Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 22, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ANX 05-1488: (Collins/Kinghorn, 533/534): Page 5 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to City Council RZN 05-1489: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Denied Page 5 ADM 05-1693: (ZION VALLEY NAME CHANGE, 136): Approved Consent LSD 05-1462: (Ridgehill Apartments, 405): Not Discussed PPL 05-1608: (Waterbrook Phase I, 571) Page 11 R-PZD 05-1599: (ZION GARDENS, 137): Page 18 VAC05-1651: Consent RZN 05-1649: Page 31 Tabled Tabled Forwarded to City Council (PETRINO/PRINCE, 362): Forwarded to City Council (North Street Church of Christ, 362): Forwarded to City Council Denied RZN 05-1650: (KNIGHT, 600): Page 35 Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes James Graves Audi Lack Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Andrew Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught Christine Myres STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 3 3. ADM 05-1693: Administrative Item (ZION VALLEY NAME CHANGE, 136): Submitted by April Rucker for property located south of Zion Rd. and east of Vantage Dr. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains 27.72 acres. The request is to amend Final Plat 99-7.00, to allow for the subdivision to be renamed Bellafont Gardens. 7. VAC 05-1651: (PETRINO/PRINCE, 362): Submitted by ED PRINCE for property located at 3041 & 3043 MARIGOLD DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property. Ostner: Welcome to the August 22, 2005 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item is the consent agenda, for property located south of Zion Road and east of Vantage Drive. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains 27 acres. The request is to amend FPL 99-7 to allow for the subdivision to be renamed and VAC 05-1651 for Petrino/Prince was submitted by Ed Prince for property located at 3041 and 3043 Marigold Drive. The property is zoned RMF -24. The request is to vacate a portion of the utility easement on the subject property. If anyone in the audience or any Commissioners would like to remove these items from the consent agenda please speak now. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion for approval. Anthes: So moved. Allen: Second Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 4 4. LSD 05-1462: Large Scale Development (RIDGEHILL APARTMENTS, 405): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at NW OF GREGG AVENUE AT HOLLY STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.68 acres. The request is to approve a residential apartment complex on the subject property with 38 units and 56 bedrooms proposed. Ostner: Before we proceed, item number four, LSD 05-1462 for Ridgehill Apartments has been tabled by the applicant and so we will vote to table that tonight. MOTION: Clark: I will make a motion that we table LSD05-1462 until the applicant brings it forward again. Lack: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 05-1462 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 5 1. ANX 05-1488: Annexation (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 6102/6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. 2. RZN 05-1489: Rezoning (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON for property located at 6102 AND 6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 17.64 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: We will have a 15 minute limit on presentations by the applicant. We have a thorough packet and we think that 15 minutes per applicant is sufficient. The first item is an Annexation request, ANX 05-1488 by Collins/Kinghorn if we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This property is 17.33 acres and the City of Fayetteville is located north and east of this property. The property is located west of Lake Sequoyah and it is adjacent to property which was annexed into the city in the 1960's. In May, 2005 the Planning Commission considered this Annexation request as well as a Rezoning request. Concerns at the time and items which were mentioned were with regard to the level of public and emergency service to this area. It is on the far reaches of the extent of the City of Fayetteville property. There was also concern with an island which was thought to be created by annexation of this property and through some research staff feels confident that that property which was identified as a potential island is actually owned by the City of Fayetteville and located approximately within the right of way of the street, which is adjacent to this property. Therefore, we feel that there is no issue with creation of an island if the property were to be incorporated into the city limits. With regard to public comment, we did receive two comments from citizens at the last Planning Commission meeting. Those comments are on page 1.17 and 1.18 of your packets. Some of the main issues and items, infrastructure and services to this property, there are streets located adjacent to this property. However, they are not constructed to city standards. Water is available. Sewer, however is not. We have requested if at the time of development if this property is annexed and incorporated that several studies would need to be conducted prior to development with regard to water and sewer services. Fire response time is approximately 12 minutes and the Police find that annexation of this property as it currently is developed will not substantially alter the population density and thereby create an undesirable load on police services. Staff finds that the annexation of this property will create an appropriate city boundary. We do find that annexation of the property as currently developed will not place an additional burden on the services within the area. However, Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 6 should this property remain in the Planning Area it could be developed potentially at minimum 10,000 sq.ft. lots with septic systems, city water and streets constructed to city standards. This property is very near Lake Sequoyah, which is a primary water source for the City of Fayetteville as well as other surrounding municipalities and annexation of this property would allow for the extension of sanitary sewer. Whereas, septic systems would need to be utilized in the Planning area. There is very little development on this property and the surrounding areas. Therefore, it does not at this time require a high level of service. However, should this property be annexed, the applicant is requesting a rezoning to RSF-4. Staff finds that annexation of the property is appropriate at this time. However, we recommend denial of the requested RSF-4 zoning and would encourage the evaluation of an alternate zoning designation or more appropriate suitable zoning that is compatible with the surrounding development. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Brannan: I'm Steve Brannan of Presley, Brannan & Associates representing Mr. Collins who is here with me this afternoon. I would like to restate that Mr. Collins is not interested at all in annexation if the requested zoning would not be approved. This has been before you. You all know the situation. There is no need for me to make any lengthy arguments. We are just here to let you vote on it and should you turn it down we will continue to develop it in the county. If you choose to have it in the city we would like to conform to all of the city requirements, just as we will do in the Planning Area if we do it in the county. However, we will be doing it without the benefit of sewer should we do it in the county. That is all that we have to say about it. It is up for you to decide which way you want it to go. Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment if anyone would like to speak to ANX 05-1488 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I agree with the findings in the staff report and would therefore, move for approval and recommendation to City Council of ANX05-1488. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1488 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 7 Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The tandem item which Ms. Morgan has already presented, is RZN 05- 1489. Before I go any further, we are a little bit short handed tonight and I want to remind everyone that five positive votes are required for all rezoning and annexation requests. Sometimes applicants prefer to pull their items rather than a short Planning Commission voting on them. With that being said, does the applicant have anything further to add to the Rezoning request? Brannan: If you choose not to rezone after you have voted to annex if we do nothing then we are not annexed, is that correct? Ostner: This is a recommendation to the Council so this is the first of many steps. The zoning if they annex it is automatically R -A, Residential Agricultural and I believe that comes to one unit per two acres is the single family density in that zoning district. This is only a recommending body. Lots of changes happen at Council if that is something that you would wish to do. Williams: What the Planning Commission does is not the final decision. The City Council would be the final decision. If it looks to you like they are not going to rezone it as you prefer, prior to their decision on Annexation I think you would certainly be allowed to withdraw your Annexation Petition at that time before the City Council. Brannan: We would appreciate your vote for Rezoning. Williams: You have a right to appeal to the City Council. You need to do that within 10 days. You can do that by writing a letter to the City Clerk and stating that you want to appeal the Rezoning decision. Osmer: At this point I will go ahead and open it up for public comment again. Would anyone like to speak to RZN 05-1489 for Collins/Kinghorn? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it to the Commission. Clark: Staff, the difference in the math is some of the property was already annexed into the city? Pate: That is correct. There is a small triangular portion that is already inside the city limits and the rezoning request encompasses that. Clark: That is zoned R -A already? Pate: Correct. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 8 Anthes: We went out to this site and looked at the surroundings on a prior occasion, and then we discussed it again at agenda session. I concur with staff's findings on this particular piece of property and would think that a zoning designation of RSF-0.5 would be something that I would support. Clark: I am inclined to agree. I drove out to this site this weekend as a matter of fact and what concerned me is the 12 minute response time for fire. Even eight minutes when the Huntsville Fire Station comes on line. It took me longer than that because the traffic was bad out there. Graves: Staff, who provides the fire protection for that parcel currently? I know it is in the county but is there fire protection for that property as it stands now? Williams- It would probably be the round mountain fire station across the lake but that is pretty close. Graves: 10,000 sq.ft. minimums would work out roughly to RSF-4 would it not? Pate: It is close. It is 2,000 sq.ft. more but with infrastructure it works out to be about 3 units per acre. Graves: I take it based on the staff presentation that the concerns regarding water pressure arose when we saw this previously are something that would be taken up at the time of development now that we are not commissioning any kind of study or anything. Pate: That is correct. We are not looking at long term improvements currently. Although, it has been discussed because of this issue or this particular piece of property and other properties in this area that do have future issues with water capacity. That is something that the city will be looking at to make improvements in this area. It was a concern voiced initially with the initial request as noted in the minutes that you have attached in your packet and it is something that we will continue evaluating as development does continue in this area whether it is in the county or the city we serve this area with water and improvements to adequate levels would be made by the developers. Graves: It is a tough call for me because if the applicant has the right to develop at four units per acre in the county and then puts in septic next to a primary water source, although we know it is not a drinking water source, but it is a water source that is in the city and you are still subjecting the people that live in that development to probably even less adequate fire protection than what you might if they are annexed in. That would be my only concern in denying the rezoning request. They can withdraw their annexation petition, stay in the county, develop at the same level that they Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 9 are requesting right now in the county and have less fire protection and put in septic right next to this lake. Ostner: Staff, this parcel is adjacent to our city limits, if this parcel were not touching city limits, it would not be eligible for annexation by state law, so on the same concept that you are talking about, if we looked at the parcel right next to it and let's assume that person was in the audience and they said the same thing, I'm going to develop, I would like to be part of your city, I can do it at 10,000 sq.ft. per lot, etc., etc., we couldn't do anything about it simply because of the state law of boundary having to touch, even if we wanted to. The only reason I say that is that I would very much like for this property to have sanitary sewer too but at some point we have to ask ourselves how much do we take on to solve those problems? 