Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 12, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN VAC 05-1632: East Square Development Forwarded to City Council Consent LSP 05-1675: Langham Approved Consent PPL 05-1608: Water Brook Phase I, pp 571 Approved Page 3 C-PZD 05-1610 for the East Square Development Tabled Page ADM 05-1712: Williams Ford Tractor, pp 363 Approved Page LSD 05-1615: Bassett Furniture Direct, pp 212 Tabled Page PPL 05-1633: Albright's Oak Hill Addition, pp 60 Approved Page LSD 05-1672: Township Heights, pp 290 Approved Page R-PZD 05-1543: Vantage Center, pp 136 Forwarded to City Council Page RZN 05-1687: Hopmann, pp 446 Forwarded to City Council Page LSD 05-1688: Dixie Development, pp 173 Approved Page RZN 05-1688: JDM Investments, LLC, pp 294 Forwarded to City Council Page VAC 05-1689: JDM Investments, LLC, pp 294 Forwarded to City Council Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 2 Page CPL 05-1690: JDM Investments, LLC, pp 294 Page VAC 05-1686: Schultz, pp 599 Page CUP 05-1684: Friday, pp 446 Page CUP 05-1691: Campbell, pp 564 Page RZN 05-1711: Mathias, pp 557 Page No Action Necessary Forwarded to City Council Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Sean Trumbo James Graves Christian Vaught Audi Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Candy Clark Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the September 12, 2005 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Anthes, Myres, Graves, Lack, Clark, Trumbo Ostner were present. Ostner: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the consent agenda. I will read those items. VAC 05-1632 for East Square Development submitted by Bob Kohler for property located at the east/west alley on the Mountain Inn site. Second, LSP 05-1675 submitted by Frances Langham for property located at the northeast corner of Rom Orchard Road and Skillern Road. If anyone in the audience or a Planning Commissioner would like to have these items pulled please speak now. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Anthes: So moved. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? 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 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Ostner: Before we proceed, several items have been tabled, I would like to announce those. Item number three, for Ridge Hill Apartments has been tabled by request of the applicant. Item number five, C-PZD for East Square Development has been tabled as requested by the applicant. Items 8, 9, and 10 for House property located at lots 25 and 28 in the Huntingdon PUD subdivision have been tabled. If you are here for those items we might possibly call for comment but we will not formally hear those items tonight. The next item is LSD 05-1462 for Ridge Hill Apartments, do I have a motion to table this item? Clark: So moved. Anthes: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? I am going to call for public comment. If there is any public comment for LSD 05-1462 we can take your comments now. There is a motion and a second, would 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 7-0-0. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 4 PPL 05-1608: Preliminary Plat (Water Brook Phase I, pp 571): Submitted by Mel Milholland for property located north of Huntsville, west of Deerfield. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 35.17 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 97 single family lots proposed. Ostner: Item number four is PPL 05-1608 for Waterbrook Phase I, if we could have the staff report please. Garner: This item was tabled at the last meeting. It is a proposal for 96 single family lots on Huntsville Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 and the main issue was lining up the subdivision entrance with Ed Edwards Road across the road immediately across Huntsville Road. The applicant has revised the plans and has lined up the driveways and staff is in support of the driveway as it is now. The conditions of approval are the same as those that were before you at the last Planning Commission meeting. Condition number two, the street right of ways, Street 2, the entrance into the subdivision, will be a 50' right of way and the applicant is requesting that the 50' right of way extend from Huntsville Road up to Country Ridge Way and then it would go into a 40' right of way at that point. Other than that, condition number two is as written. The right of way street table just needs to be updated. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Milholland: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering. As stated by the Planning staff, our issue the last time was putting the entrance in the center and we have done that, and also this street in Phase II will go out the north end. We concur with all of the conditions of approval as stated by Planning. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this Preliminary Plat please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Anthes: Staff, do we need to modify the condition that says that the access does not line up because it does now? Pate: Yes, that should be removed from the staff report. Anthes: On condition of approval number four, what is the length of that temporary cul-de-sac? Pate: I believe from our last discussion, it is right at 500'. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 5 Anthes: What assurance do we have that that will connect in Phase II? Pate: Condition number four states that an east/west street from Phase I shall be constructed prior to Final Plat of Phase I. Therefore, if Phase II never happens before this Phase those streets would then have to be connected. Ostner: On condition number 2A, are you saying that the 50' right of way should extend from the highway to Country Ridge and then at that point it would change to a 40' right of way? Pate: That is correct. Country Ridge would remain a 50' right of way and then the proposed through street would become Street 1 which will then connect to Phase II and potentially Mally Wagnon Road at some point in the future if that does develop in such a manner That would become a through street. Clark: On condition number nine, the parkland dedication, is there a time table of when this area will be annexed? Pate: It would be prior to Final Plat of the subdivision so this could not be approved until such time as that was annexed. Staff has received a Lot Split to create the tract for the parkland and we anticipate that the annexation will be occurring sometime within the next year or so. Milholland: We have worked it out with the Parks Department, we bought additional land on the northeast side of Phase I and Phase II that should be shown on your plat. I think the question is about bringing the property into the city, it is already in the process of being annexed. It will be done prior to Final Plat of Phase I. MOTION: Clark: I will make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1608 with the conditions of approval as stated, including the specification on 2A that streets will have a 50' right of way from Huntsville to Country Way Ridge and other specifications stated by staff. Pate: Street 1 would be 40' south of Country Ridge Way and then north of that would become 50'. It is shown on the plat correctly. The table is incorrect. Clark: My motion will include modifications to the street table. Trumbo: I will second. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 6 Ostner: Does the motioner accept the determinations in conditions one and three? Clark: Yes. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1608 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 7 Ostner: C-PZD 05-1610 for the East Square Development is requested to be tabled by the applicant. Anthes: I will move that we table this item indefinitely. Clark: Second. Ostner: At this point I am going to call for public comment if anyone is here to speak to the C-PZD for East Square Development. Seeing none, I am going to close that public comment period. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table C-PZD 05-1610 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 8 ADM 05-1712: Administrative Item (Williams Ford Tractor, pp 363): Submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Donald Williams requesting modification to the conditions of approval regarding the screening of outdoor storage area on Moore Lane for approved Large Scale Development. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ADM 05-1712 for Williams Ford Tractor. Morgan: This property is located at 2501 N. Shiloh Drive. It is located within the Design Overlay District and is zoned C-2. This property is currently a developed site. In 2002 the applicant received approval for an expansion to increase the area of that structure. Per the approval, one condition was made that the project, that the outdoor storage display be screened from the right of way. This property is located on Shiloh and Moore Lane. Specifically, along Moore Lane the Planning Commission required a 3' berm to screen the display area as well as any vegetation or fencing that may be needed. A berm was required in this area. The applicant has been working for the last year or so to finalize this project and to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. However, in order for staff to issue that C of 0 all of the conditions of that original approval needed to be met. Upon the applicant reviewing the condition and the site, his representative requests that a modification of the original approval stating specifically that they did not feel that a 3' berm and vegetation would adequately screen that area. They are requesting an 8' privacy fence to screen that outdoor storage, which is located not only on the property in which the Large Scale Development was approved, but also on adjacent property owned by the same applicant. Staff has looked at the applicant's request and the original approval from the Planning Commission and we have seven recommendations for screening this property. First, we propose that an 8' wood board fence be installed south of the required greenspace that is 25' from the right of way within the Design Overlay District and 15' outside of that. In those areas not currently screened by existing vegetation within the LSD property. This is along Moore Lane. Second, that the chainlink fence be removed or relocated south of the wood board fence in those areas where a fence is installed. The applicant would need to plant a continuous row of shrubs which are evergreen within the required greenspace as well as plant a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees within that greenspace at one per 30'. If some of the existing vegetative screening is removed where the wood board fence is not required we would need to look at appropriate measures in order to screen that property. As it is now, there is an existing chainlink fence and along much of that vegetation has grown up and it does create a buffer and screen. Condition number six, all conditions of approval from the April, 2002 Planning Commission as well as the major modification from Subdivision Committee, will need to be completed within three years of a building permit, which was issued September 27, 2002. Seventh, that no display or storage shall be located within the required greenspace area. