sewer to him I think the applicant has been looking at all of these issues. Ostner: I would like to compliment the applicant for taking these lots and facing them to the street. I think it is important for the city to have houses facing the street. A lot of things go wrong when we back houses up to streets. Williams: I have been following this as it has gone through. I think there is one existing home and then they are planning to build five additional homes, is that correct? Hem: Yes Sir. There are currently three parcels that this project consists of. One of the existing parcels does have an existing house which we have designed to incorporate that into our first lot of the subdivision. That existing driveway to the home will be removed and incorporated into a common driveway that Lot 1 and 2 will share. We will sustain the three curb cuts that are currently permissible. Williams: Condition of approval number two needs to be altered. It says six single family units. That should be five single family units. That calculated should be $2,775 instead of $3,300. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 25 MOTION: Allen: I will move for approval of PPL 05-1511 subject to the eleven conditions of approval with the change in condition number two from $3,300 to $2,775. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1511 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 26 Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1432 for Sassafras Subdivision. If we could have the staff report. Morgan: Yes Sir. This property contains 9.17 acres. It is located west of Sassafras Hill Road. The property is within the Planning Area and outside of our one mile city limits therefore, county street standards shall be applied for construction of one new street. They are requesting approval for creation of eight single family lots on approximately one acre and these lots will access a new street within the subdivision, which is shown at a 50' right of way and a 24' street. The applicant proposes to stub the street out to the western property line for future development and utilize a temporary cul- de-sac in that location until such time as that street is extended to the west. Water will be extended to serve the proposed development and individual septic systems on each lot from the Washington County Health Department. We have received several comments from surrounding citizens with regard to the density. Our requirements for the Planning Area requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. These proposed lots have approximately an acre, which is about four times the size of the minimum requirement in the Planning Area. At this time staff recommends approval of this Preliminary Plat with a total of 14 conditions, of which, I have addressed most with regard to septic system approvals, the temporary easement to the cul-de-sac on the west side of the property and dedication in accordance with our Master Street Plan requirements. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Scott: My name is Art Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants. With me is Mike McDonald representing the owner and the developer on the project. We do have eight lots here with pretty close to a one acre minimum. We request your approval and are here to answer any questions. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment. Would anyone like to speak to PPL 05-1432 for Sassafras Subdivision? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Clark: Staff, in Subdivision we talked about the back, did you extend that property line or did you figure out who owns the property? There was a 50' easement. Pate: I don't think it is 100% resolved at this time but it should not really something that should delay the subdivision of the property. Condition number nine states that prior to filing the Final Plat ownership of the northern 50' right of way easement shall be resolved. I think currently we Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 27 Clark: Scott: MOTION: Clark: have been working with the Assessor's office who has records indicating one thing, the applicant's surveyors are indicating something else. Again, I don't think it is crucial for the Preliminary Plat. At the time that we get to Final Plat that is something that we definitely need to have resolved. If you don't own it you are just going to extend the property lines? Whatever the resolution is, we are going to do it. I will make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1432 with the 14 conditions as stated. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1432 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 28 Ostner: The next item is PPL 05-1399 for Devonshire Glyn. Morgan: The subject property contains 46.71 acres. It is located east of Legacy Pointe Subdivision Phase IV and south of Persimmon Street, or the Master Street Plan location of Persimmon Street. The property was recently annexed and zoned RSF-4 last year in 2004. To the east of the property is a Targe tract owned by the City of Fayetteville recently subdivided and approved for development of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The development of this property will include construction of Persimmon Street, which is a collector street on the Master Street Plan, from Legacy Pointe to the intersection of Persimmon and 54th. With regard to discussion with the applicant prior to and at Subdivision Committee, the applicant has addressed several concerns with regard to connectivity within the subdivision. The approved subdivision to the northeast of this property, Sundance Meadows, has provided stub outs to the property and the applicant has shown connectivity to those stub outs as well as the existing right of way for Genevieve Avenue as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee. With that, some lots were added and also the public property was enlarged to include a tract of land at the southwest corner of the intersection of Persimmon and 54th and therefore, a total of 128 single family lots, one of which is proposed by the applicant to be utilized for a club house, are requested for approval at this time. There are also additional lots which are to be utilized for detention, for a total of 132 lots. With regard to modifications from Subdivision Committee, the applicant also increased rights of way widths and street widths to provide for either a 50' right of way with a 28' street or a 42' right of way with a 24' street in the configuration that was recommended by staff as well as the Subdivision Committee. With regard to right of way dedication in addition to those streets within the interior of the subdivision, they will also be dedicating a 70' right of way for the length of Persimmon Street, as well as 55' from the centerline of 54th Street where adjacent to the subject property. 54th Street in this location is a principal arterial. Parkland will be dedicated in addition with this subdivision of 2.48 acres north of Persimmon Street. In addition, they will be paying fees in lieu in the amount of $13,135. On site mitigation is recommended with regard to tree preservation in the amount of 41 trees. Just to go over conditions of approval, condition number one, Planning Commission determination of off site street improvements. Staff recommends that 54th Street north of the intersection with Persimmon north to Tackett be improved to a 20' minimum width. In addition, staff recommends that 54th Street south of the intersection of Persimmon Street to the southernmost portion of this property be widened to a minimum 20' clear with 14' street from centerline curb, gutter and storm drain. Condition two is Planning Commission determination of adequate interior rights of way and street design. As stated, the applicant has modified the plat since the time of Subdivision Committee and is in compliance with all of staff's Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 29 recommendations. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the street design. Condition three, Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. Staff recommends a connection to the proposed Ireland Drive and connectivity as shown with the connection to Sundance Meadows and the "T" intersection of Genevieve. Therefore, staff is in support of the proposed connectivity. With regard to additional conditions, condition ten states that all existing structures shall be removed or relocated to meet setback requirements prior to approval of the Final Plat. There are several structures, I believe three existing homes, on this large tract which would end up either in setbacks or on property lines based on the proposed lot line layout. Therefore, staff is requesting that those be removed or relocated. It was brought to our attention that there was an existing house on Lot 1 which the applicant would prefer to keep on the lot as shown. It would, however, be located in a building setback and utility easement that will need to be addressed. I will address any comments or questions that you may have. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Scott: I am Art Scott with Project Design Consultants here representing the developer and here to answer any questions that you may have. We do agree with all conditions with the exception of number ten. That lot, Lot 1, was not initially in this property. In our efforts to obtain easement or right of way for Persimmon Street extension with the property owner to the north, we could not get that done. It was just a situation that the two people were too far apart. The developer has come in and put this house under contract and wishes to keep it there. There is a renter in that house and they do wish to keep that to help recoup some of their investment for the right of way to get Persimmon in there. That house will be about 5' off the property line so that would be a typical setback, and utility easement setback in that one corner. We feel like there is enough room to get utilities in there if we need to. We are extending sewer to that corner and also any water or electric and gas, they should be able to get those in there based on the width of that right of way. Ostner: I am going to open it up to public comment if anyone would like to speak to this Preliminary Plat please step forward. Flang: My name is Mary Flang, I live at 5855 Tackett Drive. My concern is mostly for water runoff. To explain where I am, I'm between 54th and Double Springs. I'm north of their area of their development. Lots of development is going back there. I am in direct route to Skull Creek. I have a big pond that goes all the way up there. I have about a $400,000 house on five acres. The pond, the closest edge is probably not more than 10' from my home and it is a large pond that has a valley that goes back Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 30 and collects water when it was in it's natural state it rained and it would fill up to a dam and go over. There was a mess where the water goes under the road and into Skull Creek and it all comes from my pond. I am afraid of letting all of this development happen behind me without some kind of protection from them. I don't think this should be passed until we have reached some kind of agreement that this won't flood my home, turn me into a flood zone. A gentleman did come up to me in my driveway and we talked about the pond and he suggested that possibly there was a way to dig it out more and they would have some kind of pond that would retain water and it would be released onto my property at a certain rate. I need more assurance. I haven't heard from him since. That was about a month ago. My concern is that that home is my retirement. Everything I have is in that home and I have just spent a great deal of money updating it so that I can sell it in the next year or two and retire. I am concerned about that and the other thing I'm concerned about is we have got all of this new development going and coming down 54th there are 10 or 12 homes on Tackett that are going to be bottle necked trying to get out on 54th to reach Hwy. 16. Is there any thought of putting a three way stop there at 54th or something? That is where the bus lets out for Farmington. There needs to be something, and they are building a road right now into this new development that is emptying out onto 54th right behind Howard Helms' home, which is that corner home. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Wonnacott: I am Melissa Wonnacott, I live at 655 N. Genevieve. She is my neighbor to the west. Last year we had Sundance Meadows on the docket. I know you probably haven't reviewed the minutes from June 14, 2004 about Sundance Meadows but there were a couple of the Commissioners who had said at that time that a large development should fix 54th Street and that this one development of 25 homes was disproportional for him to fix 450' of 54th Street from the Owl Creek Bridge to Tackett. On June 28`h of last year you all passed it giving him a 208' requirement to prepare. We have now a 132 lot development going on the end of 54th Street and there is still the smallest portion of the eroding road that is not being repaired by this developer. My concern is, again, 54th Street. I am not against this development. Development is going to happen. However, 54th Street is a huge issue. It is not on the Master Street Plan so therefore, it is not slated to be repaired. How they are going to divert I don't know. They also have it going into Genevieve, which Genevieve, there are three multi -family homes on Genevieve and there is a blind corner on Tackett and Genevieve. Even though I know there are only four other homes around the corner from me, I have to stop and make sure that no one is coming and hope to god that they don't come around the corner so that I can turn onto Genevieve. You are making this an outlet onto Genevieve so there is another issue because they are not repairing Genevieve at all. They are just doing it to the end of their property. As neighbors, we did sign Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 31 something last year when Sundance Meadows came up that we would all like to fix 54th Street but now we also have Genevieve. I would hope that the Commissioners will address our concerns from 2003 and 2004 and consider that when you are voting to approve or disapprove this development. Thank you. Ostner: Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. A couple of questions have been raised out of the local residents, people who live nearby. I would like to ask staff if we can talk about the drainage. I believe the first neighbor asked for some assurances. If we could address that please. O'Neal: Scott: I have reviewed the drainage report and there will not be an increase in the runoff from their site. I am not able to find exactly where she is in relation to this development so I am kind of at a loss on where exactly she is in relation to this development. We are releasing our water at a rate lower than predevelopment rate so it will not increase. We do have two detention ponds on the north side. The one on the middle western boundary that you see there will actually be shared with that development to our west that Mr. Sloan is doing. We have worked on that with his engineers. That will go through that pond there and then we do have a detention pond in our northwest corner that releases in that same location. I did meet with that neighbor on site at her house and Charlie Sloan and I walked the neighborhood out there and it was our opinion that we know we are releasing at a lower rate than it is now but we felt like we could do something there to enlarge that pond, she was having problems with her ceiling, we could take care of that also. That is what we intend to do. We have just not had the opportunity to get back with her since that time that I met with her on site. Ostner: The other question that came up by the first neighbor was the intersection suggesting or requesting a three way stop sign. Can the staff share any information or any comments on that? Pate: Would that be at Tackett and 54th? Ostner: Yes. Pate: 54th is slated on our Master Street Plan to be a collector street. That would be a through street. I sincerely doubt that we would want to have a three way stop. I know that Tackett does have a stop