100' to the east they are still going on and we can't do anything about it. On page 2.3 the Police Department says it is the opinion that this rezoning will alter population density and will create an undesirable increase on police services. I'm sure that they can handle it eventually but they do say that. I'm inclined to not vote for the four units per acre. Graves: I agree that it is an extremely tough call and I'm not sure right now how I will vote on it. I think that it is probably too dense for the conditions that are currently out there as well when you look at the one mile map that we are provided. It is R -A all the way around there. There is some RSF-4 down on the far reaches of that map but there is nothing else this dense anywhere around it. I don't like the idea of anything that dense going in right next to that lake whether it is in the city or not in the city. This Commission is continually frustrated by the fact that there are proposals that come in that are in the county, unquestionably, that are aren't accompanied by a Petition to Annex and we have to tell all of the neighbors that roll in that are worried about it. Sorry. We can't do anything about it. All we can look at is to make sure that they have approval from the State for their septic system and that they are complying with the county requirements and that is all that we can do. And that they are meeting our street standards. I would agree that if this property was in a different location that is where we would be right now. But this property is not in a different location. It is in a place where we do have some discretion and have maybe an opportunity to at least make it better than it could be if it is in the County. That's all I'm pointing out without indicating what my vote will be one way or the other. Anthes: Since we are a recommending body to City Council I feel like it is our duty to provide them our best recommendation about what land use we feel is appropriate on any particular parcel whether or not there is a threat of development. That being said, I will move that we recommend to City Council RZN 05-1489 with a zoning of RSF-0.5. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 10 Ostner: I have a motion to forward the rezoning for 0.5 units per acre, is there a second? The motion fails for lack of a second. Clark: I will move that we deny RZN 05-1489. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1489 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Commissioner Graves voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 11 PPL 05-1608: Preliminary Plat (WATER BROOK PHASE I, 571): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located N OF HUNTSVILLE, W OF DEERFIELD. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 35.17 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 97 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1608 for Waterbrook Phase I. Gardner: This property contains approximately 35 acres and is north of Huntsville Road and west of Deerfield Way. Deerfield Subdivision is to the east of the property and an existing abandoned quarry that is filled with water is located to the north of the site. This property was recently annexed and rezoned RSF-4 for the development of single family subdivision in June, 2005. The West Fork of the White River is north of the site and a tributary of this river traverses the property to the west. The applicant proposes to create a subdivision with 97 single family lots. Street improvements for this project, State Hwy. 16 is the only major east/west transportation corridor through Fayetteville providing the only connection with many subdivisions and communities east of the city. Huntsville Road is a two lane roadway with shoulders and becomes congested during peak hours, particularly east of Hwy. 265 in the vicinity of this project. Staff finds that due to the existing congestion on Huntsville Road and the proposed project contributing approximately 2000 additional vehicle trips per day to this road Improvements are necessary to ensure that the project will not compound a dangerous traffic condition. Staff finds that the proposed development should include a middle turn lane on Huntsville Road. Access into this project, the proposed entrance into the subdivision is currently located west of Ed Edwards Road, a street south of Huntsville that serves existing residents and a large amount of vacant land. The entry does not line up with Ed Edwards Road on the south side of Huntsville Road. Staff recommended and the Subdivision Committee unanimously recommended to forward this project with the proposed street alignment lining up with Ed Edwards Road. Without this alignment staff finds that a dangerous traffic condition may result, especially with future turning movements and recommends denial of the proposal as presented. Connectivity for this project is provided to the Deerfield Place Subdivision to the east via Country Ridge Road. A temporary cul-de-sac on the northwestern portion of the site would provide future connectivity to Waterbrook Phase II and to the west it would be very difficult to provide connectivity due to a steep topography and a tributary drainage to the West Fork of the White River so connectivity to the west is not proposed. Mitigation for tree preservation is required and 121 trees are required for mitigation. To reiterate, staff recommends denial of PPL 05-1608 as proposed with the street serving 97 proposed lots, additional lots for Phase II and other traffic that could potentially utilize this street, finding that the offset could potentially create a dangerous traffic condition. The Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 12 Subdivision Committee unanimously voted to align this street across from Ed Edward Road. Staff would recommend approval of PPL 05-1608 with a condition that the Planning Commission determination that the appropriate curb cut for subdivision entrance into Huntsville Road. As I summarized, the entrance does not line up with Ed Edwards Road to the south side and staff feels that it should be lined up and that is what condition number one talks about. I've also listed in the conditions that if they decide to line up these roads what the right of way differences would be in the proposed subdivision. Condition number two, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. This condition references providing a 12' center turn lane on Huntsville Road along the project frontage and provides details about that. Condition number three, an east/west street connecting the northern cul-de-sac through Phase I of Waterbrook shall be constructed prior to the Final Plat of Phase I. The applicant anticipates this connection with Phase II. Condition number eight is regarding parkland dedication. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended parkland dedication of 2.76 acres by the developer prior to Final Plat. Just to note, this land is located outside of the city limits at this point and we have a condition that it would be required to be annexed in before Final Plat approval. Condition number nine is related to parkland and as part of this development some of that parkland that will be dedicated will actually receive some grading and some fill and some drainage improvements. That condition just references that those improvements shall be completed and the area fine graded. Ostner: If we can hear from the applicant please. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland & Company. We do not want this subdivision application denied. We would ask for your consideration and want to make a few comments and address a few items and leave the decision making up to the Planning Commission on what approach we should take at this point. We only have two items of concern really, all of the other items and conditions of approval we accept. The first being the entrance location. We would like to appeal to you and provide you with some additional facts and point out a few things that we feel are relevant. Staff says that it is staff's professional evaluation and opinion on the location of the entrance. Mr. Milholland wishes to state, I apologize for him not being here, he is at another meeting and may show up, that it is his professional evaluation and opinion that the road is located at the proper location for safety. He contends that it is more than the ordinance requirement for the separation between entrances. It exceeds the 200' minimum so it does meet ordinance. It is a through street with connectivity to the north so what it does is it eliminates or reduces the number of trips or the number of homes in which traffic passes. If the entrance was at the center there would be more trips by more homes which would increase the likelihood of it being an unsafe condition. Also, the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 13 access of alignment with Ed Edwards Road gives the three ways to look at traffic, you have to look across and deal with that traffic, as well as left and right. Exceeding the minimum separation of 200' you do not have to contend with the cross traffic turning into you as you are turning out. You are strictly looking left and right. We have spoken with the Highway Department. We have spoken with the city's traffic department and we feel that there is some concurrence there that the alignment of the entrance to of the road to Ed Edwards is not necessarily an unsafe condition. I have some traffic counts for you. These traffic counts are taken from the Highway Department website. There is also a flow analysis of future development along Malty Wagnon Road as well as Ed Edwards Road. If you will notice that the traffic count at Lake Sequoyah Bridge is 8,900 vehicle trips per day. At the Lake Sequoyah Drive which is just east of Malty Wagnon Road, is 9,800. That is essentially the same count in front of our subdivision. As you reach on down to the bridge just west of Hunt Lane it is 12,400 and you can see the figures increase as you get down to Hwy. 265. If you will look at the overall City of Fayetteville traffic count and see where there are three lane roads and turn lanes that the count is considerably higher than that. In speaking with the Highway Department today and of course, should you decide to recommend that the entrance be located where it is and also the addition of a center turn lane, the center turn lane would have to be approved by the Highway Department. We accept those conditions based upon what the Highway Department says if you so decide to recommend that. Also, Mall Wagnon Road is only located 1,325' from the entrance to our subdivision as it is presently located. If we were to shift it, it would be even closer than that. It is not likely that you are going to get two traffic lights within 1,300 feet of one another and the first traffic light would likely be at Malty Wagnon Road and not Ed Edwards. We just wanted to provide you with that additional information. It is not a policy of the