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 9 Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates representing the owners of this project. We would like one change as far as the condition of approval. The owner has met with us and discussed the wood fence. We are going to be removing the chainlink all together but they would like to put a steel bar about waste high, they have had problems in the past where people have cut the wire in that section and gone on that property and they are trying to prevent anyone from possibly taking the wood fence down to get to the property. They would like to put that along the front to deter anyone that might like to go in there. There is very expensive equipment back there that they would like to secure. Also, we would like to ask for an extension of the approval on item number six so that we don't have to come back before this board. It is going to take at least two or three months for us to be able to install these improvements. Ostner: At this point I will take public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this administrative item please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Staff, have you considered this request for a security waist high steel bar? Pate: Very briefly, we were just made aware of it this afternoon. I entirely understand the reason for that. Not too long ago there were several four wheelers stolen from the property so it is something that they do have to keep secure year around. I don't believe that a metal tube at some determined diameter would be a problem. Anthes: Is it not possible to put the steel inside on the property owner's portion of the wood fence so it wouldn't be another layer of clutter on the outside. Brackett: I have spoken with the owner about that also. His concern is that people would still break through the fence because they wouldn't see it, they wouldn't be able to get anything but he would still have a broken fence. On the front it is a deterrent to keep that activity from happening. You kind of want them to see it so they know not to try. Anthes: I thought Mr. Pate said that they stole four wheelers that they have to get out of the property. Brackett: They cut the fence and went through there and took the four wheelers out. We are trying to keep them from getting in there. Anthes: I understand that but I don't want to design our community based on the bad actions of a few people. Brackett: It is a sizeable investment by this owner. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 10 Anthes: I understand, but I am trying to figure our a way to get this so it doesn't look like we have a double security fence outside. Pate: Anthes: Brackett: Whether this addresses it or not, supporting the wood board fence, we are trying to screen that with the shrubs and trees that are required along the frontage. This is not pertaining to a parking area and we have a fence, screening materials, 50% evergreen trees would potentially screen that as well so it would be the potential that you would never see the majority of that fence. It would probably be waist high would be the top of the shrubs. Would that be a problem for the applicant because they want it to be seen? Once you walk up to it you are going to see it before you go through the fence. That's the idea. There is going to be landscaping between the road and both fences, it is going to be right in front of the other fence. Clark: Did you bring any pictures as to what this might look like with the double screening and the landscaping presented? I'm having a hard time visualizing this. I understand Commissioner Anthes' concern that it looks like a prison rather than a business but I understand the security issue as well. Brackett: It will be a 3" steel tube and it will have posts in between it. It will be right up against the wood fence. This just came up yesterday evening, it was brought to our attention by the owner so we haven't prepared any renditions, it will be the road, the landscaping, shrubs and trees and then both of these fences. Vaught: I don't have a problem with the tube, if you are worried about being able to see it you can paint it the same color as the fence and then it will just blend in. I understand the need for security. They are still willing to do the wood board fence, they are going to have landscaping in front of it. I don't think that it is going to be intrusive. A wood board fence that is used for screening is far more intrusive than this tube. If you paint it a brown or a dark gray you are probably not going to see it. Lack: I think the other thing that I caught in Mr. Brackett's conversation is that the pipe would be right against the fence. If the pipe is against the fence and not set out from the fence then that helps to incorporate it into the overall structure and not look like a double barrier and achieve the owner's goals. Bracket: Painting it is not a problem. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 11 Lack: With that, I would be comfortable with this. Trumbo: The applicant is asking for an extension, do we need to set a deadline on this extension? Pate: I would recommend that. You can extend it up to two years. I don't believe they need two additional years, I would give them somewhere between 4-6 months to get everything installed to get a C of O. Brackett: We request six months if possible. Anthes: I will move for approval of ADM 05-1712 based on the following conditions of approval. Accepting staff's recommendation with the addition of a 3" diameter steel tube against the wood fence painted in a neutral color that will blend with the fence and extending the application for the deadline for compliance to December 31, 2005. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 05-1712 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 12 LSD 05-1615: Large Scale Development (Bassett Furniture Direct, pp 212): Submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers for property located at Lot 6 of CMN II Phase I, northwest of Steele Blvd. and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to approve a 22,500 sq.ft. commercial retail development with 72 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item is LSD 05-1615 for Bassett Furniture Direct, if we could have the staff report please. Garner: The property contains an overall about 11 'h acre parcel identified as Lot 6 in CMN Business Park. At the August 11`" Subdivision Committee meeting a Lot Split was approved to divide this tract and create the tract for the proposed Bassett Furniture property. The newly created lot is approximately 1.9 acres. The applicant requests to construct an approximately 23,000 sq.ft. Bassett Furniture store with 51 parking spaces. The surrounding area to the north is undeveloped. To the south is I-540 and the site is in the Design Overlay District to the east is Target and to the west is the Center Brook Subdivision. As mentioned, this property is within the Design Overlay District and I have included findings for that in your staff report. I wanted to call your attention to curb cut requirements. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the curb cut requirements in the Design Overlay District standards and that is the main reason why we are here tonight. The applicant requests a curb cut that is approximately 190' between the northern and southern curb cuts on this lot. The proposed curb cut would line up with the Target Shopping Center immediately to the east. Staff is recommending approval of this project with several conditions. Condition number one, Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the revised elevations largely meet the Commercial Design Standards and I believe the applicant will bring forward a revised elevation board and we will go over some of the elements that have changed. We have gone back and forth with the applicant several times over design standards and we feel that they largely meet the requirements. They do have a couple of items that we feel like should be incorporated. 1A, incorporate a similar brick material into the columns on the north and south as used on the east elevation. 1B, utilize the brick material or other detail around the foe windows on the north and south elevations similar to those used on the east elevation. 1 C, the elevations list the type of materials used but do not show the location of materials on the structure. That is an administrative item so we can understand exactly what materials are being proposed where. 1D, The Subdivision Committee found that the west elevation needed additional articulation to meet design standards and recommended additional vertical elements to break up the west facade. I wanted to call your attention to condition number four. As part of the Lot Split approval access was limited to the shared access easement along the northern property line and it remains applicable for this development as well. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 13 Condition number seven, Planning Commission determination of an appropriate location for a trash enclosure. This condition is in here because the applicant is proposing to put the dumpster pad in the utility easement and we have several items here to make sure that the utility companies are ok with it. As long as all easement providers are ok with it, we feel like it is ok to put it there. Condition number eleven, provide a detailed drawing on the masonry wall. As additional background, the Final Plat for CMN Business Park requires that a screening wall be provided between this lot and the subdivision to the west and so we wanted some detail of when this development comes forward we can make sure that it is compatible. The development with the other lot to the north we will also be requiring to have a wall constructed. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan from McClelland Consulting Engineering. I represent Nanchar Properties and Bassett Furniture Direct. We are here to review the curb cut waiver, approximately 10' lower than the 200' minimum required. We have approximately 189.7'. Also, we would like to review material samples and have provided a materials elevation board. Ostner: At this point I will ask for public comment on LSD 05-1615. If anyone would like to speak to this issue please step forward. Seeing no public comment, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: Why are you requesting the waiver? Morgan: We would like to have our northern drive entrance and exit align with the existing Target entrance and exit just to facilitate movement and then keep our southern drive as far away from the intersection of Shiloh and Steele as possible. Clark: At Subdivision we did talk about this waiver and we supported it because it was a safety issue. That was a good move. However, I'm still concerned about that western elevation and I thought we were going to see something different. Morgan: On that western elevation we have added vertical columns as well as lighting. Also required in this location by the plat of CMN Business Park is a solid fence or a masonry wall no less than 6' tall between the neighborhood to our west and our building. We have a 20' natural buffer that also separates this solid wall between the existing neighborhood. With the varied articulation of this vertical element between this neighborhood and our building and with that natural buffer we will put in Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 14 some evergreen vegetation to keep the visibility of that area to a minimum. We have the vertical elements on that rear elevation. Vaught: The sconce lighting, I know there is some sort of security lighting on the rear, is that what that is taking the place of instead of having other security lights? The light is what you really want to block out between the neighborhood and the commercial building. Morgan: We can certainly add it so we don't have light diffusing across, even over the 6' masonry wall so we won't traverse the 20' natural buffer into that neighborhood. Anthes: I would like the applicant to go over where the materials are on the building and point those out. ??: The main part of the fa9ade is an E.I.F.S. finish and have accent brick located on the front. There is E.I.F.S. material that is textured around the windows as accent. I do not have details of the lighting. There is brick that goes from top to bottom for vertical lines. Anthes: Staff, it seems to me that we have asked for a higher percentage of masonry in this park. I seem to recall that Steak and Shake went with a stone base, which was outside of their standards but they did in this particular area for compatibility with surrounding buildings. We have very little masonry material around the front. It looks like they are looking to get most of their articulation (I use that word lightly) through a color scheme in E.I.F.S. Pate: I think it is a challenge on this side of the street on the west side of Steele. This is a different phase of CMN so it is not under the same architectural standards as CMN Business Park II, Phase II or Spring Creek Subdivision that Steak and Shake was in. They all have different architectural standards a lot of times established by the buildings that go in and we try to build on that. We did look at the red brick as something to try to pull over from across the street where Target is located. We are recommending that the columns on the north and south be incorporated with brick. That is one of the recommendations to bring that into not only the front elevation, but the north and south elevation as well, as around those foe windows to at least provide an accent band to incorporate more of the structure. The western elevation staff was not as concerned about because we feel very strongly that you will not be able to see that from the right of way based on the placement of this building on the lot and the wall that is required along the back of that. The wall will be required along all of those lots so it will be continuous in the future. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 15 Anthes: It looks to me that you have the bottom part of this building in green E.I.F.S. and have truck docks on either side of that. That is a material that is very easily damaged. Are you not worried about having a Styrofoam material as your base material and then the truck dock? Morgan: I have talked to the applicant about placing some bars in that location to prevent the trucks from hurting the building. We have also presented this elevation, as well as the previous elevation, to the CMN architectural review committee and they are in agreement with what we are now presenting. Anthes: I am not sure that I am. Am I right in looking at the site plan that the entire site is concrete except for this little buffer in the front? Morgan: The majority of the site is heavy duty pavement and the heavy duty concrete is for the truck docks as well as the rear of the building. Anthes: We have basically all hard surface except for the very front and the setbacks and they cut the tree wells in the parking lot right? Morgan: We have the required amount of open space on this lot. It is a very tight lot size wise. We do have the natural buffer in the rear and we do have the 25' natural landscape buffer as required by ordinance in the front. Pate: They are meeting the 25% greenspace requirement. Trumbo: Condition of approval number one has A, B, C and D, are you in agreement with those conditions? Morgan: My client and the architect on this job would like to entertain any of those conditions that we could specifically spell out. What additions or subtractions would likely be seen on the elevation? The architects for this development have worked in the Boulder area and have high requirements. We can call out the items that we would like to add to this store and can certainly call those out. We feel as though we are guessing what Planning Commission is wanting as far as architectural requirements. Trumbo: Jeremy, if we approve this will you all have the latitude to call out specific requirements as far as what you are looking for? Pate: This was the same set of conditions for approval that was presented to the Subdivision Committee. The incorporating the brick materials on the vertical columns on the north and south. Those would be the columns that are shown there with brick instead of E.I.F.S. Utilize a brick material or other detail around the foe windows on the north or south elevation similar to the brick materials used on the east elevation. Again, that would be Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 16 pulling the brick materials to the foe window to have more than one articulation. We discussed the materials and number four, we talked about the west elevation. Morgan: I can certainly recommend that. The only thing structurally promising the brick material, I don't want to do anything that is going to drive the budge t out. I can certainly recommend that if we could go with perhaps a lighter weight foe material that would give the same effect as brick I could do that. Clark: These are the conditions that we spelled out in Subdivision. Staff is saying that these elevations that we have now reflect the changes that we requested to be made in Subdivision. Pate: Not those three. MOTION: Clark: I am going to move that we table LSD 05-1615 until it does. Anthes: I will second. Morgan: It is very different from staff's recommendations and staff's requirements. We did have a long conversation during Subdivision Committee about recommendations verses requirements. One thing that I would like to speak about is the access limitation for the lot south of this on Lot 6A. It was going to be a requirement that this access not be allowed prior to Lot 6A but after further discussion we decided we could possibly have access there if we did a study and came up with the correct special requirements for this entrance as well as a traffic study that would allow certain traffic movements in this location. Ostner: To answer your first question, staff recommendations are in situations like Commercial Design Standards, the Planning Commission determines whether those standards have been satisfied. Staff makes a recommendation to us. We often agree with their recommendation. Sometimes we change their recommendation. What happens tonight is the contract that we agree to. That is how it is. When staff makes recommendations, those are toward the contract of tonight. Morgan: Yes Sir, staff recommended approval. I think we are very close to having an agreeable elevation here. We are down to access easements and I certainly think we can have conditions of approval that can be met. Ostner: Some Commissioners are saying that it has been 2, 3 or 4 weeks since we requested those of you and even though we are hearing it, we don't see it. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 17 Morgan: Anthes: As far as what we need to complete our part of the deal is to actually see these things that we are talking about. Staff has agreed that we have pulled that in and we are at the point of asking for full approval with conditions. The thing that really put me off there is when we asked you about if you were amenable to those changes you said "we don't know." Therefore, I don't think you are that close. We don't know what we are going to see and if you can't do it, you're back here. I just think that we are smart to go ahead and wait until you have assurances to do what we are asking before we approve it. Graves: I think the disconnect here is that the Subdivision forwarded it to the full Planning Commission with the understanding that the Subdivision Committee forwarded it with those things to be incorporated in the drawings. One elevation has been addressed but the other elevations were not addressed in accordance with what Subdivision Committee forwarded it on. They wouldn't have forwarded if there wasn't an understanding that the drawings were going to be altered in order to address the concerns about Commercial Design Standards. I usually do not like to table things because it means that we are going to have to have it on our agenda again and we have to take it up again and go through the report again and everything else but as Commissioner Anthes said, the one time we mentioned putting this into a condition the response we heard from you was "we don't know because of the budget and things like that." Our hands seem to be tied in a way because we have had three weeks since that Subdivision Committee in order to see those drawings with the items that Subdivision asked to be addressed and they are not here except for one elevation and for us to incorporate those things ourselves we might be putting on you a budget that you are not able to live with. Morgan: Can we not get a building permit if we do not work those items out? Graves: We can put it in a condition and vote on it tonight but what we are hearing from you is that you may not have a budget to do it with. Morgan: I am not an architect nor a structural engineer, my client would have to work that out if there are things in that design that I'm not seeing. Graves: That is what we are saying that you have had three weeks to work it out. Vaught: I don't know if I agree with the motion to table. I think that we are at a point where we have made motions more specific than this requiring more than this in the past. Say we table it for two weeks and he can't afford it, we are in the same place and are going to have the same discussion again. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 18 Obviously, I think we need to approve it the way we see it needs to be. I imagine the big issue is the brick around the windows and foe windows because that is where the additional support would come in. The columns I wouldn't think would be a big issue. I don't like the idea of a foe brick. I think it is something that we can definitely work our way through tonight and pass it on. I feel like there are some compromises here. Obviously, we would like to see some changed elevations and they would like it without those changes made so they came to ask us as the people who determine that. Ostner: There are a few discrepancies that I see. I don't believe that we should be seeing this tonight, it is not satisfying what the Subdivision Committee asked and what the applicant agreed to. We are not an appeals court for Subdivision, that is where committee work happens. That is where the applicant says you are asking things that I can't do. The Subdivision says go back and get everything you need and then go to Planning Commission to review it and not redo committee work. Vaught: We hear appeals all the time at this level. We have it incorporated the way Subdivision wanted and forwarded it in that manner. It puts it on the developer to get it done. I don't think it needs to be tabled at this level. Clark: We tabled it once at Subdivision Committee to get these conditions addressed and we forwarded it on with the thought that it would sail through Planning Commission with the changes requested. We spend a lot of hours at Subdivision and get a lot of pledges from developers and later tonight we are going to see some of those pledges that we have talked about. I would like to see it tabled and see what you can do to address this accurately and if you can't afford it you are going to have to do something else anyway and if you can afford it we can sail right through it. Morgan: I would request that we have approval with conditions. I think this is a technical request. However, saying that, if there are any other items that we can discuss now rather than two weeks from now we can do that. Vaught: I would like to ask those from Subdivision Committee that all we are saying is brick, are there other options to articulate those sides if brick would not work around those windows? We are getting pretty specific with brick. Do we want to be that specific or do we want to say find a way to better articulate that? Morgan: I certainly can speak for the structural engineer that a light brick material would work, I just cannot say that we can afford an actual real brick. Clark: I don't believe we are being too specific here. I would like more articulation. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 19 Myres: I do remember we said utilize a brick material similar to the brick material utilized on the east elevation or other detail around foe windows and south elevations similar to that. What we were after was the color and the texture and if you can duplicate the look of the brick without actually using the brick I personally don't have any problem with that. It is a contract in color and a difference in texture that I'm seeking. Vaught: Staff, do you have enough detail on that to work through that internally or would you feel more comfortable seeing it? Pate: We feel comfortable with it as a condition. We are recommending approval right now. We do see instances where there are differences between the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission or the Planning Commission and the developer, these are things that have to be worked out at the Planning Commission level. I think there will be circumstances when there is anything subjective at all or a decision has to be made based on ordinances and those decisions have to be made and voted on at that time. We feel comfortable that we have enough information in front of us with the conditions of approval as outlined. We have the minutes of the Subdivision Committee and of this meeting, as long as it is comfortable in your minds as a Commission, we will permit the building according to those conditions of approval. Anthes: I don't know that I believe this will meet the Commercial Design Standards even after those changes are made. One of the reasons I don't know that is because I don't see it on here. I am not in the business of wanting to design your building for you or to tell you how to do it. I just know that we need articulation on these surfaces and I don't know that you have met that. Therefore, I am going to support tabling it and if you do go forward without tabling I am going to vote to turn this down. I also call the question. Ostner: Will you call the roll to call the question? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to call the question was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: The motion is to table and there has been a second, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 05-1615 was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Commissioners Lack, Trumbo and Vaught voting no. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 20 Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 21 Ostner: The next item is CUP 05-1599 that has been requested to be tabled by the applicant. MOTION: Myres: Motion to table. Clark: Second. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment for CUP 05-1599 if anyone would like to speak to this issue please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Is there any further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 05-1599 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 22 Ostner: Item number nine is also requested to be tabled by the applicant, it is LSP 05-1551 and LSP 05-1552, do I have a motion to table? Clark: So moved. Lack: Second. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment if anyone would like to speak to this issue of LSP 05-1551 & 05-1552 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSP 05-1551 and 1552 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 23 Ostner: The third item that has been requested to be tabled by the applicant is LSP 05-1553 and 1554, is there a motion to table? Myres: So moved. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Is there any public comment on these items? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSP 05-1553 and 1554 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 24 PPL 05-1633: Preliminary Plat (Albright's Oak Hill Subdivision, pp 60): Submitted by Critical Path Construction for property located at 4984 N. Crossover Road, south of Albright Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, four units per acre and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision containing three single family lots. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1633 for Albright Oak Hill. If we could have the staff report please. Fulcher: This property is located just north of Zion Road and east of Crossover on Albright. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision with three single family lots. This item was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on May 19` as a Concurrent Plat. At that time the applicants did request that the improvements be made to Albright Road in lieu of an assessment for those improvements. As a result, the item has been changed to a Preliminary Plat. The improvements to Albright will consist of paving 14' from centerline, curb, gutter and sidewalks and storm sewer to be determined by the City Engineer. These properties will be serviced by Springdale Water which is located directly across the street on Albright and each of the lots will have septic systems which have been approved by the Arkansas Department of Health. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with five conditions of approval. Condition number one, we are requesting that the applicant coordinate with the Urban Forester and Sidewalk Coordinator to determine the most appropriate location and grade of the sidewalk to best save the existing trees along Albright Road. If you have any questions I can clarify for you please ask. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Teague: I am Brian Teague with Clear Path Construction Management and I have a little project history that I would like to read over with you. We purchased this property in April, 2005. It contains 2.97 acres which is zoned RSF-4. We originally split the property into three lots in hopes of building some large custom homes that we could use as showcase homes for our company. We proposing three .90 acre lots to be split each having 185' of frontage on Albright Road. The property will be served by a 6" water line on the north side of Albright Road and will utilize septic systems. We felt that this type of development matches what is currently being utilized on Albright Road. In May we submitted a Lot Split and after Planning Staff review we found that we could only split the property twice. Splitting it three ways would qualify the property as a subdivision. We then met with Engineering staff to discuss improvements that would have to be made if submitted as a subdivision. At that time Engineering staff recommended Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 25 no improvements to the property if we assessed street improvements for a percentage of the design traffic on Albright Road. This assessment would require approximately $2,000 from us. We presented a Concurrent Plat to Planning on July 14`h. The Planning Staff required us to go to Parks Board and assessed our improvements along Albright Road. Planning recommended that the assessment include widening the southern half of Albright Road from 11 1/2' to 14' wide, installing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the frontage. On August 1st we submitted this to the Parks Department and requested to pay money in lieu of parkland and they approved this. After that we submitted a second time on August 4th. After the city's in-house review on August 15th we were officially required an assessment for widening curb, gutter and sidewalk along our frontage on Albright. We felt that requiring us to widen, curb and gutter along with a sidewalk along Albright was excessive for a three lot development on Albright Road. Albright is essentially built out and currently has no curb or gutter or sidewalk. However, in order to keep the project moving we did request to make these improvements ourselves at the Tech Plat meeting on August 17`h. We are willing to go ahead and make the improvements ourselves. However, at Subdivision Committee two of the neighbors brought up the issue of tree canopy and if we installed the improvements we would probably end up having to take out some of the trees along Albright. Since that we have been working with Sara Patterson, the city's Urban Forester who has come up with ways to minimize the removal of tree canopy along Albright. We think that we can get the curb, gutter and sidewalk in without doing too much damage to the tree canopy. However, like I said earlier, we probably will have to take out some of the trees. We just feel like it would be better for everybody involved to not have to do those improvements since we are only proposing three lots on this property. Ostner: Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak? Roman: My name is Jeanette Roman. I was here primarily to make sure that some errors were corrected. The letter that we received on August 25th said that they were going to split up 4984 Crossover, that is my residence. I don't want that split up. I did call. I am familiar with the workings of city and know that sometimes things don't get done on time. I am confused about the gentleman's remarks about they are building Albright. I do know that we have one access off of our property to this property. When we purchased this property we were told that there could only be two houses there. We purchased our property believing that. I don't think I would be very happy with three houses having access off of our driveway which we own, it is not a right of way. That would be a lot of traffic. In addition to that, I know that you know that Mark Foster is building 12 houses and the entrance is right next to ours. That is going to be a lot of traffic in a very small area. You've got Albright and our driveway and you are going to Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 26 have the traffic from 12 additional houses. We are the last house in Fayetteville before you get to Springdale. We live in Ben Jack's old residence. I don't have any problem with three houses instead of two, that doesn't both me but I was assured by these people that they would have their entrances off of Albright. I have nothing but their word. I do think it is a real issue because you are going to have a lot of traffic in a very small area. Trying to get out on Crossover at 8:00 in the morning, you better be patient. Vaught: Your access drive goes along the western boundary, is that correct? Roman. It goes out to Crossover. Goodwin: My name is H.L. Goodwin, I live at 1650 Albright. How many of you have driven up Albright and know where it is? To me it is arguably one of the most unique entry ways to housing that exists in Fayetteville. It has beautiful arbor covered road, much like the road in The Sound of Music movie. The trees bridge over the street. Many people bought homes in that neighborhood for that aspect of it. I am coming to speak to three items. I was not able to stay for the other hearing. One is to speak to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. I live in Springdale but Fayetteville is directly west of me and so I'm aware of the great concern that Fayetteville has in preserving the natural beauty and aesthetics of our communities. The street character is unique and defined in large part by the existence of these large, mature trees. I'm also concerned somewhat and am kind of conflicted. There is a drainage problem on Albright. In fact, Mr. Willoughby who is not here, during times of heavy rain water comes into his yard off of Albright because drainage is inadequate along that street. '/2 of that street is Fayetteville and ''4 is Springdale so predominantly that means that it belongs to nobody. That is a source of heartburn for several houses along there. Egress and ingress to that property will be difficult. I haven't seen any sketches of whether there will be three driveways coming down Albright but you are coming down a hill in which people drive 45 to 70 miles per hour. It is a hazard. The more driveways you have the more likeliness that there is a hazard because there is a traffic problem there. We have an established neighborhood with elderly people that walk up and down that street, kids playing along there, the more driveways you add underneath a hill the more danger you have. I agree with the presenter for the developer that the street is totally developed and would request that there be some kind of compromise not to require sidewalks and curbs and gutter on a few hundred feet of the street that is fully developed otherwise because it is going to damage the trees and affect the character of the neighborhood. I understand rules but I also understand compromise and variance and urge your consideration. I am speaking on behalf of several of the neighbors there and urge you to take this into consideration. I am very happy that we are looking at three Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 27 houses instead of 12 on that property and am presuming that Mr. Johnson and the Health Department took adequate care in granting the variance for the septic systems. With that, I've said my peace in case anyone has questions. Ostner: Is there further public comment? I am going to close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: Septic systems, why are we not requiring sewer? O'Neal: This is served by Springdale Water Utilities so there would have to be an agreement between the two municipalities for us to serve them with sewer. I believe it was the developer's option to not extend the sewer to the property and go with a septic system. Vaught: On the improvements, curb, gutter and sidewalk, I don't know if the developer has had a chance to get a cost estimate on what it would cost to install curb and gutter and widen the street and sidewalks per linear foot. ??: On sidewalks, curb, gutter and widening not going all the way to centerline, it was about $15,000 or $16,000. Vaught: So about $5,000 per lot for off site improvements. How does that compare? Pate: Every single development is entirely different. We just have to take a look on a case by case basis and see what kind of frontage they have. There are a number of variables that we look at when we are looking at off site improvements. I do want to correct something. The majority of Albright Road is being improved. There are two major developments from George Anderson Road west almost to the city limits line on your map, that has all been annexed. The Harper/Brandon Development which is southwest of George Anderson and the Pembridge subdivision to the west of that so over '/2 of the south side of Albright Road will be improved to 14' from centerline in the near future. Vaught: Does that include the property directly east? Pate: It is one lot east of where they are showing the city limits line on here. Vaught: Where is the gap that is not in Fayetteville? Pate: South of Albright is. Ostner: Mr. Williams, this is pretty rare that we have a Preliminary Plat that is going to allow septic tanks within our city limits. Can you elaborate on Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 28 any of that? I thought our rules did not allow septic tanks within city limits. Williams: You can allow septic tanks within the city limits. A lot of it depends on how far you are from the existing sewer main. If you are far enough away from the existing sewer main then you are allowed to utilize septic. At this point we have the other difficulty where we are sharing water with Springdale and would it be their main or our main and who's water is it going to be. I think it is the distance from the sewer main. If you were close to the sewer main I think we can require you to extend the main. If you are too far away then in fact, the city will not require that because that would be too much of a burden on a person just building three houses because you go from the comer of the property to see how far away you are on it. O'Neal: I also believe there is a grade differential. The nearest sewer main would be above this development so we would have to have another lift station for three houses which would be prohibitive in cost. Williams: That is why you really have to look at it on a case by case basis instead of just having one blanket rule. Ostner: The nearby houses on Albright, how are they being served? O'Neal: The existing houses on Albright have septic systems. Pate: The newer homes that are being built along George Anderson, west of George Anderson, they have collaborated them to several lift stations, at least one lift station there because of the development. They do have more lots to share the burden of the cost. Trumbo: I think I'm a little confused on the access to these lots. Are we talking about a shared access with the drive or are we talking about three different accesses onto Albright? 