sign currently. The improvements that are recommended and shown here on your plans also really don't address our Master Street Plan where it kind of veers from this area. I think in the future we will have to see a pretty major redesign of Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 32 this intersection. At the intersection currently of 54`h and Persimmon where it jogs to the west, right now on the Master Street Plan 54th is shown as a collector north of Persimmon. A principal arterial south of Persimmon and then on the Master Street Plan shown in the maps on the last page of your packet, it is a principal arterial where it veers off to the east, which is currently planned for a northern connection. If that is the case, that might potentially, a three way stop of some sort could occur. Again, I think this intersection as a whole is going to take quite a bit of work, when property on the north side when that develops, we will find out exactly how that is going to work. That is really all that I can respond to at this time. Ostner: That is helpful. Is 54`h in the Master Street Plan that is slated to jog eastward? Pate: Correct. Ostner: Is that area completely undeveloped at this time? Pate: That is correct, to the north of Persimmon. I would mention that with the development of this property and then with the subsequent development potentially of the 35 acres that the City Council is currently looking at selling, with the approval of the Mountain Development project tonight, this will create an east/west connection from Double Springs Road all the way east to Shiloh and the bypass. This will create, at least, a street connection east/west that the city has been looking for for quite some time. And it is in a relatively short amount of time. The city is currently doing improvements to Broyles Road as well. The city built Broyles Road south of Wedington down to Persimmon and that additional development there has helped continue some of the street connectivity in that area. South of Persimmon the city is also looking, as part of the Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements, to construct about a mile of street south to connect, which, again, would go further south into Farmington. Additionally, Washington County and the City of Fayetteville are collaborating currently in improving the streets down south of this area. They are currently gravel and they will be paved soon. These are all improvements in this area that have been a long time coming and have not seen because the development has not been in that area. I think as your vehicle trips increase you will see more and more improvements along this area as well. Ostner: The last comment or request I believe had to do with Genevieve Street. Can you fill us in on any information there? Pate: Certainly. Ms. Wonnacott was present with Sundance Meadows over the several months that that was extended. The property you see on your plats Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 33 that this particular project is connecting to in the northeast is Sundance Meadows. It is a 25 lot subdivision that is currently under construction, or at least has approved construction plans. There are two street stub outs to this particular piece of property. One is on the east, which is Sundance Meadows, one to the north, which is Genevieve, is currently an unimproved street or drive, that currently accesses those properties in that area. Because it is a stub out, as you know, staff typically recommends a stub out to that and if they should develop in the future then the street would be extended up into that property in the future. I would mention, again, with the rezoning, there is a certain limit that you can go with improvements off site with a development. With 127 lots that is going to create a lot of traffic. With off site improvements, this developer is contributing quite a bit including improvements along 54"' with curb, gutter, at least a 20' pavement section south of Persimmon. Improvements north of Persimmon along 546 to create at least a 20' section and they have shown actual design elements, which we were not able to see with a 25 lot subdivision. This developer has gone to the point of looking at how that could be designed and constructed up to the 546 Street intersection. Again, a lot of pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together. We did not recommend any improvements along Genevieve simply because staff felt that most of the traffic, if that street is constructed, will go south as opposed to north. There would be the likelihood that anyone living in the subdivision would head south to Persimmon and then make their way out onto improved streets, including to the neighborhood that is to the north. They would benefit by that street stub out as well. So it would potentially cut down vehicle trips going through that 54th and Tackett intersection. That is one advantage that we saw. We felt that the street improvements that you see there as recommended were appropriate for this particular subdivision. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Commissioners? Anthes: Jeremy, this stub out that goes north on Genevieve, that will be a blocked stub out or will it connect to the existing dirt road at this point? Pate: It will connect. There is not a strip between those two. Anthes: I understand that at Subdivision this connection was made, and I think it is a good connection. I am also really aware of the problems at Tackett and Genevieve. We have had these neighbors here repeatedly. We have been out there in the van and we know that it is really a horrible intersection. Is staff not recommending any work on that intersection at all because of the costs being disproportional? I know it is off site. Pate: Which intersection? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 34 Anthes: Genevieve and Tackett. It is just so bad out there. Pate: Not to Genevieve and Tackett. Again, this development north, Sundance Meadows, is making improvements to both drainage and radius improvements to that intersection of Tackett and 54`n Anthes: But not the other direction? Pate: Correct. There is no outlet street the other direction. Everyone going in and out has to go east. There is no public street to go west onto. Anthes: The time line is just way out there for anything to happen. If there is further development something would happen? Pate: I think it could be relative. Two years ago a lot of us would not have imagined that Persimmon Street would be constructed from Double Springs Road to Shiloh in a matter of a few years. I think this property was in the county a year ago and not really looking at development. I believe there were chicken houses and farm animals on the property. There is potential for redevelopment of properties to the north should they sell. We just felt that the improvements that we are recommending would benefit the community and the city as a whole. Granted, improvements along Genevieve would improve the quality of life for a few residents there but again, we have to look at what proportion of those would benefit and impact the city infrastructure as a whole. Anthes: I have another issue about connectivity on the south side of this site. I am looking at C3.1, it looks like you have chose to extend Lexford Lane to the south rather than Tipperary and Colony Terrace. Would there be any advantage to extending Tipperary Lane as our connection to the south and removing the stub out of Lexford? I believe that you could get the same number of lots or maybe an additional lot in doing that and relieve that elbow. The question is to staff because I don't know if you discussed it and there was some reason made one way or the other. Pate: I have personally not discussed it, no. Anthes: I will direct that question to you Mr. Scott. Scott: You are asking if we can move the stub out on Lexford to the west to Tipperary? Anthes: Yes, and then you would no longer need that elbow. Scott: I don't see any problem with that at all, we can do that. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 35 Anthes: That would be great. I appreciate that you have several lots, 121, 132, 131, 4, 3, and 2 all facing onto Persimmon. Can you tell me what is going to happen on the remainder of lots with side yards facing Persimmon? What can we expect on Persimmon? Scott: The developer has been discussing that with myself and staff and we feel like we can face those two Persimmon and access off of the other streets as sort of a side load situation. If you want to move that we will agree to that, with the exception of the ones that don't have side streets I think it is Lot 3 and Lot 132. That will minimize that. Those will be facing that way anyway. Anthes: Thank you very much. Pate: MOTION: If those changes are made with the recommendation, as I anticipate, with the connection being to the south, we would also recommend that the street widths, right now there is a 42' wide right of way with a 24' wide street as being the non through street so those need to flip flop. Anthes: I move for approval of PPL 05-1399 with the following conditions: Condition of approval number one to endorse staff's recommendations for the improvements. Condition number two, to again, endorse staff's comments as modified from Subdivision. Condition number three, the same way. Do we need to alter condition ten because of that Lot 1 for that house to remain? O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: Pate: There is one issue with that lot. The applicant is proposing a 12" water line through that location. The line could be realigned and then we could process a waiver. Would that waiver have to come back to this Committee or we can just state that we would approve it now? I believe we could approve it now with the condition that the water line be realigned to the north side of Persimmon. It is going to put a restraint on right of way along Persimmon on the north side and the parkland dedication area which may reduce that land that they are dedicating. I would mention too that this is not a typical scenario that the Planning Staff would recommend, that the setback requirements be at least 5' off of the right of way line, utility easements would be potentially jeopardized in that area. I understand the applicant's desire to keep that structure, I don't know if there is a way to move that onto the lot that he is creating. That is Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 36 not something typically that the Planning Staff would recommend, creating a non -conforming structure with a brand new development. Anthes: I am having difficulty seeing it, is it the one that is placed to the far, far north of that lot? Scott: It is near the jog in 54th Street. Anthes: Ok, I'm afraid that I am going to have to leave the condition of approval number ten in now that I understand the conditions. Pate: We would be happy to work through the construction plans if there is a way to, I know that this is a really tight area here with the property owner to the north, if there is a way that we can fit the improvements in and potentially create this lot before Final Plat, we are more than happy to work on that. I don't know that there are any guarantees of course. Anthes: If you would please. When you talk about the 12" water line, parkland dedication, and that intersection. That is really restricted there and so I think that I prefer to just leave the condition as stated. Scott: We do have a 20' UE on the north side of Persimmon at the park I don't think we would need anymore property than that in the parkland. I don't think that we would impact the parkland anymore than we would with the typical easement as shown. That is probably the only thing different. Anthes: Then can you just take our comments regarding the structures facing Persimmon Drive and the Lexford and Tipperary Lane as part of the motion or do you need us to write something out? Vaught: I have a question on that. We can't necessarily require them to face those houses toward Persimmon can we? Pate: That is correct. Anthes: Ok, it is just comments then, not part of the motion. Do I have that covered Mr. Williams? Williams: As well as it can be I think. Ostner: I have a suggested amendment for the motioner, on Condition Ten, what if it read all existing structures shall be removed or relocated to meet setback requirements prior to approval of Final Plat unless staff is otherwise satisfied with attempts that the developer has made? Meaning if Engineering has been satisfied, if Planning feels secure in the methods they are trying to go around that house. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 37 Pate: It would take more than that. It would take the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance as well for setback requirements because it is creating a non -conforming structure. I think to wrap it all into one it might be better to leave it at that and it might be better if we get back to this at the time of Final Plat and it has not been resolved we will have to make that decision. Either a variance will be issued by the Board of Adjustment, which this body cannot approve or deny or control in that manner. Ostner: I do not have to offer that if it is not worth you to go through that extra trouble. Scott: We don't mind doing that. This is an important structure. We will come back to that if we need to. Ostner: Anthes: Williams: My amendment would just add on unless staff is otherwise satisfied with the requirements. I don't understand why that is needed. That qualifies it so that if something can be worked out it doesn't have to be brought back to you to change the conditions. These conditions, as they are stated, says it is gone. Ostner: If staff cannot be satisfied, then he would have to remove it. Anthes: Can we add that as part of the motion? Williams: Yes. Myres: I will second the amendment and the motion. Pate: The amendment to the stub out as shown on the plans currently do not purport with what the motioner is looking for with the stub out to the south. Anthes: That is what I was asking about whether those comments needed to be stated as part of that. We would be adding condition of approval number 23 to state that street connectivity will be met by a stub out to the south of Tipperary and that the street section would be the 28' street as required by the Master Street Plan. The other one goes away and Lexford becomes 24'. Osmer: Is that amenable Mr. Scott? Scott: Yes it is. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 38 Clark: I am not going to say a word about another stub out. I guess I need to apologize to the neighbors out there because the intersection of Tackett and Genevieve is terrible. It has been terrible for a very long time and in Subdivision we were so focused on getting that connectivity into that subdivision that I just didn't look harder. I honestly didn't look further to the north and notice that intersection. I don't know that this development could have been held responsible for it because we are holding them responsible for cleaning up a lot on 54`h Street. For the record, I think that we need to be very cautious when we are looking at things out there because that intersection of Tackett and Genevieve is horrible. I don't know that we could have done anything at Subdivision or Planning Commission to relieve that but please know that we are still looking at it. It just slipped by this time. Ostner: On that intersection of Tackett and Genevieve, is there any other relief such as through traffic calming through a separate system that the Police Department is helping manage that they might apply for that would help relieve that dangerous situation? Pate: I guess honestly, it would take an evaluation of what exactly the problems were that create the dangerous situation. If it is speed or if it is just a turning radius or if it just sight lines. I'm honestly not aware. Ostner: I'm pretty sure it is all three. People come way too fast, people are trying to turn and no one can see. Scott: The simple solution might be to just barricade it until that area up there is developed similar to the other stub outs. Anthes: That is what my question to staff was initially. I didn't understand whether at the end of that paved section that it would be blocked temporarily until the other street was improved. Is that something that we can even do? Pate: We don't typically block street rights of way from other access points. I suppose the Council could look at that as some sort of measure to inhibit vehicles traveling north. Honestly, I still believe that traveling south will actually benefit these neighbors. They won't have to go through the intersection of Genevieve and Tackett any longer. They will go south and be on a collector street eventually. Our recommendation would be to have an open access point. Anthes: That makes them to not have to make that turn at Tackett and 54th either, they would have another way out. That makes sense. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 39 Vaught: To the north they also enter the new subdivision that will have city streets. I imagine if they are going to go north that they will probably take the newer streets instead of the stub out onto the substandard street and bad turn. They are probably going to go through the new neighborhood. That has a better intersection and connects. Ostner: Do we have further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1399 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 40 Ostner: Our next item is PPL 05-1528 for Laureate Fields. Pate: Almost a year ago the Planning Commission granted approval for a subdivision in much the same manner on this property. The only thing really that has changed since that time is the number of lots and some of the lot configurations. The property contains 73 acres located west of Deane Solomon Road and south of West Salem Road, north of Crystal Springs Phase III. Properties to the west are vacant and to the south are currently under development with a subdivision. Lot IV of the springwoods C-PZD is adjacent to the east with a single intervening property between this particular parcel and that at Deane Solomon Road. The frontage and primary access point currently would be West Salem Road, although, the applicant is showing a round about and obvious entrance feature into the subdivision located to the southeast of the site once that street connection can be made. Another access point is also south from Crystal Springs Phase III and that is a connection to the south in that area. Two other stub outs are proposed to the west, one is a collector street, and the other is a local street to connect to the property to the northwest. The approval in 2004 granted this developer with approval for 176 single family lots. Since that time, construction plans have been submitted and reviewed as far as what size of lots are for sale in this area. Subsequent to that, there was a revisit of the plan that was proposed and this yielded 211 single family lots with primarily lot line adjustments within the Preliminary Plat, making lots smaller, still in conformance with the RSF-4 zoning district, but also with the addition of lots in the area that was formerly approved as a park area and was approved by resolution and contracted with the City Council prior to the Planning Commission approval of the project. The developer and the applicant have been working with the Parks Staff, much like we saw Mountain Ranch development. They are proposing a larger area of parkland in this area that would also serve this neighborhood. It is property to the east that you have seen as a Concept Plat by the name of Park West. That is to the northeast of this property. The applicant, as I mentioned, is proposing very few changes with the exception of some realignment of some utilities and some connections to individual lots and the total of 211 lots. The Planning Commission approved this plan in August and staff is recommending approval of PPL 05-1528 with 16 conditions of approval. Most of which you saw August 23, 2004. Obviously, the biggest change is the Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication. The Parks and Recreation Board did review the current proposal and voted to accept the land dedication of 5.064 acres, which is an amount greater than what was previously approved at three acres. This would be located off site on property also owned by the developer and planned for a larger park area. As I mentioned, in the Park West area. That specific park location is again, still being worked out with Parks Staff and the developer and will be deeded to the City of Fayetteville prior to signing the Final Plat. A Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 41 couple of other changes that have occurred, Lots 146 and 147 are rather small lots at the northeast corner. Staff is concerned about access to these particular lots. West Salem Road is a collector street on the Master Street Plan. Staff feels that either a Planning Commission determination of lot arrangement as it relates to safe ingress and egress to these particular lots is appropriate because of the situation so close to that intersection. I believe everything else comes from the approval of the last Preliminary Plat with the 364 2" caliper trees being planted on site as requested by the developer. I believe one request at the Subdivision Committee meeting was to show a tree preservation plan on this very plat that you have in hand. The only trees located on this site, there are some small areas along the western boundary that are all fence row trees, along the southern boundary, some of which are located along Crystal Springs Phase III, which is under construction, and then following the fence line up to the eastern boundary up to the larger detention pond. With that, staff is recommending approval. We do have signed conditions of approval from the applicant as well. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Milholland: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering, representing the owner and developer. The developer did sign the conditions that the staff recommended for approval without any exceptions. Basically, all this is is a previous subdivision that was approved. No streets or water or sewer was changed. The alignment will stay the same. It is basically moving some lots over. The lots on the northern end were very large, like 110' or 115' wide, we moved those in. The small park area that they had through an agreement with the Parks Board accepting it, we are moving it to a trail head on another piece of property that the same developer has. They liked it better, it is a trail head that will go south/north and also east/west in Park West. We respectfully request that you approve this. There are not a lot of changes. It is mostly lot line adjustments. The lots are still large there, they are 90' or 95' wide. The small lots on the south end were not changed, they left the same. The park that was there was made into lots with the existing streets that were approved before. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Ostner: Would anyone from the public like to speak to this PPL 05-1528? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission for comments and questions. Vaught: Staff, what happens if Park West doesn't happen with the park land dedication? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 42 Pate: There still has to be prior to Final Plat, that amount of parkland dedicated and received by Warranty Deed prior to signing Final Plat. Currently the applicant, developer, is under contract by resolution with the City Council. This will still have to go forward with the City Council. The particular requirements for the park land dedication, because, again, he did enter into contract with the City Council. But, again, prior to Final Plat approval, pursuant to our city ordinances, they would have to have dedication of that parkland. Again, with your approval of that request. Vaught: If Park West doesn't happen by Final Plat he will have to dedicate five acres from that tract across the street? Pate: Correct. It is very likely that that development will not happen by that time. It may be in process but it will not have developed. Essentially, what the applicant and their engineers and Parks Staff are working out now is walking the property and finding the best location and essentially taking a survey of the parcel of land that would be appropriate for that. Anthes: I went back and was trying to remember, I remember we had a lot of discussion and debate about this subdivision at the time that it came through the first time and I believe there were a lot of concessions made on both sides with connectivity to the west, we added a stub out that wasn't there originally, but I believe that we also accepted some things that we were less interested in because we were so excited about getting this park and the roundabout and the connection. With the addition of 35 lots to the original plat some of those questions come back up again. One of those is the north/south connector of William Blake and Herman Melville Road to tie them together instead of having them be separated. I feel like when we add that extra density, becomes a little more important than it was originally. The other thing I'm concerned about, I agree with staff about those lots on the far north, I am thinking about those lots and then how those driveways have to access those streets right at the intersection and it almost seems to me like those two small lots and the one just to the south could be combined into two lots with a division to the north/south and the western -most lot could be accessed off of Longfellow Parkway as far south to the lot as possible and that the lot to the east could be accessed off of this road, Salem Road, as far east as possible away from the intersection. That may help that condition a little bit. There are a lot of adjoining streets that I think are fantastic, that helps along the south side of the development. Ostner: There are a lot of changes between this one and the one we saw a year ago. I have another question for staff about these looped streets. We basically have two loops until the stub outs get connected or built. What are our limits for looped streets? Are there any? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 43 Pate: We don't have any maximum number of units. A PZD has a maximum of 80 units on a looped private street. Public streets, we intend those to connect and provide that disbursement of traffic in as many ways as possible. Ostner: Thank you. If I could ask for a Subdivision Committee report. Clark: At Subdivision we were a little handicapped in that we had this large plat blown up but two different sections of it and it was impossible to overlay them. Basically, we were told that it was basically the same project but just without the lots for the park and the configuration of the streets had already been approved. I may be making this up, but I didn't feel like there was much latitude in terms of changing that. Although, it was coming back through as a new Preliminary Plat. That is my recollection. Honestly, one of my comments at Subdivision was we couldn't really make heads or tails of it. This is by far the clearest picture of it we have had. I do remember this coming through now that I see it. I do remember the park being one of the reasons we made some concessions a year ago. Trumbo: How many lots are we picking up? Milholland: If my memory serves me right, there were 177 lots the first time and there are 211 now so that is about 34 and that is including the park. Trumbo: You are now donating how many acres to the park? Milholland: The requirement as required by the Parks Board, it is five acres. We only were required four before. Now we are required five at a location where the Parks Board desires for a trail head in a nicer location with a lot more area. Anthes: Isn't the requirement for the parkland dedication increased for the amount of increased lots? The additional land that we are asking for is commensurate with the 35 more lots? Pate: Correct. The three acres that was originally approved was less than what would have been required for the 177 lots. The contract and resolution with the City Council is that they would be adding improvements to that park. You are exactly right, that is why the calculation is higher. Ostner: Where is that land? Milholland: It would be east of this property. Salem Road runs north/south on the east side of this property a few hundred feet and it is approximately 'V4 mile to the east. There is a subdivision you all approved to the east across that Salem Road, I don't recall the name of it, but the bike path goes along the Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 44 Pate: north side of that and the south side of the Park West property, we are talking about the 120 acres, just as you go onto the Park West property there is a row of trees and a creek that goes north. That is the trail head right there. They requested land on both sides of the trees and down to the property line and everything that they wanted they worked out with the client. On page 10.30 if you take a look at your map, if you look at the subject property, just directly to the east of that is where this property is located, and directly north of the Audubon lot within springwoods and springwoods Lot 5 subdivision. Anthes: Lots 146 and 147 can you tell me what the lot number is just south of that? Pate: Itis 118. Hoskins: My name is Tracy Hoskins, I'm the property owner. I want to clarify the parks situation. What we had before with the prior development was just over a two acre park and the agreement was to accept less property and we would also do the improvements to the park. It would be a two plus acre park improved and that is all that it would ever be. With this new concept with Park West, which is directly to the east of this property along Hwy. 112 all the way over to Deane Solomon Road, right now the city has absolutely no access to connect the west trail system to the east trail system. The only way of getting that access is through my project, Park West. What we decided was to get with the Parks Board and get that connection there and that connection actually runs all the way over to Laureate Fields and we have also provided other connections through there for a trail system through Park West as well, or that is the intention. All of these trails come to a particular area of Park West and we have discussed at the southwest corner of the project where the park starts out and as Park West develops, grows and grows and grows. It could potentially be a very, very large park as opposed to the two acres that we have now. As far as the street configuration of Laureate Fields, we went through lots and lots of meetings before and as Commissioner Anthes said, we had discussed that north/south connection, and I thought we all agreed that the configuration that we have now is what was approved. Again, we are adding 34 lots to the subdivision but a lot of it is due to the park area and the roundabout area that will exit to Deane Solomon Road much quicker. I don't know how the effect of the lots that are in the previous park area will effect the traffic up in the north and west area of the overall subdivision. Thank you. Vaught: 1 believe there are 11 lots in the old park area so there are 24 lots picked up. The majority of the added lots are in other places. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 45 Lack: Lots 146 and 147, can somebody tell me the square footage of those lots? They are much smaller than the other lots so with reference to scale I'm curious to know. Pate: Lack: Pate: Lot 146 is approximately 8,900 sq.ft., Lot 147 is approximately 8,300 sq.ft. That is just over the 8,000 minimum. That was my question was to verify that they were compliant lots. Your recommendation Mr. Pate was to access those lots to the south by a shared access easement in that it would be appropriate to have a driveway off of a collector street? Staff feels that it would be inappropriate to have at least two driveways off of these collector streets and if you had a choice, again, we are creating these two brand new lots within the City of Fayetteville and accessing a collector street. I thought it was more appropriate if these are going to be this size of lot that they access at least one point as far down on this north/south street as possible. You are exactly right, it would be within an access easement, shared driveway. Lack: Can you tell me how far back from the break of the intersection that that would occur? Pate: I would recommend that it be as far as possible as our code currently allows, which I believe is 5' off of the property line to the south that that driveway be located. Lack: Pate: Another question that I had, looking at page 10.30, the overall one mile aerial view, I see Gypsum Drive and I am trying to verify is that a Master Street Plan street that we are not seeing in this development that is shown should go through? You did not have an opportunity to review this the first time as you were not a Commissioner at that time. We did have significant discussions of where this collector street that does traverse this property should be located. Referencing that same page, the Master Street Plan collector street, Gypsum Drive, does head east out of Crystal Springs Phase I and continues into this property all the way to Deane Solomon Road. East of Deane Solomon Road it has been removed with a Master Street Plan amendment from across the wetlands and Audubon property there. It does traverse this property. The applicant is indicating that connection from the east with the roundabout and it would then follow south and is called Stevenson Street. That is the requested alignment of this collector street. That is also what was approved with the previous Preliminary Plat. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 46 O'Neal: In regards to Commissioner Lack's comment about access, I would also like to point out that there is a sewer line extension that runs behind Lots 147 and 148. A back yard sewer is considered necessary in this location so we would have to have a permanent access to that manhole in that rear yard so there would have to be an access point at that location. MOTION: Anthes: Vaught: Ostner: Clark: Ostner: Vaught: Hoskins: Anthes: I will move for approval of PPL 05-1528 with the conditions as stated, as staff has recommended on items one, two, revising condition number four to state Lots 146 through 148 to be combined into two lots oriented north/south, one set off Long Fellow and one off of Salem Road, or access to Lots 146 and 147 by shared access agreement off of Long Fellow, at the developer's option. An additional condition, number 17, to state that William Blake Drive and Herman Melville Drive shall connect in a north/south orientation. Which roads were those? The two on the western side that stop in the middle. I second. Is there further discussion? I would like to ask the applicant about that last condition since that was just brought up. Commissioner Anthes, I appreciate your opinion on connecting those two streets. I would ask that you reconsider that. We have already gone through all of the engineering, the project is designed from a lot of input from the previous time that this came before the Planning Commission. In fact, you and I personally had discussions about this very project and connectivity through the project. I ask that you reconsider that as we have this project engineered and that will change our drainage and a lot of things and postpone the project. Of course, we are trying to get blades in the ground as soon as we possibly can. I don't think that the addition of these lots in the park, and especially the location of these lots, is going to have much effect on the traffic connecting that upper and lower half of the subdivision. We have already got lots of connection east and west. In fact, the subdivision has five or six points of connection to get in and out of that and direct access to Deane Solomon Road. I would ask that you reconsider that please. The reason Mr. Hoskins why I stated that is that it is not just the 11 lots that you are gaining in the park but you are also gaining another 20 lots by Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 47 the configuration in general. There are a total of 35 additional lots proposed. Those lots are distributed evenly throughout the subdivision and therefore, there is a higher density in both the north and south portions than there was originally. The other thing is that, as we all know, that a lot of these are stub -out connections and my concern is in the interim before this builds out that we have added 35 additional lots with probably 70 extra residences or cars with all of the associated car trips per day to this development and in my mind that necessitates a better flow through that development than we originally needed. Particularly because a lot of these are stubbed out. Milholland: I understand the trips that you are talking about. I understand that the parks is 11 or 12 right there at the roundabout which has a collector street going right by them to the west and to the east and then there is also connectivity to the north and south. Every lot on this subdivision as it exists has at least three outs to it. That is the way it was approved before. Now as far as the additional number of lots, if you took 34 less the 11 or 12, that leaves 22. Those 22 lots are the north part of this that you want to connect to. If you add those lots to what is there now it is still less number of lots than is south of that point that was approved before with the same connectivity. It would not justify if you run the numbers because the number of lots to the north the density is not near what it was to the south before and it won't even be now. If you take the north three streets and you add your 20 lots to it and count them up the lot numbers there are no where near what they are on the south six streets. If it was adequate before it should be adequate now. Vaught: My only concern with that connection at that point is creating a very, very long straight street which we have had lots of problems with before and I do not like Longfellow either. I felt that was part of the reason for the round about to help facilitate traffic and help break that up a little bit. Maybe if there is another location to break that up so that isn't a straight street. I know we have had lots of problems with developments that look similar to this with very long, straight streets in other areas of town. Ostner: I think to my recollection part of the problem with long streets is no intersections. Intersections heighten awareness and they help calm things but that is just part of my concerns over straight streets and we have plenty of good intersections. Anthes: I think I will let my motion stand and let the Commission decide which way they want to vote. Williams: I would recommend from a procedural point of view that there be a motion to approve it as recommended by staff and then you placed an amendment and place your amendment to the conditions that the staff has Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 48 recommended as opposed to making an all in one motion. I think from a procedural point of view that that might be a little more clear way to do that. You would just make one motion and then it would be seconded and then you can make an amendment to your motion. Anthes: I will rescind my original motion. Hoskins: If it is ok, I would like to hear from Mr. Pate and Mr. O'Neal what their opinions are of your motion and what you are asking for. Anthes: I move to approve PPL 05-1528 with the 16 conditions as stated finding in favor of staff comments on those conditions with the rewording of four to reconfigure Lots 146, 147 and 148. Clark: Second. Anthes: I move to place condition seventeen to the motion which would provide for a north/south connection between TS Elliott Place and Sanbourn Street, either in line with Herman Melville Drive and William Blake or at another intersection at the discretion of the developer. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Do we need to vote on these independently Mr. Williams? Williams: You will vote on the amendment first. Ostner: First we are going to vote on the amendment to the motion. Is there further discussion on the amendment which deals with connecting those two streets? Vaught: 1 believe staff comments were requested. Ostner: Mr. O'Neal and Mr. Pate? O'Neal: Having not seen the proposed alignment I have no comment. Trumbo: Is this a safety issue or aesthetics? Hoskins: Traffic calming. Anthes: More connectivity, more ways out, more trips generated by more lots giving options. Ostner: Do you have any comments Mr. Pate? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 49 Pate: I think on a couple of different levels I would agree with both parties. The connection, we are always looking for more connectivity within subdivisions because we like disbursement of that traffic through all sorts of different streets, while I also feel for the developer. They do have construction plans practically approved. All they have done is move some lot lines and they are still falling well within their density for development. My calculations indicate that they are still only developing at 2.8 dwelling units per acre on this particular piece of property. We have had conversations with the property owners to the west who are potentially developing depending on the approved plans that have been submitted to the Planning Commission. Although those could change, I don't think this necessarily changes any stub outs to the west but it does obviously change some of the layout within this subdivision. Honestly, there is the opportunity to gain some lots I think, just looking very quickly at the actual lot layout, there may be an additional lot that could be gained. For the developer, probably the time spent engineering and designing these plans with both water and sewer line connections and street connections with regard to their development. I think it comes down to weighing those options and if there is appropriate street connections currently within the development. Obviously, the Planning Commission thought there was with the number of 177 lots that were proposed at the time. A lot of the connection discussion was a collector street at that time. I believe staff's opinion at that time was that it should be more east/westerly but with the addition of the round about I think it did bring a component that was unique and helped alleviate a lot of traffic concerns without causing bottle necks and traffic jams that we typically see. There will be a lot of traffic generated from this development. It is 73 acres. It is a lot of property to develop. I don't know if that gives you any more advice. Williams: Let me talk to you for just a second about the legal considerations you should be giving on this. The Preliminary Plat that is before you has been submitted by the applicant and this is it, not with the street connections. If the applicant is not willing to change his plat then what you are doing is turning the plat down. To do that you have to use one of the six reasons that are given in our Unified Development Code for turning them down, which says the Planning Commission may refuse to approve a Large Scale Development for any of the following reasons: 1) The developed plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this session. 2) The proposed development would violate a city ordinance or a state statute or federal statute. 3) The developer refuses to dedicate the street right of way, utility easements or drainage easements required by this chapter. I don't think any of those so far have been met. There is one on traffic. 4) The proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For purposes of this section a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 50 Pate: involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern. 5) City water and sewer is not available. Which I think it is here. 6) The developer refuses to comply with the requirements for on site development. That hasn't been a problem. Basically, if you would intend to turn this down, item four would be the only item that you have available to you. It does not say connectivity, it does not say how you would prefer to have this subdivision designed because that is really up to the developer. Unless it creates or compounds a dangerous traffic condition I don't think that the Planning Commission has the right to turn this Preliminary Plat down. I would agree but I would also add though, that we often times require developers to have off site improvements. If they disagree with those off site improvements they can appeal to the City Council and go to the City Council for a recommendation for final vote on that. There are many Large Scale Developments and Preliminary Plats that we see with conditions of approval placed upon it by the Planning Commission with regard to connectivity or other street assessments and/or off site improvements. I just want to make sure that that is clear as well that the City Council can act and vote on this project as well should it be appealed. I don't necessarily think that it is denying the project. It may be placing a condition that the applicant is not agreeable to and therefore, we would go one step forward in the process. I definitely agree with Mr. Williams in that regard. Williams: If the applicant does not agree with any condition then it would be basically a denial. Anthes: I certainly don't want to deny the project. That was certainly not my intention, that is why I made a motion to approve it. The question here though, you did state in number four about traffic, not only volume, but the nature of the traffic pattern. I think the nature of the traffic pattern ties directly to our 2010 guidelines and policies about connectivity. The reason that it is brought into question at this point. We had talked about this earlier and we had made some trade offs and some compromises that we do in dialogue at Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission with an applicant. We lost some of that trade off in the park situation and we added lots. You can set all of that stuff aside because, as I understand it, this is a new Preliminary Plat coming through and although we have a lot of history with this applicant and this project, we are really reviewing it for the first time because it is a new Preliminary Plat. What I do now is I look at this as a new Preliminary Plat with this number of lots and this configuration and I am concerned about the nature of the traffic pattern and the connectivity issues based on the density. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 51 Vaught: From my perspective, that connection isn't as important as the connection to Deane Solomon Road and I don't think there is going to be a great traffic pattern through here until we get that connection in Deane Solomon Road to the adjoining property. I will vote against the amendment for that reason. I think the situation is adequate and that most of the cars will exit to the south to Deane Solomon. It is more than likely going to be an easier way for them to get to where they are going so I will vote against the amendment. Jefcoat: I have one additional item in design. Immediately to the west of this project there will be a north/south road approximately 100', one lot size width in depth. The developer to the west will be developing a north/south road so you will be putting two north/south roads with two lot depths if you create a north/south connection at this point immediately to the west one lot depth over there is going to be a road north/south because of the way the development lays out. If you consider that, you are going to have a north/south to the west 100' away. Ostner: Do you have any drawings to show us? Hoskins: I don't know if we have any drawings. We have a conceptual plat and it is basically a mirror image of Laureate Fields, flip it over and that's what you've got. I do want to disagree with Commissioner Anthes on one thing as far as concessions or whatever. By unanimous vote the Parks Board believes that the situation with the park is better now than it was with Laureate Fields. It gives the opportunity of having a much, much larger park with access to it with trails connected to it. Anthes: I agree with that. I'm just saying that within this development boundary that there were concessions made because of your willingness to improve that park and to provide that amenity and it was part of the back and forth discussion. Hoskins: I agree. Again, I guess my concerns are the drainage, the sewer, the water, the street, everything has been designed for this subdivision. In fact, we didn't realize that it was coming back through as a Preliminary Plat until we sat down at Subdivision Committee. We thought that we were going through with a major modification. In fact, at first, we thought it could be done administratively. Then I learned from Jeremy that he felt more comfortable taking it back through the system. I actually thought that we were asking for a modification to the subdivision and not a whole new Preliminary Plat. We didn't learn that until Subdivision Committee. Since this thing was approved in August of last year nobody has brought up to connect those streets, even after we resubmitted with more lots it has not been brought up until tonight. It has never been an issue. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 52 Ostner: Allen: Clark: Ostner: Anthes: Vaught: Williams: Vaught: Williams: Anthes: Williams: I would like to remind everyone that this hasn't been passed, it hasn't been half passed, it gets approved or denied tonight. It really makes no difference that it has been partially through under a different name or different format. It is almost more of a hindrance than a help because now we have to look at everything and try to remember. I just want to remind everyone that we have what is in front of us and that is all that we are talking about tonight. Just to verify if there were any comments made at Subdivision. To me it was the drawings, I couldn't make heads or tails of this. We currently have a motion to approve and we have an amendment. We are going to vote on the amendment first if there is no further discussion. I remind everyone that the amendment would be to connect... The amendment is to provide connection between T.S. Elliott Place and Sanbourn Street either in alignment with Herman Melville Drive and William Blake or at an intermediate spot at the discretion of the developer. A question on Mr William's comments about adding an amendment like this. It confused me when you made your comments, we are voting on this plat but we are adding a condition, so we are not, in effect, turning it down, I guess that is what I am confused about. I think it can be interpreted by the developer that you are turning his plat down that he has proposed and therefore, in order to vote for this amendment you need to determine, each person that votes for this amendment that the way the plat is now would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. With that perspective on it the developer then has a right to appeal that condition, I guess they don't appeal the approval to City Council. I would think that in this particular case that they could still appeal to the City Council because to some extent this has been a denial of the plat that they have submitted. I believe you said it was the nature of the traffic pattern, not just compound a dangerous traffic situation. There was language about the traffic volume and the nature of the traffic. Let me read it again. Item number four says "The proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For purposes of this section, a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 53 significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern." Milholland: Did I understand you to say that if they vote on this amendment to the motion, if they vote it down, they can still vote on the motion to approve the plat? Williams: Whichever way they vote on this amendment, they could still vote on the underlying motion to approve the plat either as submitted, or as amended. If they amend it without your consent then I think you have the right to appeal that. Milholland: They can vote the amendment down and approve it on the conditions of staff? Williams: That is correct. Allen: I understand what we are voting on but are we to deal with this as though we have never seen it before? Ostner: Yes, this is the first time this is approved or denied. This is a new Preliminary Plat. Vaught: I just keep thinking about those terms. I do not construe this as significantly creating a dangerous traffic condition. I think that it might not be as nice as we want it or it might not have the connectivity that we want but I don't know if it falls into the criteria. They are providing connection off site. This is an internal flow issue that I don't think will create a dangerous traffic condition. Trumbo: When Commissioner Anthes says things I listen because she is a very bright person and knows a lot more about design than I do. I am asking her if it is her opinion that this will create a more dangerous situation. Is that what your problem is? Anthes: My problem is the traffic pattern and the extra lots and the additional traffic and the fact that we have stub outs that are not connecting through at this point in time. It all just kind of paints a picture. With the fact that Engineering Staff has not studied it, we don't have traffic counts, I guess I do not have the numerical back up for that based on statistics that would be pulled from a traffic study. Part of this is my recollection of some concerns that were voiced during the original Preliminary Plat. If it is a matter of whether this has been engineered or not, I hate to cause any hardship on the developer in that way and yet we have to look at this as though it is a new Preliminary Plat. However, because we are where we are with it we request these kinds of things all the time and it is slightly Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 54 altered and it is amenable and easy to do however, because the work has been done and the opinion of the City Attorney that we are in a different sort of state then I would be happy to pull my motion. Williams: I can say that it really depends on the attitude and position of the developer. Certainly you have requested other developers to make minor changes and they have made them. As long as it is agreeable to them then this section doesn't come into play because you are not turning them down. You are working with them like you do in Subdivision and you do here. It is only when the developer says "Wait a minute, this is it." That is what alerts me to the fact that they might consider this as a rejection and not something that you are just working with them. If you approve the amendment, they don't have to do anything else, they can go with it. They have the right to appeal if they wanted to. You are considering the plat before you but I agree with Commissioner Anthes that you don't ignore everything that happened in the past. That is not right. This has a history, everybody knows it. It has been here and was looked at a lot. It goes both ways. You made some concessions, on the other hand, you did approve it in this configuration with fewer lots. That kind of cuts both ways. You are looking at the way it is right now. That is what your approval or disapproval will be on, as it is right now. You don't have to divorce yourself from everything that went before. Ostner: I guess part of the issue that I'm having is that all the time our staff places conditions and the applicant steps forward and says they will agree to everything but that. We have been talking for weeks and we would like for you Commissioners to let us out of this condition. Staff is doing exactly what you've been talking about, putting a condition on the developer that they don't like. I guess I'm not seeing the difference. Williams: One of those conditions could be some sort of off site improvement or something. That is one of the specific things in here that gives you the right to turn it down if they don't agree to off site improvements. If it is something else in that that is going to result in turning down a Preliminary Plat then it needs to be based on one of these six criteria within the ordinance that is supposed to guide us and guide staff also. Ostner: That makes some sense. I think these people on this far eastern edge on Long Fellow, after this is built out with the drawing we have tonight, I think they may often wonder why everyone in those loops drives down their street. Why isn't there a connection so people can get around. These people right at these intersections get all of the traffic from the loop. I am not an engineer, I don't see where the line is drawn for danger. That is where connectivity is great. It disburses, it gives people choices. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 55 Hoskins: Let's assume that we do connect those streets over there, how will that change Longfellow Parkway? If you connect this loop to this loop how will that effect Longfellow Parkway? Ostner: People can go all the way to the south or the north and not get on Longfellow. They wind up on Longfellow but it is not focused. Hoskins: Again, you are going to have east/west connections and, as the engineers have said, the development that is coming through right next door to this has the connection all the way from Crystal Springs by Raven, which is on the Master Street Plan. Ostner: You have to understand that that is hard for us to take into account since we don't have a drawing. Williams: They have to decide this on what is actually presented tonight and we don't know whether that development will ever come through or not. Hoskins: Agreed. As far as the aggravation of the traffic, on the contrary, we are actually helping the situation because again, we are improving Salem Road all the way from Deane Solomon Road to the entrance of our development. We are actually improving traffic situations out there. Clark: I am going to try to address what Mr. Hoskins asked, having two north/south connections gives everybody in this subdivision an opportunity to take an alternative route to the north other than Longfellow. Yes, they cut over and go out eventually but now you are forcing every single lot to make that north/south connection onto Longfellow and get out of the subdivision. If you had another one you could funnel on each side. Does that mean that I support or reject the amendment, I don't know. I wish we could consider the western development that you mentioned tonight but we can't because there are no plans for that. Once again, I think that we should've talked this out a lot more thoroughly at Subdivision. Trust me, next time when I see a plat that comes to us in the condition that it did at Subdivision we won't even talk about it. That is my interpretation, I feel like we didn't see a true representation of this and had the opportunity to talk about it. That is partly our fault. Anthes: I appreciate this dialogue, I think I have learned a lot about procedure and appreciate Commissioners insight to it. I do think that a north/south connection would be preferable into this subdivision and that it would alleviate some congestion, particularly before full build out and I do think that it would be more in keeping with our policy of connectivity but in the interest of moving this forward I will pull my motion to amend. Myres: I will withdraw my second. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 56 Ostner: We have a motion on the table to approve this Preliminary Plat without the amendment. There was verbiage changed in number four and that still holds. Do we have further discussion? Will you please call the roll Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1528 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 57 Ostner: Our next item is CUP 05-1526 for the Clinton House. Gardner: The property is located at 930 California Drive adjacent to the southern border of the University of Arkansas campus and is under the ownership of the University. The home was the site of the former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1975 where they lived while law professors at the University of Arkansas. The applicant proposes to operate a small museum and office out of the existing single family home. The house has been used until recently as a single family home. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The site is surrounded by the University of Arkansas campus to the north, single family dwellings and Fayetteville School District facilities to the south and mixed multi -family and single family dwellings to the east and the west. As mentioned, the proposal is to operate a small museum and associated office space in the existing house. The property would serve as a museum for those who wish to see pictures and artifacts of the Clinton's lives in Fayetteville and also serve as an office for one staff member. Once or twice a month the house would serve as a small meeting facility for social events. Staff does not anticipate that the size and function of the structure as proposed would generate a great deal of traffic. At this time the applicant does not propose any construction or improvements to parking or access as it is anticipated that the existing driveway and garage have suitable parking for the amount of traffic that would come to the facility. The request is to allow a museum and office space in the existing single family home, which is in an RMF -24 zoning district, which requires a Conditional Use approval. Staff is in support of granting a Conditional Use for the museum and office as it is in keeping with the surrounding uses and will contribute to the mixed use of surrounding properties and uses and will help preserve a piece of Fayetteville history associated with former U.S. President Bill Clinton in a manner that will retain the neighborhood character. Staff recommends relatively standard conditions of approval related to this project with regard to parking and access as noted in your staff report. I will be happy to answer any questions about that. Anthes: I will recuse from this item. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Heifner: I am Marilyn Heifner. I am Executive Director of the Advertising and Promotion Commission and I have with me Joseph Barnes who will be the museum director. The property is being leased by the A&P Commission from the University for a two year period so that we can see if this museum is going to fly. At that time we have the option of purchasing the property from the University. We feel that it will be successful but we are Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 58 still trying not to invest great deals of money into this until we can find out if it actually will be successful. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I would ask from the staff recommendations on the payment in lieu of the sidewalk, I guess I'm in a Catch 22 because the University owns this property we don't have the ability to offer a Bill of Assurance which would go with the property that that sidewalk be constructed if it ever needs to be. As the Executive Director of the Advertising & Promotion Commission I am not too keen on paying $630 for people to stand outside and take pictures of the front yard. If we could have something in lieu of $630 it will make me very happy. Ostner: At this point I will open up this Conditional Use Permit to the public. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. I will start by asking staff do we have any ability to change the $630 to a point where the University could pay for it? I believe that was Ms. Heifner's request to delay it. Heifner: To delay it until we own it. I don't have the ability to promise you that the University will pay the $630. Ostner: You are the applicant tonight though. Heffner: I will do whatever you want, the University owns property on one side and then there is Stonecroft and I don't believe that the sidewalk will ever go any place but I will be happy to do whatever you like. Pate: Just for everyone's knowledge, the Sidewalk Administrator recommended the fee in lieu here because of Ms. Heifner's acknowledgement that there is no sidewalk on this side of the street along this area of California Drive. There is a sidewalk on the other side of the street that could use improvement. That is exactly what these fees are utilized for are sidewalks in the area to improve those. Theoretically it would be improving access to this property either from bus trips or students or anyone else wanting to visit this museum. As far as timing, we didn't specifically give a length of time. Typically that is prior to building permit, there is no building permit in this case so it would be prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance, which would give some time again, for the applicant. I don't think there is anything pressing. That doesn't have to happen in the next month or so. That is really just before they open their business and begin everything. I don't know if that is something that the applicant is agreeable to but it would be simply at the time that they wanted to start their business. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 59 Clark: Can we require the University to put in city amenities like a sidewalk in front of their property? This is technically owned by the University right now. Williams: Pate: Williams: Pate: Heifner: Williams: Clark: Williams: MOTION: Clark: Normally we can't require the University to do anything, to get a building permit, to pay a sidewalk fee or to get a Conditional Use. We have spoken with the applicant about that. That was exactly staff's position. However, the property will not be owned by the University once this operation goes into effect. I think once the University no longer owns the property, that would be the proper time for the A&P Commission with their request for Conditional Use or rezoning or whatever you would do. Again, that is exactly what we discussed with the applicant. They are doing their due diligence to ensure that at the proper time when that land transfer does occur that they will have everything in order to begin their business. It is my understand that if we operate it for two years as a museum then it will be grand fathered in and we won't have to come for a Conditional Use. I don't think so. Can we not amend this motion to say should this property revert to the ownership of the A&P Commission then payment of $630 in lieu of would be required? I don't think you would be grand fathered in. It is something that we have no control over until the A&P Commission purchases it. At that point, we would then have control and I would think that we could probably demand a Conditional Use. You probably want to be on record to have a Conditional Use so you know everything is going to work before you buy it so I don't have any problem with that. I would recommend that we not make any decision on the sidewalk fee until the time that the A&P Commission actually owns the property and then they can request a lesser fee. I will make the motion that we amend part of condition number four that when the property reverts to the A&P Commission then the sidewalk fee will be open for discussion. If anybody can afford it the A&P should be able to. This is a motion to approve CUP 05-1526 with the verbiage as Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 60 provided by staff with the exception of number four which will read "Should this facility revert to the ownership of the A&P, at that point we will come back and discuss sidewalk fees." Allen: Second. Vaught: Staff, on on site parking, two will be in the driveway and two will be to the side of the driveway, I guess we are not requiring improvements for the parking spots in the dirt, is that correct? What can we do to the University? I would think normally we would want something done. Williams: Usually if there are five spaces we get to require landscape parking but I don't think we should in this case since it is the University. Gardner: In discussion with the applicant we discussed if there were five parking spaces or greater that they would be required to come into conformance with city parking ordinances and we discussed that. They weren't sure what type of parking that they would need at this time and we agreed that four spots would be the amount of cars that they would anticipate at the most and we said if five or more cars are parked consistently at the property then it would kick in where they would have to look at the parking again. Vaught: Really, there are two in the garage and two outside of the garage. The drawing that we have here has two off the side of the driveway in the dirt. Gardner: Correct. Ostner: There is a motion and a second, is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1526 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes abstaining. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 61 Ostner: Item number twelve is CUP 05-1527 for Anderson. Morgan: The subject property is located at the corner of Salem Road where it dead ends to the north and Fairfax Road. It contains approximately eight acres and is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The existing property is undeveloped and consists of a very grassy pasture with large, mature trees and a creek that runs along the northern portion of the property with associated floodway and floodplain. This eight acre property is now one single family lot. It has well over the 8,000 sq.ft. required for a single family development. However, it does not have the 70' required for lot width. This item was before the Board of Adjustment on June 6`h when the applicant requested a variance of the lot width requirement to allow for 60' of frontage. This was approved and therefore, the applicant could request a permit for a single family dwelling on this eight acre tract with 60' lot width. At this time the perspective buyer of this tract would like to put a single family home on this property but prior to requesting a building permit for this single family home would like to request approval for an accessory structure to be placed on this property. An accessory structure in this case is proposed at a 1,500 sq.ft. storage unit, kind of a storage shed, in which mowers and a tractor to maintain and upkeep the property will be stored prior to requesting approval of the single family structure. The Unified Development Code specifies that if an applicant would like to place an accessory structure on a piece of property prior to the principal use a Conditional Use Permit is required and that would need to be granted by the Planning Commission. With regard to specifications for accessory structures, for an accessory structure to be classified as accessory the size would need to be less than 50% of the total square feet of the principal structure. The applicant is proposing a 2,500 sq.ft. home and therefore, staff has made a recommendation that the maximum square feet of accessory structure be 1,225 sq.ft. I believe in the letter that was submitted to you earlier this evening from the applicant, they are in agreement with complying with that request. With regard to use, the use of an accessory structure will be limited to the items used for the single family use as well as maintaining a lot. You could not run a business out of that storage unit nor could you keep or store any other equipment or supplies that are used for properties other than this property. With regard to location, the applicant is requesting that the location of the accessory structure be placed at the very southeast corner of the property. This is very near the stub out where Salem Road stubs out to the north into this property. The location, if you look on page 12.14 of your staff report, they have located the structure not only in the southeast corner of the lot but also outside of a potential location of Salem Road extension as well as the setback off of that collector street. Staff recommends that the accessory structure be located behind or beside of the proposed home and the applicant is proposing the home to be located more in the northwest corner of the lot outside of the Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 62 floodway and the floodplain. Staff finds that the location of the proposed accessory structure so near the single family homes to the east and to the south is inappropriate and as an accessory structure, they are usually located beside or behind the principal structure and we find that a more appropriate location would be more centrally located to the lot and towards the proposed location of the home. Additionally, if Salem Road were extended this building would be located alongside the street. Staff recommends that it be relocated so that it is more typical of structures that we typically see on single family lots and will retain it's accessory appearance. We have addressed these recommendations in condition one with regard to placement of the structure. Condition two refers to the maximum size of that structure. A building permit shall not be issued on the property which would violate this ordinance requirement. That meaning that at the time a building permit is submitted for the single family home it will need to be of such a size that the permitted accessory structure is 49% or less than the total principal use. We are requesting that the accessory structure be screened with can porous trees and shrubs to buffer this metal building from the surrounding single family properties which are located on all sides of this lot with the exception to the north. One condition that was not addressed however, and it came up with the last item, sidewalk fees. With every Conditional Use we are required to evaluate whether we are to recommend construction of a sidewalk or recommend a fee in lieu of sidewalk. This lot is located at the north stub out of Salem Road and there is no street on which a sidewalk if not already located, could be built. We are recommending, based on the Sidewalk Administrator's recommendation, that money in lieu be paid for the sidewalk in the amount of $630. We would recommend that because the placement of an accessory structure on this property will not necessarily create the demand for sidewalk in this area. However, a single family home would, we would be comfortable placing a time frame on that payment that at the time a building permit were submitted for a single family home that that fee in lieu of sidewalk be paid at that time. We would like to add that as a condition. Anderson: My name is Lynn Anderson, I'm a realtor with Century 21. I represent the applicants James and Sylvia Craven. They are in agreement with all of the recommendations of the Planning Staff which are the specific placement of the structure and the fee for the sidewalk. The applicants have asked that I read a statement to you and address those issues. This is a very beautiful piece of property. It is eight acres. It has some huge oak trees in the center of the property. That is one of the reasons that we don't want to locate the accessory structure close to the center. We want to maintain a park like atmosphere. I understand the Planning Staff's concern that it not be intrusive to the neighbors. That is a concern of the applicants too. They do not want to cause any problems with property values by putting a large accessory structure close. The land slopes from Salem down to the Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 63 creek with a pretty considerable slope. Where they are proposing to put the accessory structure there is only one home that would be able to see it from that point if they put it in the center all of the homes on the west side and the south side would be able to see it because they are going to clean out all of the underbrush and just leave the large trees and mow and just make it into a park like area. The accessory structure in the center would mar that view and it would just not look good to have it in the center. That is why they want to put it into the corner area. Concerning Lot 59, if you will look at the map that is attached to the back of the letter, the existing privacy fence along the east side, all of these properties have 6' privacy fences. They are deep backyards with large trees. They would never be able to see the accessory building where we are proposing to put it. The applicant is willing to build a privacy fence between them and Lot 59. They aren't going to be able to see it very well anyway because it is the side that their garage is on and they have a privacy fence that extends back behind their house in the backyard. The applicants are willing to put a privacy fence there so that they would have no view whatsoever of the accessory structure. Another reason for not locating the accessory structure close to the principal dwelling is this is an eight acre lot. Normally you are talking about a small lot when you are talking about putting an accessory structure behind or beside your principal dwelling. They are having an architect draw up plans for their home. It is going to be a very nice home and the architecture for the accessory structure and the house will not match and would not look good together. If they put it beside or behind their home it is really going to be in view of all of these neighbors on the west and the south side and most of those do not have privacy fences in their backyards. We really feel like we are willing to comply with the setbacks of a future possible road through there. That is not an issue. We will do that even though no one can tell us for sure where that road is going to be, it might go straight, it might curve, it is a drawing at this point from what I understand so we really don't know where it would go if it would ever go there. They have no intention of ever developing that property. They want to keep it beautiful and they want to preserve the trees. That is their interest here. We just feel like it would be such an undue burden on them to move it to the center and basically ruin what they want to do with the property. They want to keep it very beautiful. In regard to the sidewalk, there are sidewalks down both sides of Salem all the way down the stub out as far as it goes. We just don't feel like it is reasonable to ask them to pay the $630 fee for a sidewalk that cannot be built. If and when Salem Road is ever extended, we feel that would be the appropriate time to address the issue of a sidewalk. As far as the road goes, there are sidewalks in excellent condition and we feel like the single family home built on this property is not going to increase the need of any further sidewalks whatsoever on this property or coming down to this property. In conclusion, this property is zoned RSF-4 and if the applicants do not purchase it it would leave it open Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 64 to development possibilities which would really mar the pristine beauty of the place. They could come in there and put several homes in there rather than just the single family home I thank you for your consideration of the request. I have addressed all of the issues and would be happy to answer any questions. Pertaining to the photograph that the staff took, the photograph of the view from Lot 59 showing where the proposed location of the structure is, it doesn't really show the slope. You can't really get an idea of what the slope is, it looks like it is a straight view there but it isn't. It slopes down. Like I said, we would put a privacy fence across that edge and there would be no sight of the structure. It is an attractive structure, I don't think you have the colored pictures that they propose to build this building for. It could be any color that would be required to make it less intrusive or less visible. I think that covers it. If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. Ostner: At this point I would like to open this issue up to the public. If anyone would like to speak to the Conditional Use Permit, CUP 05-1527, please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Allen: I would like to ask Ms. Anderson the function of the accessory structure please. Anderson: The property at this point is rather overgrown and they want to keep it very nice. The structure is simply to house mowing and their lawn care equipment. They want to have a tractor in there and the equipment it takes to maintain the property. That is all the accessory structure is for. Allen: It seems more logical to me that it be nearer to the house rather than walking eight acres to it. Anderson: The reason they don't want to put it near the house it to make the property look better. They want the property to look nice for everyone. They just feel like that would be a much more attractive setting for an accessory structure. If you saw the property you would understand because you probably wouldn't notice it driving up where they want to put it, especially if they put a privacy fence there. Whereas, as you look down and across the property when you drive up if you put it in the center or if it were near the house it would be there. It is a large structure because of wanting to put the tractor and the equipment in it and we feel like it would be more intrusive to the neighbors to put it closer to the house rather than up in the corner where they want to put it. Clark: How do you get to this property? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 65 Anderson: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Clark: Pate: Clark: Anderson: Off of Wedington and you turn into Walnut Grove Subdivision and that is Salem and you go all the way back. Am I understanding this right that the only reason we are seeing this is because the house is not built yet? That is correct. An accessory structure is being constructed prior to the principal structure, which on this lot would be a single family residence. So in other words, if the situation were that they didn't want the shed at this moment and they went ahead and built their house then they could build their shed wherever they wanted and they wouldn't have to come for a Conditional Use Permit? It is about the order more than the permission? Since they want to build a shed first they are having to ask permission. Correct. They would have to have a building permit, it would just fall under setback requirements, we would ensure that it was less than 50% of the overall square footage of the primary structure, it is the same requirements that we have here, it just requires Planning Commission approval. But, at that point, if the house were already built there wouldn't be anyone telling them where to put it? Correct. It would be to meet the safety guidelines. I just wanted to make that clear. You get to the property from Salem so will there be a driveway or will Salem continue through this property? On the Master Street Plan Salem Road is shown to go north through the property. Assessments have been taken from developers in this area for a bridge over the creek there in this area. That is on the Master Street Plan. I am just looking at the pictures, which I find to be very helpful and it looks like Salem just stops. I commend your heartiness to be able to get to the property. I have a question for the staff. It was my understanding when we were talking to you and the Engineers that there are no immediate plans whatsoever to extend Salem, that would just depend on development right? If someone is developing the property. They have no intention of developing that property. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 66 Williams: At one point when I was on the City Council we had saved up enough money to extend Salem, build a bridge across Hamestring and extend it all the way up to Mt. Comfort and the two aldermen from that particular ward had a ward meeting out in Salem Village with everybody out there and they decided that they did not want that money, they didn't want that road, they didn't want the bridge and we happily applied it to other roads in other areas of town where people did want roads. I think the history there is that the neighbors do not want to extend Salem across that creek. It would be a very expensive proposition. We saved up two or three years worth of capital improvement project money to put it into this project only at the last second to have the neighbors say we don't want it. I am not saying, it is on the Master Street Plan, it was not removed from the Master Street Plan, but it is not real likely that it is going to go forward anytime soon. Ostner: When was this? Williams: I think it was about 1996 when we thought we were going to be able to put it through. It was always on the Master Street Plan and in our Capital Improvements Project list and when it came time to build it the neighbors said they didn't want it. Vaught: On that, if we ever need another north/south road in that area that's our road. I want to be a little leery of just saying we're not going to build it. That is probably our only choice to go north/south there. Rupple Road, as bad as it is, hopefully it will get improved to a decent standard in the future. Other than that, it is Salem Road. Anderson: We are willing to comply with the setbacks for a future road. At the same time, if that were ever developed, the storage facility is easily removed. It is not like a home. It would come down easily and wouldn't be an issue as far as fronting the street or anything. Vaught: In our ordinance we have nothing that specifies the placement of accessory structures? Pate: That is correct. I don't believe there is anything that specifies that it has to be in the front or back of a structure. We typically just view them as accessory. Anthes: Suzanne, will you read your condition number seven? Morgan: Staff recommends payment in lieu of sidewalk in the amount of $630 to be paid at the time that a single family building permit is submitted. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 67 Williams: I know that we can request a sidewalk fee at the time of Conditional Use, but you can also do it but I think it would be more appropriate to do it at the time that a new structure is built, meaning a single family home, which we don't have to have in here. It is in our ordinance, it is one of the five things, including a Conditional Use when you get a sidewalk fee. I think it is more appropriately tied to a new home than it would be to an accessory structure. I don't know what I'm missing, can we just not tie it to the building permit? Pate: Because it says with a Conditional Use we just recommend that we do tie it to that building permit. Because one of the five criteria is that it has to be due at the time of Conditional Use. A Certificate of Occupancy would be issued for the accessory structure. We entirely agree with the City Attorney's opinion though that it should be tied to the single family home. That generates the use, not the accessory structure. Ostner: It was seeming that way to me. Vaught: My main problem is if Salem Road ever goes through and that is stuck on one side and everything else is on the other. Is there a condition that we can place to say if improvements are ever made to Salem Road that the accessory structure will be moved an appropriate distance from the right of way? Williams: You would have to go across the street, it is already outside of the setbacks. Vaught: Yeah, but to be in a more appropriate location with the main structure on the property instead of divided by a major street. That is my concern with the location right now. Williams: Once they have their main building they don't need a Conditional Use, they can put the accessory structure wherever it is within the setbacks. It is a timing issue. Ostner: I would be more than happy to not look at this and have them go get their building permit and build their house first and then put the shed where they want it but tonight, since there is no house there I'm inclined to go with staff's recommendation. Craven: I'm Jim Craven, I'm the one that is trying to buy that piece of property and improve that piece of property. If you would go there today that property is very overgrown and it needs a lot of work done on it before we build our home over there and get ready to move in there. In order to improve the property and clean up the property I need a tractor and a brush hog and lawn mowers and things over there and I can't take those things over there Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 68 and just let them sit out there in the open in that lot. That is the only reason I want to put that building up prior to moving there. Like Lynn said, we have no intention, there are 500 year old oak trees on that property. If you were to go and look at it, you would be amazed. We want to maintain that property not only for ourselves, but for the neighbors around there. The place where we are proposing to put that structure there is nobody that is going to be able to see that structure in that location, including ourselves, but none of the neighbors either. If we put it out in the middle of that property everybody is going to see it. Ostner: Have you all considered a structure that would not require a building permit that could shield your equipment from the elements and it would be somewhat portable? It wouldn't have a footing, it wouldn't require a permit. Craven: Ostner: This building is not going to have a footing. It is a pole building where they put poles down in the ground. This building requires a building permit. Some structures don't. These metal carports that people put in. Craven: Those blow away when the wind blows. Ostner: I'm just trying to find a solution. Anthes: I'm having a hard time evaluating this just because I cannot see the property well because it is so over grown. I'm looking at the drawing on page 12.16 and it seems like you've overlaid it over an aerial where the trees can sort of be seen through the city overlay and you can see some topography there. That seems to lend some credence to the applicant's argument about the fact that this will be tucked down lower and out of visibility from these other properties. Did you take that into account when you went out there. What were the criteria? Can you comment on the topography issue in addition to the placement issue of the building? Pate: Our comments again, stem from the fact that it is an accessory structure. We envision, based on our Master Street Plan, that a collector street could be extended and this would front onto a collector street on one side and potentially a structure be on the other. That is chiefly staff's concern, that you would then have a metal shed with potential access directly onto a collector street because it would be established before that collector street was there. Of course, as many persons have mentioned tonight, that would either take the city buying the property and developing it or another developer doing that. Obviously, it is not the intent here. I think honestly, it does come down to a question of timing. I agree with the applicant that it is less visible than what it looks like on the site plan. These are Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 69 Vaught: Pate: MOTION: Anthes: Clark: Anderson: Clark: Williams: Anderson: Williams: Anderson: Williams: evidenced by the photos that you see, especially the one on page 12.19 where you see the 6' fence barely located in that general direction. I think that is something to take into consideration in your decision. We did include a condition that might make all of this a moot point, at the end of condition five, should the property be subdivided, the accessory structure shall at no time remain on an undeveloped lot without a principal structure and the structure may be removed or relocated at the time of subdivision. That could satisfy the concerns of the Commission because it could not be located on a lot that the principal structure is not on. If a street goes through there is that considered subdividing it? Yes. Taking that all into account, I am going to move for approval of CUP 05- 1527 striking condition of approval number one. Adding the condition about the fee in lieu of $630 to be paid at the time of the single family home building permit is requested. I will second that. Is this something like you can't get out of this regardless if you build a single family home in Fayetteville? This is just cut and dry? Yes. Even without a Conditional Use this is still something when you build a single family home. You always have your right if you feel like you are not having any impact on the infrastructure of the city to come to the Planning Commission to ask them to reduce that amount. We would have to come at another time for that? Yes. The $630 was the minimum amount for a lot with minimum frontage what it would cost to put a sidewalk in front of it. You can't even put a sidewalk here, that is what my objection is. There is no place to put a sidewalk. Right, if you had a place to put a sidewalk you might be required to place a sidewalk. This is when there is no place to put a sidewalk then it is money in lieu thereof. Clark: If I can clarify, you pay the money, you don't put the sidewalk in. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 70 Vaught: Every time anyone builds a house they pay the money for the sidewalks. Anderson: We are actually just contributing to the infrastructure with the $630? Williams: A sidewalk will be built within the general area with that money. The money goes into a special fund only for sidewalks. It is divided into four quadrants. Anthes: I would also like to add an eighth condition that we except the applicant's drawing for the proposed privacy fence to screen the storage facility in the location that they are proposing from the adjacent neighbor. Clark: I will agree to that. Ostner: We have a motion to approve. Is there further discussion? Clark: We are allowing the petitioner to put the building where they want to put it. They are going to screen it. You are going to pay money in lieu of a sidewalk at the time of building permit for the new home. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1527 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 71 Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1523, if we could have the staff report please. Fulcher: The subject property consists of a part of Lots 9 and 10 of Grandview Heights Subdivision containing 0.24 acres. The property is located between School Avenue and Hayden Avenue and is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The surrounding properties consist of a mix of single family residences, commercial and industrial properties. The applicant intends to use the existing structure for a bail bonds business. This use is classified under Use Unit 16 which is not a permitted use or a Conditional Use in the RSF-4 zoning district. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. I should mention back on March 30`h a citizen did complain regarding some signs on the property. Staff did go and investigate, that is when we determined that there was a business along with signs on the property. It wasn't allowable and a violation letter was mailed out as our procedure calls for. The applicants came in to find out what they could do to resolve the situation and that is when they submitted the rezoning application to try to get the property rezoned to allow their bail bonds business. The Fire Department has reviewed this request and it is estimated that the response time from Fire Station #1 to this site would be four minutes. The Police Department has reviewed this request and has determined that the rezoning will not substantially alter the population density nor will it create an undesirable increase on police services. The future land use plan does designate this area for community commercial. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning objectives and policies and is compatible with adjacent properties. The proposed zoning will also support existing uses such as a county con-ectional facility located just west of the subject property. Therefore, staff is recommending in favor of this request. If you have any questions please let me know. Osmer: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. t appreciate your patience for the past four hours. Hartlerode: I am Chris Hartlerode and this is my wife. We would like to rezone it for a bail bond company. I did not write a presentation. Ostner: We will get back with you if we have any questions. At this point I will open it up for public comment if anyone would like to speak to this rezoning, RZN 05-1523 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: Staff, what zoning designation is implied by the term "community commercial"? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 72 Pate: I don't think any of the future land use designations really imply a specific zoning designation and again, it is just kind of a guideline. That is probably our more intensive one with the exception of industrially types of uses. We have mixed use, we have office, office can fall in C-1, C-2, R- 0, a number of categories. We try to pick the most appropriate one. Community Commercial tends to be at the nodes and in this case along South School it is a strip of Community Commercial that is identified on the future land use plan. C-2 generally falls within that category. It does not typically fall within the mixed use categories. Anthes: The second question is a matter of curb cuts. If this structure were removed and the zoning was granted, how would that change access to South School? Pate: It would likely not change it much. The lots here are relatively small for commercial lots. It does not have a lot of depth. Most of the lots that we are seeing be rezoned to C-2 in this area for bail bonds offices actually have that. They can be amassed as one. They do have the benefit of having Hayden Lane behind them so that could potentially be an off street access for potential rear access for businesses as opposed to accessing directly off of South School. I'm not sure if it would really change the access, other than if it were a new development we would look at it to ensure that it met requirements on that particular property. Pursuant to the City Council's direction last Tuesday night with the approval of a zoning district directly to the north for C-2 for a bail bonds office staff was directed, and we offered information that we are currently gathering, we are trying to look at this particular use unit and see if it is more appropriate in a different section. We have been trying to look at all of our use units established since the 1970's. It is sort of a daunting task. We may focus in on one or two that are more prevalent right now. The Council did express a particular interest in having this be a R-0 piece of property and if we could fit that within R -O that might be something that could be accommodated with a change in our current ordinances. However, we are getting descriptions from the bail bonds offices about how many customers per day, per week, how much traffic they generate in order to get a better idea of is an R-0 zoning district along Elm Street or Green Acres appropriate also for a bail bonds office. They will typically go toward wherever the jail is but that is something that we have to take a look at. I just wanted the Commission to know that staff is working on that as well. Ostner: We were wondering if we could possibly integrate a Conditional Use within an R -O for that Use Unit. Pate: That is definitely one of the options that we are looking at. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 73 Ostner: For tonight we are limited by the Use Units that we have. MOTION: Clark: Having said that, I will move that we approve RZN 05-1523. Myres: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1523 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 74 Ostner: The last item on the agenda is RZN 05-1524 for Honda Pro. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This request is to rezone three lots, Lots 14, 15, and 16 of Parkers Plat of Valley View Acres to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The property is located north of Popular Street and west of Shady Avenue, which runs parallel to Gregg Avenue and the railroad tracks. This property is currently leased by Seth McClelland of Honda Pro. Just a little bit of background on this property, in 2002 Quality Auto Exchange was leasing this property and requested a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this business in this location. Staff denied that request because that business, similar to Honda Pro, was for auto sales and service repair and was not appropriate or allowed in the R -O zoning district. Subsequently, we found that the business was still operating in that location and issued a violation notice after which, the business moved and was no longer located on the lot. Just recently in March we received a complaint from the previous lessee of the property stating that there was again a business on the property that was for auto repair and similar to the previous business. The city issued a violation notice and gave the owner 30 days to reply with no compliance with the zoning regulations we issued a final notice. The applicant came into our Planning offices and requested a rezoning in order to allow a zoning that would allow the continuance of this building. In discussions with the applicant, in determining what use would be appropriate, or what zoning would be appropriate for the use that is currently there, we were discussing the type of business which was being run and currently there are some cars there on the property that are no longer functional and are used for parts to repair other cars and vehicles. This is a salvage business and would require an I-2 zoning. The applicant stated that he would remove those cars and remove that salvage portion of the business thereby classifying this as a Use Unit 17 for Automotive Sales, Service and Repair. Therefore, the applicant is now requesting a C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district on these three lots. Currently the three lots are zoned R -O. The two most eastern lots are zoned R -O and the western lot is zoned RSF-4. The applicant leases all three of these properties and is currently operating on two of the properties, the two that are zoned R -O. The request is to rezone all three to C-2. Staff finds that the General Plan designates this area for residential use. It is adjacent to an industrial zoning district and properties which are used for industrial type businesses to the south however, we find that rezoning to C-2 would encroach upon this neighborhood to the north and west of this property. With regard to conformity, we feel that we could support a R -O zoning in this area of which two properties have already been rezoned to R -O that those businesses in that zoning district would be a more transitional use also allowing for development of residential uses should those lots be purchased. Therefore, we are recommending denial of the requested C-2 zoning. Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 75 Ostner: McClelland: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Would the applicant come forward? My name is Seth McClelland. I opened the service center about a year ago. To my knowledge I haven't disturbed anybody near me, I haven't increased any traffic. I didn't think that this would ever be an issue because I'm at the corner of Gregg Street which is four lane and Popular Street, which is loaded with businesses on it and now there is a stop light at the corner. I have Meeks Lumber north of me, Ridout and all of the other companies, Don's Moving Company, and then one little house and then me, then it is industrial from there on. As far as the salvage cars, two of those cars were there when I got there and all we did was cover them up with tarps. For our service customers, if you break a bolt you could go out back and take it off of that car so that the customer wasn't inconvenienced. It is not a problem to remove those cars. I don't make any money on those cars. It was just simply for a customer's convenience if they needed something small that nobody stocks. That's all that I have to say. At this point I will open this up for pubic comment, seeing that there is no public left we will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. I have a question for staff. Which Use Unit would their current business fit into? Without the salvage use it would fit into Use Unit 17. Which zoning district is that allowed in? C-2 is the lowest zoning district that that is allowed in. I believe it is also allowed in industrial zoning as well. Pretty much if this is not approved they have to stop business there is what I'm trying to get to. Yes. The previous user of the property was forced to relocate. It is the same owner of the property. The previous user of the property was an auto repair shop in similar nature and they were required to be removed from the premises. They did relocate and the property owner leased the property again to someone who was not complying with our zoning ordinances McClelland: The person who was there before me was a used car dealer. Whenever I rented the property I started out only as a service center so the person that was there before me did not do service. He only did automotive sales. Vaught: When was the C-2 to the north approved? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 76 Morgan: The property one removed to the north was approved in 1990 with a Bill of Assurance. At the time the business was operating there and they requested a C-2 zoning with a Bill of Assurance that was granted. Vaught: Does it list what is in the Bill of Assurance? Pate: I don't believe so. It is the moving company. Vaught: What I have a hard time with is when you look at the map and you draw on it 80% of the property that you see on this side of Gregg is Industrial and there is a handful of RSF-4 zoning. There is C-2 stuck in it. I don't know if R -O is appropriate. I obviously don't see RSF-4 is appropriate for that corner. I would lean towards a more intense zoning. When they issued a violation before they did not apply for a rezoning so we don't know what may have happened at that time. The owner kind of bothers me but I don't know if I should take that into consideration when applying this request with this applicant who is trying to operate a business. I am definitely looking at it and saying it should be some kind of commercial zoning as it is surrounded by I-1. I'm surprised that there is RSF-4 even left touching Popular Street when you drive through that area but that is just my opinion. Ostner: I would just like to clarify that the applicant tonight is Mr. McClelland but the property owner benefits from the rezoning. It is his property that we are rezoning. Vaught: We are saying that they ran the business off prior and they didn't try to rezone it. If it was turned down at that time for a list of reasons I would understand that more. There is a history of non compliance with the owner, not necessarily the applicant who probably wasn't informed of any of this stuff when he leased the property. If they would have came through a couple of years ago we probably would've had this same conversation saying I know RSF-4 isn't appropriate here but R -O is a buffer between a little bit of RSF-4 between two I-1 sections of property. Myres: Why is a renter applying for a change in zoning and not the owner of the property? Pate: The applicant is acting as representative of the owner. That is perfectly allowable as long as the owner understands and signs the application. I have a little bit of trouble with the fact that the owner of this property has been in violation before and turned around and leased the property to another non -conforming business. I do not want to penalize the current business that is on that property because they are a reputable business and do a very good job at what they do. My inclination is to agree with staff Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 77 Pate: Allen: and to deny this request for a number of reasons. Although I don't necessarily think that it is incompatible with the neighborhood as a whole. I would just mention that staff did receive phone calls from area residents, neighbors in this area, against this rezoning as well. Obviously, no one stayed or showed tonight but we did receive phone calls concerning this request. I feel very sympathetic to the applicant and hope that you won't have a lot of difficulty if we turn this down in finding an area to locate that is in compliance but I look at the staff report and see that three areas do have significant single family areas and I do agree with what the staff has recommended and so I will move for denial of RZN 05-1524. Myres: Second. Clark: Those phone calls that you mentioned were they to support the rezoning or against the rezoning? Pate: Clark: Two were just concerned and two more were against the rezoning because of the influx of commercial and industrial types of properties into this area. This is one of those difficult decisions and unfortunately the business owner is going to be smack dab in the middle of it and that is unfortunate, especially since this is the second time that this has happened. There is a lot of residential up that street and duplexes with younger families moving in and I will support declining this rezoning request for that very reason. Ostner: I wanted to say that I think this is in a way very similar to our Green Acres issue with the couple who wanted a chiropractic, health facility. There is a lot of intense usage around here but there are also people holding the fort. I think that little pocket of residential is significant and I just wanted to talk about on the scale of appropriateness that there is industrial zone on the map but as I drive out there most of those uses would be allowed in less intense zoning districts as I saw them. I saw equipment, I didn't see factories or gravel pits, there used to be a concrete plant backing up into this. I know that zoning is the law but also down zonings do happen. This area is changing and I believe that it would be good to hold the fort on this piece of property. McClelland: I was going to ask if you could just keep one piece of property alive. I do have three properties listed on there and I wouldn't need all three to keep it going or even just temporary until I can move. Ostner: Are you talking about rezoning one of those pieces? Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 78 McClelland: Across the street there is RSF-4, just the ones that are R -O now maybe you would consider those to be C-2 and not the ones closer to the residents. Ostner: We have a motion and a second, would the motioner be amenable to withdrawing and reconsidering the applicant's request? Allen: No. Anthes: I just wanted to state that it is interesting in the staff report that the future land use plan designates this site for residential use and I think that is interesting when you are talking about how this is going to redevelop over time and what the General Plan is pointing us towards. It seems to me that this entire block is appropriate as R -O and in order to do house keeping if we are looking at this entire piece of property and these three lots it would seem to me that a rezoning request for Lot 14 to R -O would be appropriate in holding that block as a continuous piece of R -O and I wondered if staff had comments about that. Pate: In our comments we would support the R -O zoning district. Unfortunately, that doesn't assist this applicant at all. Anthes: It would allow us to do housekeeping at this point since there has been a process. Pate: Should the applicant continue forward. It may not be in his interest to continue going to meetings and going before Council. They may just want to withdraw it. I agree with you. We would recommend approval of R -O. Allen: Jeremy, if we deny this does that impact his business tomorrow? Pate: The action of applying for the rezoning suspends the violation period for the time that he is in process of trying to come into compliance. We would have 10 days of appeal period that he could appeal to City Council and then the clock would start ticking again and I'm not sure where we are in the violation but we could handle that with our policies and procedures that we practice within the Planning Division. Allen: He would have some period of time in which to relocate? Pate: That is correct. Williams: He has an automatic right to appeal and then it takes a while to get on the City Council agenda before they can take any action whatsoever on the Planning Commission June 13, 2005 Page 79 Pate: appeal so he would have some time if he does make his appeal to City Council. Correct. If it is in the process whether by forwarding by the Planning Commission or appealing that is considered in process and the timing of the violation is suspended. Clark: The violation is filed against the renter, not the owner? Pate: It is sent to both the property owner and the lessee. Clark: Who pays the fine? Pate: I would assume the property owner would. Williams: I would say that both could be potentially liable. It would be up to the City Prosecutor to decide what the situation is and who is most liable. They both could be potentially liable. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the denial of RZN 05-1524? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1524 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Vaught voting no. Ostner: Thank you. That is the last item on our agenda. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 9:55 p.m.