Highway Department to approve street light locations until motor traffic count warrants and right now it does not warrant. It is a good ways from warranting traffic signal lights. Those are all of my comments at this point. Ostner: At this point I will take public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this request, PPL 05-1608 please step forward and give your comments. Seeing none, I will close the public comments session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Clark: At the last Subdivision Committee meeting we considered this and we were very unanimous in our concurrence that we move the entrance for safety reasons. I realize that we can make our decisions on data but I live out there and I know how dangerous that road is and I know how congested that road is. When I look at these numbers, they are from 2004 and that is when I joined the Planning Commission and I cannot even count the number of new houses we have put out in that area just since Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 14 then. It has grown tremendously. There are times that you sit and sit and sit and then close your eyes and pray and go. I cannot support the subdivision unless this entrance is moved. I'm not going to think that somebody telling me it is not necessarily a bad condition justifies me putting people at risk and I think keeping the entrance where it is puts them at risk. Lining it up gives you a straight shot. Maybe we can move the state to make some significant improvements on this highway, which it needs. I will definitely be supporting staff's recommendation to deny if the developer is not willing to move the entrance. I really thought that was how we concluded Subdivision. I guess I was incorrect in that assumption. Anthes: Mr. Williams, we have a recommendation to forward from Subdivision based on a set of conditions. One of those conditions was that the alignment be made. The drawings that we have do not show that that alignment was made. Therefore, I don't believe that this plat meets the requirements of the forward and would need to be referred back to Subdivision for work. Williams: I think it could probably pass with the same conditions that the Subdivision Committee put on it that the realignment be made before the Final Plat is approved. It would just be a condition of approval that the road be aligned with Ed Edwards Road if that was the belief of the Planning Commission that for traffic safety reasons it needed to be aligned that way. I think that you could require that as a condition and staff would make sure that they complied with that condition before the plat was filed. Anthes: I would normally agree except in this case when they make that realignment that it is actually going to reconfigure the lots and that it is a drawing that we would need to see. That is what fuels my inkling that we would actually need to see the redraw. Williams: Maybe it would. It doesn't look like there would be much need to reconfigure very much here. It looks like instead of cul-de-sacing that one road bringing it down a little bit, it would be able to intersect with Ed Edwards, not intersect, but come above Huntsville Road right where Ed Edwards comes down there. They would have to do some minor modifications to the plat because they would then probably cul-de-sac the road that they are now showing exiting. Anthes: What is the process by which we could refer something back to Subdivision? That is within our purview isn't it? Williams: I don't know the procedure. I haven't seen it done. I don't think it is specifically prohibited from having to go back to Subdivision. I would want to make sure that we are not doing that. We are only doing that to Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 15 ensure that we actually see the plat and we are not just delaying the project sending it back and forth between the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission. Anthes: I agree with you and I think the reason why I would want to do that is that as the project is drawn right now the two options I see are staff's recommendation to deny or an opportunity for the applicant to continue the dialogue and get something through. Those would be the two ways that I would be willing to vote for it. I would rather not to deny the project but give them the opportunity to make the drawing revisions and have those reviewed and make it through the process successfully. Williams: The other possibility since there is a limited number of Commissioners here, is simply to table this and give them the chance to redraw it and bring it back to the next Planning Commission in conjunction with Planning Commission's desire, if that is in fact your desire, to align those two streets despite what the Petitioner said tonight. Jefcoat: What we've asked for is your consideration of our presentation. We ask that you not deny it, that you accept it. We have accepted the conditions of approval. We are only appealing to you as your judgment and to let you make the decision. We presented some additional data. We have argued the point that we feel that the location is correct and just. We feel it is the best location. Mr. Milholland has stated that his experience and professional judgment that that is the best location. We are leaving that up to your opinion. It is up to you to make the recommendation if you disagree with staff, and that is what we are asking you to do. Otherwise, we will abide by your opinion and we will accept the conditions of approval. Williams: I would say that they are correct when it comes to a State Highway. We would need to state the condition of approval that they would do that if the State Highway Department would allow them to put a turn lane in there. We obviously, can't control the State Highway Commission and they might now allow it. Lack: I think having filled in on that Subdivision Committee and having seen the plan exactly like we are seeing it now and having a consensus in that meeting that there were modifications required for approval or for sending it forward, I think I feel uncomfortable for voting yet again to send something forward without having a plat to show us what it looks like. I think that while the modifications are not drastic to the plan I think that the offset from the platted center street to Ed Edwards Road is a fairly minimal offset. There will be a shifting of primary street width. Right of way will shift from 40' to 50' on that center road. I think there will be several modifications required for the plan. I would be much more Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 16 inclined to table or send back or something so that this body actually knows and has a plat to know what we are recommending to City Council as opposed to sending it forward with conditions that didn't work so well from Subdivision Committee. Williams: Actually, you wouldn't be forwarding it, you would be just approving it. Ostner: This is the final stop for a Preliminary Plat. Williams: It certainly is within your purview to table this until you come up with a plat to answer these questions that you have asked. Graves: I was just going to point out that the Subdivision was apparently prepared to forward it without actually seeing the redraw with the understanding that the full Planning Commission would see the redraft so I wouldn't necessarily see a reason to send it back to Subdivision. I'm inclined to agree if our staff and our Subdivision Committee both felt that this needed to be aligned a different way that that is the way that it ought to be. I would be more inclined to think that it should be tabled at this level and get it redrafted and then we see the redraft at this level, which is what Subdivision intended in the first place, was that the redraft be seen at this level. MOTION: Clark: I think Subdivision had exactly that intent. I expected to see a new plat that showed the recommendations that we made in Subdivision. That will be a lesson to me that in Subdivision that we can table much more often and they can come back there. I'm disappointed that this connection is not being shown because I thought we left with the consensus that it was going to be. At that point, I will make a motion that we table PPL 05- 1608 simply to make the revisions that are called for in the conditions of approval that came out of Subdivision with the hope that we can pass this. It was also a consensus that the Subdivision Committee favored this development with minor changes. If we can see those minor changes I will be prepared to support it. Anthes: I will second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table PPL 05-1608 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 17 Jefcoat: I would like to make one additional comment. We will return with the revised plat since that is your wish. We felt strongly enough that this should be considered with the entrance where it was is the reason why we brought it to this level as it was rather than making changes before bringing it here. We still feel that way. Although, it is a difference of opinion. It is your opinion that the entrance should be in the middle. We will make those changes and bring it back before you. Ostner: I think, since we are going to chat about this, I think what is being said is that dialogue was appropriate at Subdivision and not here. Jefcoat: It was made at Subdivision. Osmer: The reply was at Subdivision and that is what we are saying. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 18 R-PZD 05-1599: Planned Zoning District (ZION GARDENS, 137): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NW OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANDALL PLACE AND ZION ROAD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 13.55 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 95 town homes, attached and detached, on the subject property. Ostner: Item number six is R-PZD for Zion Gardens. Gardner: This property contains 13.5 acres located west of Crossover Road and immediately northwest of the intersection of Randall Place and Zion Road. The property is currently open pasture with some mature trees in the southwest corner of the property. The property is zoned R -O and is located adjacent to undeveloped pasture with some scattered rural residential homes and the Fayetteville Athletic Club is also located to the east of this site. The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District. The proposed use of the site is for a single family development with 95 attached and detached town homes. As far as the neighborhood feel of it, you can see some of the pictures in the elevations it is designed to have a traditional neighborhood feel with tree lined streets maintained by the POA and trees on the front and rear of alternating lots. The applicant has submitted a draft bill of covenants with specific restrictions intended to promote traditional architectural landscaping, building and development requirements for each unit. The lots will front onto the interior streets and have access up the rear of 16' public alleys with the exception of Lots 66- 76 that will front onto the tree preservation area in the southwest corner of the site. These lots will also be constructed with pier and beam construction to allow preservation of the trees close to those lots. The total density is 7.01 units per acre and as this is a PZD I will go over the zoning criteria that the applicant is proposing. Proposed uses, as mentioned, will be on all lots will be city uses by right, city uses by Conditional Use Permit, single family dwellings and home occupations. Lots 77-95 will also have all of those uses in addition to having multi- family dwelling. Lots 96-97 would be preserved for tree preservation, utilities and landscaped area. Density is 7.01 units per acre. Bulk and area regulations, I will summarize some of these. The single family and multi -family dwellings would have a minimum lot width of 20' per dwelling per lot and a lot area minimum for single family dwellings would be 3,000 sq.ft. and for multi -family dwellings it would be 2,200 sq.ft. The setback requirements would be a 12' front building setback with 0' setbacks on the side and the rear. There is a height restriction with a maximum of 56.5' in height to allow for three story structures. The building area would allow 75% of the maximum built area for single family attached and 65% maximum built area for single family detached. Access to this site is off of Zion Road and Randall Place to the south and Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 19 east of the site. To the north the interior street would provide a stub out to vacant property and to the west a stub out would also be provided to vacant property. Street improvements, a traffic study was prepared by the applicant to address potential traffic safety and congestion as a result of the proposed project. The traffic study concluded that if Zion Road and Randall Place are improved to Master Street Plan standards Zion Road would operate at a level of service D which in most cases in this industry is considered to be an acceptable level of service. E or F is considered unacceptable in most cases. In addition, there were some concerns regarding the sight distance along Randall Place and the applicant has revised the driveway that was exiting onto a potential blind curb to only allow an exit only to prevent a dangerous traffic situation in that area. Street improvements would require Zion Road to be improved to Master Street Plan standards with 34' of pavement and 6' sidewalk at the right of way along this project frontage and Randall Road would be required to be improved to Master Street Plan standards as well with 14' from centerline, curb and gutter and 6' sidewalk at the right of way and storm drainage. Staff recommends this to be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Condition number one is related to the street improvements I just mentioned. Condition number eight is that the construction of homes on Lots 66-76 shall require the pier and beam foundation system that I mentioned to allow for preservation of some trees close to the lots. Condition number 12 states that the project shall comply with the zoning criteria A -F as set out in the staff report. Condition number 14, Planning Commission determination of placement of retaining walls along the intended street stub outs, Lantana Lane and Frontier Elm Drive. We have the condition that the retaining wall shall be curbed at the stub out to make the future street right of way apparent. Additionally, signs shall be installed on both sides of the retaining walls at each stub out indicating that these two streets are intended to connect to adjacent property in the future. Condition number 15, to read "An assessment shall be paid for the construction of street stub outs to the property line prior to signing the Final Plat subject to the Engineering Division approval." We had a dollar amount in there but the Engineering Division needed more time to review that and make sure that it was acceptable. Condition number 16 is related to offsite drainage improvements. There is flooding offsite on the Lee property to the northeast and the condition states the applicant has worked with this neighbor and agree to help alleviate the flooding problem that would be exasperated by this project and 16A reads that the applicant shall install a 4'x8' box culvert under Randall Place with two 24" underground arched pipes. 16B reads staff recommends a cost share for the incremental cost above the cost of constructing an 8' trapezoidal channel with a concrete bottom and grass side to install the arch pipes underground. Just as background on that condition, we had public comment from this neighbor and there is a lot of flooding on his property and the developer has met with him and worked out this solution Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 20 Ostner: Thompson: and the city has also agreed that this will be an acceptable way to handle it. All of the other conditions are relatively straight forward. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. I am Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering representing Zion Gardens. Staff has been very good about working with us and the developer to make this project work and allow us to bring a very good project for the City of Fayetteville to you. There are a few conditions of approval that we would like to discuss. I believe that Mr. Garner covered most of those but I would like to add some comments. Item number one, the street improvements that we will make along Zion Road and Randall Place. We do agree to make those improvements. Item number five states that there should be Planning Commission determination of appropriate street width for one of the through streets. Currently it is shown as a 40' right of way even though that does not meet city standards but both ourselves and staff believe that width is adequate to provide safe travel. Also, item number eight which refers to the eleven lots that have a pier and beam foundation. Just to clarify what that means, standard construction practices here are to trench around the footprint of a house and pour concrete in that footprint to provide a foundation for that home. Trenching around a home like that, if there are trees in close proximity will sever the roots of the trees and kill them. What we are proposing there is a pier system in which the piers are drilled into the ground, they act like a cork screw and go right through the roots in most cases. What we hope will become of this is the preservation of those trees close to those homes. Also, the retaining walls that will be placed along the street stub outs. The property is a fairly difficult site to deal with grading wise. It was mined in the past for red dirt purposes so there are some tough grade changes that we have to deal with. We believe that the retaining walls placed in these locations is the best solution for the grading situation there. As Mr. Garner stated, where the stub outs will occur we will curb the retaining walls to let people know that this is going to be a future access point and not just a straight retaining wall. Also, those retaining walls are going to be constructed out of articulated block, which is easy to modify in the future, not a poured concrete wall. The other item we wanted to discuss was the drainage issue on the Lee property. There currently is a bad situation with flooding on this property even before Zion Gardens goes into the area. We actually don't have that much drainage coming from our property onto the Lee property but that was an issue with Mr. Lee and so we have been working with him and with staff to come up with a solution. One item on the conditions of approval, 16A, we would like to amend that. It currently states the applicant shall install a 4x8 box culvert under Randall Place with two 24" underground arched pipes. There are two 24" pipes there currently. We are proposing to remove those pipes and replace them with the 4x8 box Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 21 Ostner: Thompson: Ostner: Clark: Pate: Anthes: Thompson: Anthes: Thompson. Anthes: Thompson: culvert which will carry the flow and eliminate flooding across Randall Place and allow that flow to continue onto the Lee property. That is all that we have. I will answer any questions that you may have. At this point I will open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to PZD 05-1599 for Zion Gardens please step forward and give your comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. My first question is our drawings don't match the boards. The first board was Subdivision and the second one is the changes as shown on your plat. Ok. We heard this a couple of Subdivision meetings ago and the board shows exactly what we agreed on. The main things that changed from the Subdivision meeting was the street in front of Lot 66-76. That was something that we discussed at staff level and at the Subdivision meeting in order to preserve a higher percentage of canopy and presented that to you. Those lots particularly will have rear alley access. They will not have a street frontage. There is a condition of approval that it will have to meet applicable fire codes. That is something that we will work with through construction plans to ensure that that does meet our fire codes. The retaining walls, can you point them out? Where they are and how tall they are? With the stub out to the north, that will be approximately 6' to 8' tall. What is the length of that? Just a couple of hundred feet past that intersection. Then there will be a retaining wall at the southeast corner of the property that will be approximately 6' tall. Can you tell me what the trade offs were and why you didn't accommodate the grade change in the site instead of basically walling yourself off? There is approximately 20' of fall on the west side of this property over a stretch of about 300'. That is terribly difficult to accommodate. Starting at the south end of the street we are stepping up the grading 3' wherever possible with short retaining walls along the streets to minimize how large Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 22 Anthes: Thompson: Anthes: Pate: Hennelly: Anthes: that retaining wall needs to be on the north end of the property. That is the current plan. That is the best that we can do with the current situation out there. You don't have a site section with you do you? No. We can provide that for you if you would like to see it later. I'm finding it difficult to quite understand what is going on with the drawings that we have of the walls. Commissioner Clark stated she wasn't aware of it. We did discuss the potential for the retaining walls going across those rights of way. That was an issue that we initially weren't comfortable with in looking at the retaining walls because of the issues we face in other projects. A lot of time when the stub out is not clearly marked we do require signs now for a stub out to continue on in the future. When they are not clearly marked there is an idea by those homeowners that that street potentially will not connect. That is something that we initially were a little weary of but in discussions with the applicant and of course, the signs that you now see on those stub outs we felt it would be very clear that that stub out would occur, additionally with the knowledge that it would not be a poured in place concrete wall. It will be articulated block so it can be dismantled and reassembled with grading on the property to the north and to the west should that property develop. I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. What has gone on with that site is similar to what has gone on down on the Sweetser owned property further to the west where they have gone in and mined out all of the red dirt and created a bench and then these slopes go up at a fairly steep angle up to the property line. It was only done a while back and so it is all grown over and looks like pasture now. What we are faced with is a fairly steep slope coming off that north property line and then it flattens out into a bench and drops off again down to Zion Road. In an attempt to equalize the cut and fill on the project and not repurchase all of the red dirt that was mined off this site, we have gone through great lengths to try to grade this thing in a stair step fashion up to the north property line and are still left with Lantana Lane's wall about 4' rather than 6'. I think Jeremy might be thinking about the one to the west. That one is closer to 6'. That is what we dealt with on this. In an attempt to take some of that good material, and this is good hillside material, and do a balance of the cut and fill. The project is unfeasible if we have to go back in and repurchase all of that dirt that was mined off of that. That helps a lot. It does look like a big field so we couldn't tell what was happening underneath. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 23 Graves: This was discussed at Subdivision too. It has been on the Subdivision agenda three different times. We have had varying members at the Subdivision meetings during that time so I think that was at the first Subdivision meeting where the issue of grading was discussed and we talked about this type of wall that can be deconstructed to accommodate the stub outs and for when the property to the north eventually develops. Mr. Lee was present at that Subdivision Committee meeting and that is when a lot of these drainage issues were discussed and the grading issues were also discussed. Lack: I would like to seek clarification on the pier issue in that we are going to this system to save the trees and to use the trees and to count the trees in the saved canopy area. I am familiar with the system on a retrofit condition where they come in and jack up a house that has started to settle. I know they do some in new construction but I'm not that familiar with them. I would like to, being that they are called out pier and beam, generally a grade beam has a very similar disturbance as a spread footing. It might be a little bit narrower but by the time that you have dug a standard grade beam to depth it would be very similar to having dug a spread footing. I would like to ask for a little bit of clarification and some education on that. Cooper: You are right. That grade beam is probably similar to that but what we would probably do is come up with the piers and actually have a beam so it would almost be like a post and beam. The piers would come up and attach so it could possibly be a steel member or a wood member that would be above the ground so it wouldn't actually be a concrete grade beam that would be dug and poured to the top of the piers. It could be, if we weren't trying to save the roots, but it will probably have to be done with a steel member or a wood member across those and some sort of a support that is actually in the piers and we will have a structural engineer to do the calculations and so forth. Lack: So you are proposing that it would be something similar to Florida where it would be up on stilts? Cooper: Right, we are only talking about 4' above grade or something like that. It is not 10' or anything like that out of the ground. The main thing is to protect the roots. Really, you probably wouldn't get into that many roots, it is more about the dirt that you would be disturbing adjacent to and down hill. Lack: With that condition you would be comfortable that trenching below grade would be denied or not acceptable? Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 24 Cooper: I don't think that would be a problem in this situation. Hennelly: We would like to maybe not be tied specifically to the helical pier. A regular drilled pier would also offer a less intrusive method of construction into that root system if that in fact, needed to be used and then you put the cage down in the hole and fill it with concrete and bring it up above the grade and put your beam across that. We feel that both of those options are just as un -intrusive into that root system. The helical may be a little bit more as you could actually screw that thing in between the roots but we certainly don't have a problem not digging a footing. That is the whole idea, not to have to do that and tear out the root. Lack: I think there is a pretty good difference in the disturbance that would be caused by a drilled pier as opposed to the helicles. Even first in the order of the machinery that is used to install it, the size of the truck that drills the piers and filling with concrete and all of that. Hennelly: There is the possibility of pumping the concrete from a distance out from underneath the canopy certainly, but almost that same level of equipment is required to screw that pier into the ground. Those come in sections and then they put another one on it and it screws it in just as well. That same type and size of equipment is required to either auger the hole out or screw the pier into the ground. In the amount of time that they will actually be under the canopy and compression of the soil and that type of thing will be minimal particularly with the emphasis being put on these particular lots trying to avoid any damage to that. Lack: I think I see some need for input from Jeremy. Pate: Lack: I just wanted to reference you to 6.35, a diagram of that scenario. That is exactly what we were evaluating as well as not having to grade for that footing. There would be air space or something of that nature so that the disturbance would be minimal. That is the very reason we met with the applicant in order to try to preserve some of this canopy because it will provide quite a buffer from Zion to these particular homes. I applaud the direction of that. I am looking at 6.35 which specifically calls out a concrete footing and points to below grade at the top of the pier which I guess is where I give rise to the concern that it would be the typical pier and grade beam that I'm used to. I certainly applaud the attempt to use this more advanced system to save the trees. I'm not sure that it meets the criteria to me to ensure that we are saving those trees, which is where our recommendations have come to. Hennelly: Keep in mind that these buildings are not right up against the trunk of the tree as well. It is on the periphery of the drip line. While it will impact Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 25 Lack: the root system, it won't be as invasive as coming through as it would that close to the trunk. As well as the guys that are doing this development are also the ones that are building these units and so it is not like they are going to sell of all of these lots and turn them over to builders that are going to come through there with backhoes. We are the ones who understand the condition of approval and we are also the guys that will be building the houses as well. And receiving the benefit of selling a house with mature trees on the lots. I understand and appreciate that dynamic of it. I think the idea that we can have assurance and that you would not mind the restriction of having the above grade beam would certainly help me. Hennelly: That is not a problem. Anthes: Staff, what is the distance between River Birch Drive and its outlet to Lantana and the intersection of Lantana and Zion Road? Pate: Between 80' and 100'. Anthes: Mr. O'Neal, are you ok with that? O'Neal: I believe that the previous iteration that was shown as an alleyway, I don't recall that being a drive. Anthes: Am I hearing you say that is a little close for comfort? O'Neal: It is a little bit under our minimum requirement. I feel with stacking at that location it would be adequate. Anthes: What is our minimum requirement? O'Neal: I believe it is 150'. Hennelly: I would like to point out that the number of alleyways and streets that are in this certainly promote a good circulation of traffic. There would not be an inordinate amount of traffic coming out onto River Birch there. I would anticipate anybody coming out the main entrance from that first row of homes would come out onto Lantana and turn south rather than going all the way to the east on River Birch and then turning around and coming out onto Lantana from River Birch. It does seem like it would be a little indirect. I do agree that because of the restriction of the site that may be closer than what would normally be presented to you but I do feel that because of the alleyways in there that it certainly promotes a good circulation of traffic and minimizes any adverse affect of having an intersection that close. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 26 Ostner: You pretty much phrased what I was going to ask you that on the western portion those southern homes don't have a frontage so to speak. They simply have an alley and I was curious as to why the eastern portion couldn't work out the same way. That would avoid that short road and it would also avoid duplicating frontage. Hennelly: If you are asking us to reduce the length of street in our project I would certainly concur with that. Ostner: I would be amenable to Canna Lane being a cul-de-sac and simply avoiding River Birch Drive. I'm not sure how staff or engineering would perceive that. It just seems like it would solve a lot of problems and it would allow houses to almost face Zion. Hennelly: You are talking about cul-de-sacing the southern end of Canna? The alley behind the attached units I assume would tie into that cul-de-sac as well? Ostner: Yes, so it would sort of be a cul-de-sac but it could flow through the alley. Hennelly: I think that would probably look better. We can add that to the conditions of approval. Ostner: Mr. Pate, do you have any comments? Pate: With relatively little time to evaluate it, honestly, we have a condition of approval that the Fire Depaitment is going to have to look at this. Especially with lots 66-76, I think discussions have been taking place to ensure that there is adequate distance. They typically require 20' to clear. It may be that the alley has to be widened for these particular sections a bit. I don't see a problem with lots 57-65; 66-76 is pretty tight because of trees. That is something that we could probably work out. I do agree that eliminating a frontage road would be eliminating unnecessary infrastructure both for the city and for the developer to construct. I do want to ensure that pedestrian walks are provided. That is why the condition of approval for sidewalks to be constructed in front of 56-76 is part of the official conditions. I would want to see that still occur to have a pedestrian connection in front of these homes. We anticipate that they will be porch type homes with step off porch or stoop onto sidewalk and then connecting to the overall pedestrian circulation pattern. Other than that, I don't really see a major issue. All of the alley access ways, the way that they are situated in their layout currently and situation seems like it would work just fine. I think Alley 4 would need to be connected to Canna Lane to ensure that that does contain a turn around right there for fire access and to meet that radius. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 27 Hennelly: We may be able to incorporate something. The new fire regulations require such a large cul-de-sac. There is the possibility of doing a T intersection with some sort of roundabout in there similar to what was done at Township and Hwy. 265 in that development which I think may tie in the look of the roundabout that is in the main intersection there. When we eliminated the road in front of the homes that are on 66-76 it generated a need for those 16 spaces that are to the west of them. We would maybe need some consideration for a few parking spaces, if we were to eliminate that we would be eliminating the on street parking available to those and the possibility of maybe doing a nice landscaped very abbreviated parking area through there where there was not a connection all the way out to River Birch. Anthes: I feel like my question about the distance between the intersection lead to a redesign of the project, which was not my intention. I just was concerned that those streets were pretty close together and I think Commissioner Ostner saw a way to save you some money and some infrastructure. I don't know what the recommendation of this body should be though. Mr. O'Neal do you have a preference or would you just like us to leave it open so you can review it? Ostner: This is a rezoning request combined with a lot of engineering. I believe it is our responsibility to approve it in some form or fashion. Hennelly: I think one thing that would be necessary would be the reversal of the traffic flow on the alley immediately north of River Birch. That traffic would want to come to Lantana rather than to Canna. I think that certainly we can configure a safe, appropriate turn around there with a small amount of parking because of the elimination of on street parking. Cooper: It is really nice in this situation to have that greenspace between residences, front yards, and Zion. We were trying to be amenable and have the fronts of the houses facing Zion instead of turning our backs on it completely. In doing that you are basically putting them on a busier street, even though there is a street in front of them, so it would be nice to have that in the front. I think we could get adequate parking near the cul-de-sac to make it work. We probably need a little flexibility once we lay this out working with Brent and the Fire Department. Hennelly: We want to make sure everyone is happy but I don't think from a planning standpoint we are creating a situation that would necessarily cause this to go back or be tabled. I think in the overall scheme of it, this is a minor modification that can be addressed with Engineering and the Fire Department and possibly the Police Department's input. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 28 Anthes: I'm actually fine with it either way whether the road stays or goes and I would think it would be your discretion. If you see a preference to taking that out I'm amenable to it but if you want to leave it in, that is fine too. Ostner: I would like to thank you for facing the houses to Zion. I think that is important. Our rules make it difficult to do that and you all have found a way to do it, and I appreciate that, even if River Birch has to stay. There are other items to look at, the determination of retaining walls on Condition 14. We had some explanation about those. That is the only specific determination, also the street width of Frontier Elm Drive and condition number one, which the applicant stated that they agree with. I have a question for staff. Does staff feel comfortable with some of the discussions that we brought up that if the departments review this and the applicant wanted to do something a little bit different than what is on the drawing, does staff feel satisfied that you could do that after our approval tonight? Pate: I think that it is crucial that it be worked out before this goes to City Council. There is a very quick turn around to get to the City Clerk's office. Those revisions would need to be in their hands to review. I don't feel it is appropriate to be changing plans during the Council meeting or especially after the Council meeting. I'm very amenable to looking at that. I worry a little about where the parking might be and how one would access that. I understand the need for parking and appreciate that they did think about that on the other lots and I think that it is appropriately located off of the alley. I would worry a little bit about where that is located especially if it is along the frontage of Zion Road. There would have to be some sort of access point there as well, an alley or something to access that, whether it be angled or something. Yes, I would be fine with looking at that over the next couple of days before we have to get this into City Council. Hennelly: Another simple solution I may just throw out there is if River Birch is eliminated Units 57-65 may be able to be pushed to the south and create some on street parking in the alley in the back, widen the alley out to accomplish some of that so it is not as obvious and you don't have a parking lot sitting out on Zion. Ostner: That is one of the first things that I considered and I was not wanting to say it because of course, the next step is to turn the houses toward that new area which I would hope that you not do but that seems to be a simple solution to widen that alley to be a little more of a regular right of way. Hennelly: I think it would be helpful if we had some determination from you all of what you would like to see so that that could be brought forward to Council. We could certainly make whatever revisions short of turning the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 29 buildings in the time needed and get them back in so that staff has time to look at them before they are sent to the clerk. Graves: I for one would like to see where River Birch is now become some greenspace like you have on the other side so that the view from Zion is better and it eliminates the traffic issue that has been raised tonight and perhaps the widening of the alleys you suggested to accommodate some parking but still make enough room for emergency services to get through there and the "T" type of idea or roundabout idea that sort of matches the roundabout that is the centerpiece of the PZD over in that area rather than just a standard cul-de-sac to allow for the alley traffic over on that eastern section, Alley 4 to get in and out. Clark: Moving Units 65-57 to the south a little bit to widen that alley would also make possibly the emergency vehicle turns around these comers a little more negotiable so that might be a win/win. I like the idea of greenspace. I'm not sure why we didn't think of this before. I think overall this is going to be a fine addition to that corner. It is going to be very green and I commend you for going out of your way to save some of those trees. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion if everyone is amenable that we forward RPZD 05- 1599 to the City Council, number 16A it should read the applicant shall install a 4x8 box culvert under Randall Place, period. On number 15 the $3,162 assessment is not accurate, that has yet to be determined. On item number eight, the applicant is requesting... Hennelly: The way it is written right now is fine. It does not refer to helical pier and beam, simply pier and beam so it would be adequate. Ostner: The construction of homes shall require the pier and beam foundation as submitted with the PZD, pier and above grade beam. I am going to add a condition. Number 24 to address River Birch Drive that staff and applicant can agree that River Birch can be eliminated that will be amenable to this PZD. If staff and the applicant cannot agree the plans will stay as drawn. Also, on condition 24 a recommendation for on street parking on the widened alley to the north of River Birch Lane as a spot for on street parking. That is my motion. I find in favor on condition number five for the appropriate street for Frontier Elm Drive and on item number one, the Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Lack: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 30 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RPZD 05-1599 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 31 RZN 05-1649: (NORTH HIGHT-JACKSON ASSOC. property is zoned RSF-4, approximately 9.10 acres. Institutional. STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST, 362): Submitted by P.A. for property located at MT. COMFORT ROAD. The SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains The request is to rezone the subject property to P-1, Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1649 for North Street Church of Christ. Garner: This property contains three parcels totaling 16.61 acres and is located on the south side of Mt. Comfort Road east of the future Salem Road. The site is zoned RSF-4 and is currently occupied by farmland and is surrounded by farm homes along Mt. Comfort Road. As a background on this project, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a church on this site in the RSF-4 zoning district was approved by the Planning Commission on February 14th of this year. The proposal is for a church serving approximately 600-800 people at full build out. The main reason they are here today is because they would like to have a monument sign on the site and any freestanding signs are prohibited in the RSF-4 zoning district. They are proposing to rezone the property to P-1, Institutional that would allow a church and a monument sign. Staff finds that the rezoning is consistent with the current land use planning objectives and policies and is compatible with adjacent properties in the same district. The surrounding properties are primarily residential in nature with some undeveloped area that function within a residential district and several churches along Mt. Comfort Road. This area is indicated on the Future Land Use Plan as residential and staff finds that the proposed church would be compatible with the existing and future residential uses to serve the existing and proposed population of the surrounding areas. The main reason, as mentioned, is that the applicant desires a freestanding sign within view of Mt. Comfort Road as the church will likely be located south of the road and they want it for visibility purposes. Additionally, city services, Police, Fire, Water & Sewer and Streets have found that this rezoning will not undesirably increase the load on public services. Based on all of these findings, staff is recommending approval. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would like to step forward, introduce yourself and give us a short presentation. Jackson: My name is Gary Jackson, I'm with Hight, Jackson and Associates who represent the North Street Church of Christ. I have a clarification on your item eight, the site contains 16.61 acres. I believe that is a typo saying 9.10 acres. I think the staff has presented our request very well. When we appeared before you in February for a Conditional Use it became apparent at the end of that Conditional Use hearing that a sign would not be allowed in that particular zone. Although the Conditional Use was approved with certain items requested, which the church agreed to all of them, we believe Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 32 with the property sitting back behind Mt. Comfort Road with residential lots in front of it, it would be very important that a monument sign be allowed to be placed at the entrance to that property. That is the whole request for rezoning. Ostner: At this point I am going to call for public comment on RZN 05-1649 for North Street Church of Christ. Neely: I live at 3173 Mt. Comfort Road. My name is Rico Neely. In my yard there is a 25' easement from the property adjacent to mine and I was wondering where that sign was going to be and where the access to the church is going to be. Osmer: Your property is on the west side of this project? Neely: West and north on the same side of the street. Ostner: Is there any further public comment on this Rezoning request? I am going to close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Staff, how would the signage be approved? Would that come with a Large Scale Development request? Pate: It would and it would be permitted according to our current ordinances. Again, if you remember the meeting at which the Conditional Use was approved for this specific site there was considerable discussion at the very end as a condition of approval for signage because it is extremely limited within the RSF-4 zoning district. I believe, as the applicant stated, that is the entire emphasis for this Rezoning request is to allow for a sign that would be on the property and would meet the requirements of that zoning district. A monument sign would be allowed in this location. It would be on the property setback from the right of way the appropriate distance and permitted under our current requirements. Ostner: What is that setback in the P-1 zone from the right of way? Clark: We are looking at various different pictures that seem to conflict as to the points of ingress and egress. Pate: Since the meeting from Conditional Use request and this particular rezoning request there has been an acquisition of property, as required as one of those conditions to acquire the necessary amount of frontage. You may remember that was one of the requirements to acquire the necessary amount of frontage for two points of ingress and egress to this property. That has been accomplished and that is why the differences in the proposed maps. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 33 Clark: There is a house shown in the western access that will be torn down? Jackson: I don't believe that determination has been made yet. No actual plans have been done. The site plan, the master plan that you saw was to give you an idea of what would be there. The property was purchased, as was just stated, to meet those requirements. Based on approval or rejection of the rezoning we would go to actual planning for the Large Scale Development plan. Clark: My question is can we rezone this to P-1 if there is a residence. Pate: Yes. Jackson: I can pretty much assure you that the sign and the access will be on the previous access that was there and shown on that Conditional Use plan that was presented to you. Pate: Just to reference that, that is the plan that we reviewed with the conditions of approval regarding ingress/egress, refuse removal, buffering, there are specific requirements for buffering with adjacent properties so those are all items that we reviewed with that Conditional Use request for this property. Jackson: That plan has not changed. MOTION: Clark: Realizing that we could continue to talk about this and understanding that staff knows more about this than what is shown in our pictures, I will recommend that we approve RZN 05-1649. Graves: Second. Anthes: Staff, I do not have my old UDO, I have replaced the pages, I seem to recall that a couple of years ago we had several residential to P-1 requests and several of those were denied because of the use units that were in P-1 that we felt were incompatible. I can't find where the changes were. Do you recall? Have we modified P-1 that has removed those uses? Pate: I did not look into if we did modify. Just looking at the permitted uses, there were only two permitted uses, city wide uses by right which are in every zoning district and then cultural and recreational facilities. The uses for cultural and recreational facilities, which are Conditional Uses in most residential zoning districts and a use by right in most commercial and industrial types of zoning districts. Those include auditorium, art gallery, cemetery, child care center, nursery school, church, college or university Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 34 center, crematorium, detention home, dormitory, elder care, hospital, mausoleum, play field, play ground, private club or lodge, school, swimming pool, tennis court, theater or zoo. Is that the correct list? Pate: That is the correct list. Those are use units permitted under Use Unit 4, Cultural & Recreational facilities. Anthes: I would be interested to look back into history to see what we have altered there. I don't see the problem that we saw before. Thank you. Williams: The setback for a monument sign is 10' with the maximum square area not to exceed 32 square feet. Osmer: 10' from the right of way? Williams: That is correct. Ostner: The right of way for Mt. Comfort would be identified and then 10' inwards toward the property is where the sign could be built, 32 s.f. We have a motion to forward and a second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN05-1649 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0 Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 35 RZN 05-1650: (KNIGHT, 600): Submitted by MORGAN BARRETT for property located at 880-888 CATO SPRINGS RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -6, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 6 UNITS PER ACRE. Ostner: Our last item is RZN 05-1650 for Knight. If we could have the staff report please. Gardner: This property contains two tracts of land totaling approximately five and a half acres, located north of Cato Springs Road, west of Cline Avenue in South Fayetteville. The property is being used for large lot rural residential uses with two single family dwellings and a number of accessory structures. A tandem lot for an additional single family home was approved with a lot in the rear by the Planning Commission in 1996. Cato Springs branch creek and a wooded area traverses north and south near the western edge of the property and an old railroad spur is to the north. The site is zoned RSF-4. The applicant intends to develop this property for duplexes and a maximum density of six units per acre. The request is to rezone the property from RSF-4 to RMF -6. Public comment, staff has received two letters from one of the adjacent property owners citing traffic problems, compatibility with the existing single family residences and that this proposal would exasperate those. This was a difficult project to look at from my perspective. When I first looked at the zoning map I generally thought this might be compatible looking at it is designated for mixed use and then we actually went out to the site and looked at it. There is a natural buffer. There is a creek and some woodlands and when you look at it, there is an established single family neighborhood that is buffered from the industrial uses from this creek and this wooded area. I really felt like this neighborhood wasn't really a transition area between single family and industrial, but it is more of an established single family neighborhood and we felt that a straight zoning from single family to multi -family wouldn't be appropriate in this case. Further, to make the findings, there is plenty of multi -family zoning in south Fayetteville and we couldn't find justification for zoning this to multi -family. It doesn't appear that there is a deficiency or a need for this in this area at this time. Particularly, this is an established single family neighborhood that is functioning appropriately. Other city departments, Police, Fire and Engineering all found that this proposed rezoning would not have any adverse impact. It would decrease the density minimally but in conclusion, we found that the proposed zoning and uses allowed in this zoning district would be compatible with the General Plan Future Land Use Plan for residential use in the area but we didn't feel like the introduction of a multi -family product in close proximity of this cohesive neighborhood, it could have detrimental impact and so that is why we are recommending denial. Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 36 Ostner: Thank you Mr. Garner, is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Baird: My name is Morgan Baird representing the owner/developer on the project. I am going to try to cover a lot of information in a short period of time, but if you have any questions I will address any concerns that you may have. I would like to start off by addressing some of the public comments that were received about traffic and compatibility. The first page of the documents that I handed out, I did some estimates on traffic generation by land use. The single family housing, those figures are based on four units per acre. A duplex, or apartment, is based on development at six units per acre. As you can see, on a weekday the total trips per day for a single family is 211 and total trips per day on a duplex is 219. It is minimal, it is basically the same. On Saturday we are looking at 222 compared to 211, that is actually a decrease on Saturdays and Sundays we are looking at 193 compared to 194, again, virtually the same. The traffic impact on Cato Springs I don't believe is an issue when looking at the allowed densities. Also, the staff agreed with us by saying that there was a negligible increase in traffic and congestion. (inaudible, away from microphone) This development would access directly onto a minor arterial, it would not traverse through any built up residential areas. The traffic increase would not be felt directly by any residential areas, traffic wouldn't be traversing through the residential neighborhood, it would be directly onto a minor arterial. Secondly, compatibility, the proposed construction if the rezoning and subdivision plat is approved: are duplexes similar to the rendering? We are looking at brick construction, possibly 1,500 sq.ft. per unit, $225,000 to $250,000 per structure per lot. Several of these already have people interested in purchasing these as owner/occupied units owned on one side and possibly rented out by the other side. The rent would be approximately $1,000 per month. We are looking at a quality development in South Fayetteville. Also, there is an architect involved in the project that is going to be doing the housing plans, if there is any modification necessary for any lots. Also, landscaping is going to be incorporated into the development for construction of these lots. Again, this is going to be a quality development. There is a large investment here for the owner/developer and builders and there are various professionals involved, engineers, architects, and very qualified builders involved in the project. I am sorry for getting this information to you at this point. I wasn't aware of staff's recommendation until Thursday but I tried to get information put together as soon as possible. Staff did recommend denial because of some concerns that they had. However, they indicated that the project would be compatible with the 2020 plan. It is appropriate and is generally consistent with the current land use objectives and policies. I would like to go over why it is compatible. First off, the Master Street Plan, as Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 37 previously indicated, this is located on a minor arterial. The traffic impact with this type of development is negligible. Again, our traffic from this development would be emptying onto that minor arterial, not going through any residential neighborhoods on local streets. Secondly, this project is consistent with the land use plan. (inaudible, away from microphone) When staff looked at this in the beginning they said that this type of rezoning would be appropriate in this mixed use area. As a matter of fact, Section 9.4 of the land use plan talks about mixed uses. It says designation of mixed use areas will allow developers a great deal of flexibility in terms of uses. It goes on to say that this part of the plan recognizes that development is market driven and therefore, doesn't attempt to designate specific future land uses within these areas. Also, the same section says develop strategies with the University of Arkansas to encourage students to live in the area perhaps providing density sufficient to support transit. The Land Use Plan is suggesting that density in this area be increased. When the plan was developed they used Cato Springs Road as a division line. It is pretty obvious to me that Cato Springs Road was going to be the line between the mixed use and the area they wanted to protect as residential single family. Inaudible, away from microphone I agree with staff comments related to zoning. If this property was to remain we would have single family residential abutting industrial uses. The creek is a buffer but still the backyards of a single family home would be up against the industrial area. Rezoning this to allow for duplexes would allow for a residential buffer between the residential area on Cline and the adjacent industrial uses west of this property. The future housing, labeled at figure six in your packet, that portion talks about future housing needs for the city of Fayetteville. The last sentence in that section says "However, actual future housing needs may be higher than anticipated because of population projections are lower than actual counts." This is going to continue to meet the goal of the Future Land Use Plan by providing additional housing and also, as mentioned earlier, has potential of providing housing in this mixed use area for students at the University. It satisfies those goals. The last figure, labeled seven, is the organization of the General Plan. The second sentence in that says "The General Plan establishes a set of policies and strategies to be used by the City Council, Planning Commission, residents, land developers and business people when changes in land use are proposed." These are the documents we used when preparing this Rezoning request. This is what it says we are supposed to use. We worked with the staff. We talked with staff and they suggested that we try a different route and that is where we are at today. We utilized all of the planning documents that were available to us. I would like to go over infrastructure, the density, staff also commented there was no load on public services. The plan, as mentioned earlier, would encourage an increase in residential density in this area for mixed use. The street, Cato Springs, is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. Upon development of Cato Springs I don't see any Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 38 issues. Currently I wouldn't see any traffic issues with the streets. The Fire Department commented that this project is within acceptable level of service. It is three miles, five minutes from Station 6. The Police have no negative comments, they said it was a negligible impact. Additionally, probably the most important one is utilities. One of the primary reasons for looking at this property is the availability of utilities. The Planning Commission should understand how important utilities are in development, especially sewer in this area. This property has water and sewer available at the site and it is easily accessible and has adequate capacity. For all of these reasons, we are asking you to approve this Rezoning request with it satisfying so many components of your planning documents I think it is appropriate. This will not be the last time you all see this project. If approved at this level it will come back as a Preliminary Plat for your review. In the meantime, the owner and myself will work with staff to work with the issues that they would like to address. I took a picture of the surrounding area to the north, south, east and west that you have in front of you. Also, we included a sample Bill of Assurances that we are planning on filing with the subdivision plat to ensure that the construction is compatible with the adjacent area and make sure that we do address those sensitive issues that staff feels is necessary. Again, we are asking you to approve this request with the condition of approval that we include detailed information of development with the subdivision plat. We will work with staff to address those issues and any other conditions of approval that you feel are necessary to satisfy staff's comments or your concerns. Additionally, the owner/developer and builder is here if you have any questions for them. I will be happy to answer anymore questions. Again, we are asking you to approve this. If you choose not to approve it I would like to discuss it with you prior to denial to see what the other options are. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment if anyone would like to speak to this Rezoning request please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Graves: I have to disagree with staff on this one. I believe everything that is spelled out in the report other than just a feeling that this isn't what they want in that area points towards approving this rezoning. It fits within the General Plan of mixing uses in that area. It is a good fit before RMF -24 and the Industrial. I understand the creek is there but there are some heavier uses. I've been out there a number of times because my wife works in that area at the Genesis building. That is a fairly heavy industrial use area along Cato Springs just to the west. RMF -6 is a good fit in between RSF-4 and RMF -24 and I-1 to the west. Again, the Genesis complex is there which generates a lot of traffic. There are a number of businesses out there, a large parking lot and they always seem to be Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 39 building something out there so there is lots of construction traffic out there as well. I understand that we had this come up with the Poplar Street situation not too long ago with a Conditional Use request where we are trying to keep from invading the sanctity of the established neighborhoods but at the same time when you look at the General Plan that we have for this area I'm not sure what we would want there if we are looking for mixed use which would indicate something other than the same thing that is already there. This seems to fit the bill and so I would be in favor of the rezoning request. Allen: I would be in favor of staffs recommendation to deny. Ostner: I would tend to agree. It was funny that Commissioner Graves brought up Elm Street very close to Poplar because that is the situation I was thinking of. Graves: I voted the other way on that one too. Ostner: This is on the edge. It is a judgment call. I agree with a lot of the things that you said that development can help this neighborhood but I think the RSF-4 zoning is appropriate. The fact that so many of the neighbors are content with it even though it is not as spiffy as I'm sure everyone would like they are content with as it is, I think that says a lot. That's all I had to say. Clark: Baird: I actually lived on Cline Street a long time ago and am very familiar with that area. The pictures that were given are true that those properties do exist but across the street you have more RSF-4 with very nice homes and the homes on Cline Street are nice, they are good starter homes. I am going to agree with Commissioner Allen, I would much rather see this developed RSF-4 with another set of RSF-4 right behind Cline Street. With the quality that you are showing I think you could build something that would enhance that area more than increased density. On the Cline side there is no buffer. You've got Genesis, you've got Cline Street and then you have the field. I would much rather see this developed RSF-4 to keep the integrity of that area in tact. I think wanting to develop this is commendable. I think the plans you have shown are absolutely beautiful but I would prefer RSF-4 so I would be supporting staff s recommendation. I'm a little confused. This proposal satisfies virtually every condition of all of your planning documents. I don't think you get many projects in front of you that do that. Additionally, the areas that have been designated as mixed use in your Land Use Plan it goes on to say that plan recognizes that development in this area is market driven and therefore, does not attempt to designate future land uses in those areas. You are taking that Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 40 part out of your plan by telling developers that you can't build this there. That part of your plan is just gone. There is a market for it. It even goes on to satisfy another section of your plan that encourages an increase in density in those areas to provide student housing, to promote transit to be extended into those areas. There was a comment made that there is no need for this additional zoning. Your planning documents indicate based upon the developer seeing that need that it is there. It is market driven. Your planning documents say that you will not attempt to designate specific future land uses within these areas I think that is exactly what we are doing by saying we want this area to stay RSF-4. If that is the case you may want to amend your planning documents because that is what we relied on in preparing this rezoning request. Again, this will be a quality development in that area. I think you have to look at the alternative developments that could happen. This is a substantial investment for the owner/developer. Again, it satisfies every component of your Future Land Use Plan. Ostner: There are a couple of items that I would like to speak about. That Planning document is a plan. It is not a guarantee. Nowhere is it stated that if you think you meet this plan you will get a rezoning. It is always a judgment call. We look at it; Council looks at it many times. It goes through a lot of filters and there are dozens, if not scores, of factors that are taken into account by staff and by us. I would just like to clarify that that plan does not lay out the directions for a rezoning and how to get it. It simply establishes good parameters, things that are important, where they are important. On the mixed use it is called out as mixed use and it is right on the border. Mixed use is a number of things. It is something that we strive for, it is something that staff strives for. It gives them a tool to work with. It does not require staff or the city to rezone for mixed use. It is a guide, here again. You are right, it is market driven, the whole process is market driven. Where the market will build duplexes is a judgment call. We are not denying duplexes in this town. We are simply saying this tiny piece of property would be more appropriate with RSF-4 zoning. You mentioned that we are speaking to developers tonight, I disagree. We have looked at four or five rezoning requests tonight and each of them is 100% unique. So is this one. When we seek out density, we do seek density. We don't seek it everywhere. The same decisions, we have to look at everything on a case by case basis. Context is crucial and sometimes density is appropriate and sometimes it is not. We upped density substantially at Zion Gardens, that was appropriate. I just wanted to clarify some of those issues. I'm sorry that you are feeling so frustrated because you've done a terrific presentation. Baird: The plan is real detailed and that is why we relied on it so heavily in looking at property and making decisions on a property that would be appropriate. All of the planning document is real detailed, not typical of Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 41 what you see in other cities in Arkansas. It specifically mentions this as what would be good for this area and that is why I made the comments that I did of how this proposal satisfies those requirements in your plan. Additionally, the sections that state for mixed use areas it will not designate specific future land uses, that is what we are doing by saying we will keep that RSF-4. We are saying the market driven approach doesn't apply to this piece of property. We would just like for you to approve it or if there are any other options. In the staff comments it hinted that a PZD might be appropriate to address those sensitive issues. From staff, every indication that I got was that they were in favor of it, there just may be some sensitive issues that need to be addressed. The owner is willing to address those issues and make the staff happy and the Planning Commission. That is why I asked for it to be approved with those conditions of approval so that when it came back before you those issues would be addressed at the Preliminary Plat level. If your staff has a different opinion I would like to hear it. Based on the report, I think they thought that this development would fit in that area. Just a couple of sensitive issues that the owner is more than willing to address. Ostner: Just to clarify, this is an advisory body and we would be recommending a rezoning request to the City Council. That is where the rubber meets the road. They will either approve or deny the rezoning request based on a lot of things, your presentation, staff, our report, etc. Baird: I would like to have a positive recommendation from you all. Ostner: If anyone else would like to comment on a PZD maybe some of the Commissioners who are not in favor of this rezoning request. Graves: I'm always worried about what we are allowed to recommend or not recommend whenever one of those things comes up so I would like the City Attorney to answer that. Williams: Obviously, you have many options before you and one is the PZD ordinance. By some of your presentation it almost seemed like you were going in that direction because obviously, in a rezoning you don't say look at my development plans and things like that because that is not something they really should consider. Another possible situation is that you can have duplexes in an RSF-4 as a Conditional Use. That would mean that you would still be limited to the four units per acre density but you could have duplexes if the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use. Baird: We looked at that option and staff said that they would not support it. They recommended that we rezone it and that is why it came to you as a rezoning. This was not a rushed decision by the developer. We had Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 42 various conversations with the staff and submitted information to be reviewed prior to submitting this rezoning request. Williams: I would recommend after the Planning Commission makes up their mind here, and it takes five affirmative votes to recommend a rezoning to the City Council, you do one of two things. You either appeal and go to the City Council in an attempt to pursued the City Council it is the right thing to do or go back to Planning staff and talk with them about either a PZD or some other type of solution that you would feel would be preferable. Basically, those are going to be your two options I think. Allen: I am going to move for denial of RZN 05-1650. Ostner: The motion fails for lack of a second. Clark: I will make a motion that we deny RZN 05-1650. Allen: I will second. Baird: Can I ask that this be tabled to give us a chance to work with staff and determine a more appropriate presentation be it a different use or a Residential Planned Zoning District for this area? Give us until next month to look at the options. Ostner: We have a motion to deny and a second, is there further discussion? Graves: I will move to table the item as requested by the applicant. I think the motion to table if it gets a second overrides the motion that is out there. Williams: That is correct, it would be voted on first. Ostner: That motion fails for lack of a second. That brings us back to the original motion to deny. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1650 was approved by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Graves voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Williams: As you heard, you have 10 days to do an appeal to the City Council in writing to the City Clerk stating that you wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Announcements Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Page 43 Meeting adjourned: 8:OOp.m.