77• We haven't set anything in stone but there is a possibility of three different accesses onto Albright. There is a possibility that the lot to the west could access that access drive but it could go onto Albright as well. Vaught: As far as the improvements, I would really like to see them done if there is a way we could do them without causing too much damage. Does the city feel comfortable, I know sometimes there is a way to slide the right of way a little bit. Since we are dealing with Springdale on the other half is there a way to do that without losing too much canopy? Planning Commission September 12, Page 29 Pate: Teague: Vaught: Pate: Vaught: Trumbo: Teague: Trumbo: Graves: Myres: 2005 The sidewalk is something that we can work with. We do that in cases where there are trees that we are trying to work around. I think that is something we can work out. I would have to rely on Mr. Teague here to understand how much room there is for curb and gutter and 14' from centerline. There is a ditch about 5' wide off the edge of pavement. At the back side of that ditch is really where the tree line is. Most of it, very large trees are not in that tree line, they are back a little bit further. I can say there are 20 nice size trees in that tree line. It is hard to say if you could get all of that in there without killing those trees or not. You are probably going to have to put a tree behind your back of curb to put a curb in. It's hard to say. When we do a sidewalk that meanders or winds, that costs more, is that put on the developer or does the city help with that? It is typically on the developer. I guess it would cost more for forming, we don't anticipate varying it that much. We try to keep to the right of way as much as possible. I guess my reason for wanting improvements to Albright because this connects with the subdivisions to the south and east that are going to be coming into Albright. There are not many roads that cut through from George Anderson and Zion over to Crossover. That is one reason I feel that at minimum the widening with curb and gutter are necessary. If we require sidewalks along this right of way we should be specific with this. I think the cost of $5,000 per lot is starting to bump the edge of rough proportionality. That is my main concern that I wrestle with the most. I will move that we approve PPL 05-1633 with the findings in agreement with all recommendations of approval including improvements to Albright Road. The way that condition reads is 14' from centerline on our side of the road, we are not talking about going from centerline and redoing the whole drive right? No, just the additional. I will second. Just for the record, I am not happy about disturbing any of those trees along that road. It is one of the prettiest roads in the whole county and if there was some way to satisfy both maintaining the aesthetics and doing the improvements I would love to see that happen. I am not sure that they are mutually exclusive. I'm tom on how I am going to vote on this Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 30 because the disturbance is likely to happen and the character of that road will not be the same. How much of Albright Road is within the city? We have rules and regulations but I would love to make an exception in this case but there are rules. Graves: I am in favor of the motion because I think some of the comments that have been made regarding some of the flooding issues, curb and gutter will help improve some of that situation. The idea of a meandering sidewalk to try to preserve as many trees as possible is good. If there really are traffic concerns and many cars traveling at some of the speeds described, that is more reasons for pedestrians to need sidewalks out there. Ostner: We are going to a pretty good length to preserve those trees, are you going to put in a deed restriction on those trees after you sell those lots to independent homeowners? Teague: I don't know, we didn't plan on it. Ostner: My follow up question for staff is, I'm not trying to be negative, but after the property changes hands what precautions are in place for these trees after there has been so much effort to go around them? Pate: Our current regulations don't allow for those type of restrictions to be enforced by the city. The applicant can volunteer but we would not be able to enforce those because tree preservation requirements do not apply to single family lot owners. Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1633 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Myres voting no. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 31 Break LSD 05-1672: Large Scale Development (Township Heights, pp 290): Submitted by Dave Jorgensen for property located at Township Street, west of north College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is to approve an 11,806 sq.ft. office building with 67 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: The next item is LSD 05-1672 for Township Heights. Clark: I will recuse from this. Morgan: This property is located on Township between College Avenue and Gregg Avenue and is zoned C-2, one of the last tracts along this stretch of Township requesting development. On November 8, 2004 the Planning Commission approved development of this tract for a professional office building. Since that, the applicant has made some modifications to the requested site development and therefore, you are seeing this as a new Large Scale Development. The applicant requests approval of a new Large Scale Development consisting of 11,806 sq.ft. of sales office with 66 parking spaces. The plan, in relationship to the previously approved Large Scale Development, has the same access points to Township and a similar configuration for trash container location and detention location. At the Subdivision Committee one of the main points of discussion was with regard to Commercial Design Standards. Here we have an elevation board showing all four sides of the elevations of the building reviewed and approved at Subdivision Committee. The north, east and west sides of those buildings are proposed for consideration of approval. They have modified the southern elevation and you can see that on the materials display board. Staff is recommending approval of this LSD with a total of 12 conditions and we do find that the revised elevations are compliant with Commercial Design Standards. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. It was our understanding that the main contention that required this to go before the full Planning Commission was the southern building elevation, the large, blank, unarticulated wall. We have revised that. That is the only elevation that has changed. I can answer any questions that you have. Ostner: I will call for public comment on LSD 05-1672 for Township Heights. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. I am going to call for a quick Subdivision Committee report. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 32 Graves: As the applicant stated, our main concern was with the south elevation that is visible from the street. As you can see on the original south elevation there was a large wall face without any articulation and a large sign and we asked for modifications to it based on Commercial Design Standards. We were not as concerned with the rear elevation because that is not going to be visible. It is a slope and unoccupied area that is not going to be developed to what would be a visible surface. Otherwise, the layout and design of the proposal is an improvement over what the original approved LSD was. Anthes: I did not get a site plan in my packet so I don't know how to evaluate the LSD without a site plan. Pate: It should've been in your Subdivision Committee packet. Vaught: It is my understanding that the original building had a big courtyard in the middle, are we taking that off? Brackett: The change is the original building, the access points are the same with the access off of Township being moved about 5'. The original building was quite a bit larger so the parking lot that you see on the east side was not there. That is the main difference is that is going to be parking now and the building configuration has changed. Ostner: Staff, there is no proposed cross access to the east, is that intentional? Pate: That property has been developed as a car dealership. Therefore, that cross access would not be utilized because they have already developed curb cuts and everything else in that property. Brackett: There is a wall right there. There is a large grade difference at that point. Pate: The retaining wall runs on the east and north of this development. Most of it has been cut as part of the last LSD. Ostner: Thank you. That retaining wall makes a difference. There are several determinations, street improvements in condition number one, we need to make a determination for that and Commercial Design Standards are the only two determinations we need to make. We currently have an outdoor lighting ordinance and this project is complying. Pate: That is correct. When we permit this project all of the lighting details will need to comply with the outdoor lighting ordinance. Ostner: That is a new one for me. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 33 Lack: On the sections of wall that are stucco it is calling for a cold expansion joint pattern, can you explain that terminology to me? Fitzgerald: My name is Don Fitzgerald, I'm the in-house architect for Key Enterprises. Lack: I just have a concern with the pattern to show a break up in that wall and I would like to understand a little better about how that pattern will be maintained to make sure that it is a visible pattern. Fitzgerald: Using a dryvit wall you have a break to allow the cold joints to function to keep the panel from cracking, if you didn't have that joint it would crack and show cracks throughout the system. What that does, it stops that cracking by providing metal edges all the way around it and then you have another metal edge on the other side. Therefore, you have a co -joint and it is caulked with expansive caulking so when it breathes it expands in the cracks. Lack: My concern is that the normal inclination is to caulk it with a color matched material to the stucco but that might actually deter from the patterning that you called out on the drawings. Fitzgerald: There are several ways that we can handle that. It is just that one of the technical aspects of the construction drawing. These are preliminaries and we will do everything in our power to comply with the city's request. We want to be partners with the City of Fayetteville. We have done several buildings here. We will take your concern to heart and make it more articulate. Lack: Just to elaborate on that concern, a darker material would help to show that as a shadow line. Fitzgerald: There are several ways you can do that. You can make the groove in the stucco for the dryvit to the point that it is right at the top and there at the bottom. You see that articulation. We just finished that on the VA building on Sunbridge. I think you can see the articulation on that building from the road very easily. It is the same type of situation. Lack: I just mentioned that because it is a natural inclination to use a different color. Fitzgerald: You can see any time in a building, the openings, the windows, the arches, you will see a building in rhythm. Planning Commission September 12, Page 34 Myres: Fitzgerald: Myres: Fitzgerald: Ostner: Fitzgerald: Trumbo: Brackett: MOTION: Trumbo: Lack: Graves: Trumbo: Ostner: Roll Call: Morgan: 2005 That raises a question for me. The materials that you have shown on your most current drawing the E.LF.S. on the top does appear to be grooved, is that the texture or is that the color? No, that is the color but also possibly the texture. This is the same texture we used on the VA building. It does articulate from the street. I think as long as the drawings are that apparent that I wouldn't have a problem with it. You will recognize the texture. I am seeing a white wainscot with this but I am not translating that on the drawing I am looking at. There was a miscommunication and it was too late to change it. The option to change it is very similar. I prefer a darker color because it gives a status to the different material. The drawing is what I intend to work with. The sample is material that will be used. Are you in agreement with the 12 conditions of approval? Yes. With that, I will make a motion that we approve LSD 05-1672 with the findings in agreement with staff's recommendation on assessment and the finding that this building does meet our Commercial Design Standards. I will second. Just to be clear, that the motioner and seconder also intended all other conditions of approval. Definitely, all conditions of approval. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1672 was approved by a vote of 8-0-1 with Commissioner Clark abstaining. The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 35 R-PZD 05-1543: Planned Zoning District (Vantage Center, pp 136): Submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at the east end of Shepherd Lane. The property is zoned C-1, neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 4.68 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 26,932 sq.ft. retail space, 124 bedrooms and 196 parking spaces. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is R-PZD for Vantage Center. If we could have the staff report please. Garner: This site is located at the end of Shepherd Lane between Frontage Road and Stearns Street. The site is zoned C-1 and R -A and is largely undeveloped with the communications residential office building and a gravel drive located on the western portion of the site and mature trees turning south on the eastern portion of the site. On page 13.1 the site is surrounded by a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Immediately to the west of this site is the commercial corridor and Appleby's restaurant and to the east is Stearns Street apartments. The applicant requests rezoning and Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision within a unique R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of this site is for a mixed use development consisting of four buildings. Each of the buildings will contain approximately 6,700 sq.ft. of retail commercial space, 12 two bedroom units and 7 one bedroom units. The building in general with regard to access concerns would have two means of access with Shepherd Lane running east/west through the development and a main streetscape linking Frontage Road to the west and Stearns Street to the east. Shepherd Lane would incorporate parallel parking, a widened sidewalk with the majority of the parking located to the rear of the structures. Additionally, two greenspace areas in the center of the structures would be utilized as gathering area and storm water detention. The intent of the development is to be a mixed use development with commercial and residential structures together and using the same infrastructure and streets. Table 3 on page 13.3 of your packet describes the zoning criteria proposed with this development. You can see the use units allowed would provide a mix of office, shopping, eating places and residences. Setback regulations would be a 25' setback along Frontage Road, a 0' setback along Shepherd, 8' setbacks along the sides and a 25' setback along the rear property lines. The building area should read 20%. The height regulation would be a maximum of 42'. We are recommending approval of this R-PZD with several conditions. Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. As you can see from the elevations, there are some material samples of the bricks that will be used and the types of buildings. Staff finds that they meet Commercial Design Standards with a variety of structures and materials and articulation. Condition two, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request. There is a waiver request for the intersection of Shepherd Street into the curb cut coming into this development and staff is in support of the request for the proposed curb Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 36 cut and we find that with the pedestrian access and the way that the development is laid out it would be an appropriate and safe means of access. Condition five specifies all zoning criteria in this report as depicted in table 3 are binding with the approval of this R-PZD. The conditions are relatively straight forward other than that. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner on this one. As staff had said, this is a true mixed use development where we have got commercial on the bottom and residential apartments on top. We have four buildings. The elevations that you see there are both the front and the back so it would be the same on both sides. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Ostner: At this point I am going to call for public comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: How long has the current property owner owned this piece of property? Kelso: Mr. Lindsey has owned it for at least a couple of years. Anthes: Do you know when this lot was cleared of trees? Kelso: I do not know. I do know that there have been no trees taken down since he has had ownership of it. Anthes: Mr. Pate, do you know when this was cleared? I believe this was a wooded parcel and this lot was cleared without a development plan. Do you know the time frame on that and what is the statute of limitations on that? Pate: Five years. If the property was cleared within five years by the owner or developer they would be penalized at the time of development. Anthes: Has anybody researched that? Pate: Not that I'm aware. The urban forester reviewed that and can answer that question. Anthes: What do you do in a case like that Mr. Williams? Williams: The ordinance would require replacing the canopy plus the 10% increase in the normal requirement if it was done within five years without an agricultural purpose or with intent to get around the tree ordinance. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 37 Anthes: Is that something that we can determine after we pass the project? Williams- No, because this project is dependent upon not having as much land devoted to tree preservation area I think. Kelso: We have done a tree preservation based upon what is out there. Williams: How long has the owner owned this property? Kelso: I don't know for sure. We started the apartments next to it about three years ago and I think that is about the time he purchased it. Williams: I can't tell you how long it has been cleared at this point. Anthes: What do we do if we have a question about that? Williams: We do have some aerial maps, but they might not be from five years ago. That would be some evidence at some point in time that there were trees on it when the aerial was done. That doesn't mean that the next day someone didn't clear the land. I don't know what our evidence would be on this. Anthes: I just remember it happened and I don't know whether it is within that five year period or not and when I saw this development come through I just had a question about it. Since it wasn't in the staff report I thought I needed to ask. Pate: We did not pick up on that at all in our investigation. We do typically look at aerials, we don't always look at every site five years prior and obviously, that did not occur on this site. Kelso: I will say that since Mr. Lindsey purchased it he has not cut anything. Anthes: What happens if a land owner clears a parcel and sells it the next day and a development comes through immediately on that? Williams: I don't think you can have someone else clear it and sell it and nothing happens, I think that would be against the spirit of that particular part of the ordinance. On the other hand, we have to have some definite evidence to be able to say that you have to do this and at this point I don't think staff has any evidence that this was cleared within the last five years. Anthes: My question was more for future to find out if we check that as a matter of course and what the ramifications would be. Pate: I honestly cannot say whether or not we have checked that. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 38 Anthes: How do these buildings differ, if at all, from the corner of 6th Street and I- 540? Kelso: These are the same buildings. Pate: One of the conditions of approval from the Planning Commission was to alter those side elevations, those have been altered pretty dramatically, I don't think this Commission ever saw that. Clark: Are you in agreement with the conditions of approval? Kelso: Yes. Clark: I will move that we forward R-PZD 05-1543 with the stated conditions and findings of fact as indicated in the staff report. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 05-1543 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 39 RZN 05-1687: Rezoning (Hopmann, pp 446): Submitted by Jeremy Kennedy for property located at 935 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Ostner: The next item is RZN 05-1687 for Hopmann. If we could have the staff report please. Fulcher: This property is located at 935 N. College Avenue. The property is currently zoned R -O and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. This property is located just south of North Street and north of Cleburn Street and fronts College Avenue and Pollard Avenue. Surrounding properties to the west are RSF-4, to the south R -O and to the north R -O and to the east it is zoned C-2 across College Avenue. The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance that would limit the use of the property if the rezoning was approved. If you are looking at page 14.2 we have included a table showing the current allowable uses within the R -O district as well as the Conditional Uses. Underneath that you can see the C-1 with the Bill of Assurance as provided limiting the uses of the property. With that Bill of Assurance the only permitted use that would be allowed if it is rezoned would allow for Neighborhood Shopping, Use Unit 15. Other than that, Use Unit 13 and 18 per the Bill of Assurance have been removed. Within the Conditional Use section the Bill of Assurance would eliminate the Conditional Use request for liquor stores and outdoor music establishments. The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for community commercial. This entire portion of College is designated community commercial. Rezoning to C-1 is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Furthermore, with the provided Bill of Assurance the use of the property would be limited and the property would be compatible with the residential area as well as provide limited commercial services for those residents in the RSF-4 zoning district. The Police Department stated that the requested rezoning would have a negligible impact on the population density and traffic congestion for that area. The Fire Depailment stated that there would be no negligible impacts or increase in emergency response time. This would be serviced from Fire Station #1 with a response time of 4.2 minutes. With the Bill of Assurance, staff is recommending forwarding this requested rezoning to the City Council. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Kennedy: My name is Jeremy Kennedy, I represent Bob Hopmann, we work together. We want to rezone this to C-1 for added signage in front of the building from the required 16 sq.ft. Our sign that we want to put on the building is a little larger than that. We would like to have the 75 sq.ft. that is allowed under C-1 zoning. The front of the building is rather small. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 40 Ostner: At this point I am going to call for public comment on this item, RZN 05- 1687. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: Jeremy, have you heard from the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association on this? Pate: No. MOTION: Clark: I will make a motion that we approve RZN 05-1687 as stated in the staff report with the exclusions and inclusions listed in the Bill of Assurance. Ostner: Is there a second? Myres: I will second. Ostner: I was hoping for a little more discussion. There is a single family residential district above this. Seeing that the neighborhood has not communicated with us, I am ready to vote. Is there any further comment? Vaught: The Future Land Use has this commercial. All of these uses fit into that category? Pate: This would fall under community commercial. That is something that the Bill of Assurance enabled staff to recommend approval of this simply because it did limit the uses. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1687 was approved by a vote of 7-1 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 41 LSD 05-1668: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 173): Submitted by Roger Trotter/Shelden Engineering, for property located at Lot 12 CMN Business Park. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 8.83 acres. The request is to approve a mixed use development with 12,000 sq.ft. office space, 9,900 sq.ft. restaurant space and 145 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: Our next item is LSD 05-1668 for Dixie Development. Garner: This property is approximately a 8.83 acre parcel identified as Lot 12 in CMN Business Park located north of Van Asche and west of Mall Avenue. On August 8, 2005 the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council for rezoning this property from R -O to C-2 and at the September 6th City Council meeting it was approved for the rezoning. The surrounding properties are a mix of commercial uses to the north with a Goody's retail store adjacent to the northern border. Mud Creek flows east to west adjacent to the southern border of this site and Mud Creek trail corridor is located on the southern side of this site. The applicant is proposing a mixed use development with approximately 12,000 sq.ft. of office space, a 9900 sq.ft. restaurant and 145 parking spaces. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development. Condition number one, Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards and compatibility with surrounding development in CMN Business Park and meet commercial design standards. The Subdivision Committee also agreed with staff's findings and recommended additional articulation on some of the southern elevations and I will let the applicant speak to how they would like to address some of those issues. Condition number three, the Rezoning was approved from R -O to C-2 and just have a couple of plat revisions to make sure that the zoning is reflected accurately. Condition number four is also related to appropriate building setbacks being documented on the plat. Condition number seven, Planning Commission determination of adequate access onto Mall Avenue. The Subdivision Committee recommended moving the southern curb cut to line up with the adjacent curb cut with Noodles Restaurant across the street. Also that condition references the applicant shall coordinate emergency access with the fire department at the time of construction. The plans before you do not show that curb cut lining up with the Noodles restaurant. Other than that, the conditions of approval are pretty straight forward. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Sheldon: My name is Randy Sheldon, I'm the engineer on the project. The only concern I have on this project is condition number seven which calls for moving the southern curb cut line north to match with Noodles. If you look at the plat I think you will see that is going to make our north and south entry about 50' apart. I think the intent of the comment was if we Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 42 eliminate one of the entrances in then we would have one and we would match up with Noodles. I'm confused on the intent of that comment as opposed to what we talked about at the Subdivision Committee meeting and would like a clarification on that. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on LSD 05- 1668? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Pate: The recommendation is intended to go with the recommendation of Subdivision Committee in looking at removing of those curb cuts and having just one curb cut aligned across from Noodles. The applicant mentioned that one of the constraints on the south curb cut was a drainage structure. I think it would be much better circulation in and out of Noodles and out of this development if those curb cuts were aligned. We worked with Logan's Roadhouse to align with Olive Garden in a very similar situation that would provide cross access and allow for ease of movement. I will mention the reason we have the condition of approval in there that the applicant shall coordinate the emergency access with the Fire Department at the time of construction, it is exactly what Noodles did. They will typically want a second means of ingress and egress depending on the loading rate/occupancy load of those types of structures. What Noodles did is have a private access with a ballard that is not allowed for general access to the north of the site along the drainage easement there. This is probably a similar situation for access onto this site if one of those curb cuts were removed. Vaught: I would just like the applicant to go over the change in the southern elevation and are these the final elevations that we are seeing? That southern facade is very prominent, it is right on the trail. McNeal: Hannah McNeal with Key Architecture presented the elevations. Not at the microphone Vaught: Jeremy, on the side facing the trail, does that satisfy staff as to commercial design standards? Pate: I believe so. We look at the potential for a restaurant there with patio space that you can kind of see between those two buildings. In the elevations it looks like it is one very large building but it is actually broken up and has a covered walk through. Vaught: I'm just talking about the long face that is along the trail that looks like rear entry doors. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 43 Pate: Yes, that is something that we discussed as well. Some awnings over those doors as well as landscaping that would help break that up and would go along that area as well. There is an extensive landscape plan that normally we wouldn't see along the trail edge. Anthes: Staff, the elevation that is the back of the retail spaces, I seem to remember that we required quite a bit more with the addition to Wal-Mart that was in this area because of the fact that there was a trail going by and the visibility to the rear of that building increased quite a bit. Pate: I think the reason we required more articulation there was because the original proposal was one color, we wanted it to match the colors on the existing Wal-Mart. That was our reason for recommending changes to some of those colors. They did connect the trail through, just as this project would, connect the trail interior to the development. Anthes: I remember a discussion at Planning Commission about the fact that that facade is usually a rear or a back. When you have something as prominent as the city's trail system and the number of people that use that trail and go by it, maybe it is not a city street but it does create another frontage and I am actually a little concerned about the lack of articulation on that side knowing that we have a prominent pedestrian and alternative transportation route going right by it. McNeal: The developer of the property wants to phase the trail in. There is a lot of landscaping along back. When we open the buildings and separate them there is an outdoor patio and we have a main walk way that runs from the front and goes back to the trail. There are easements along the back but we have broken the facade up and added the awnings as well. There are multiple materials. Anthes: Landscaping does not qualify as mitigation for commercial design standards in our ordinances so we have to look at the building itself without any trees or landscaping on it and it seems to me that the very bottom drawing is still reading as a back. I'm concerned that with it being directly on the trail that we might not have quite enough there. Vaught: I was thinking the same thing. With Signature Plaza there on Joyce I don't know if they have actual windows or foe windows around the back where Joyce wraps around so it could halfway appear as a front. I don't know the cost of things like that but I know there are other options out there. I know it is the back of retail so you are probably going to have storage rooms back there but you don't have a drive going back there so they aren't going to be used as loading and unloading in those locations. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 44 McNeal: Service people will come in along the back of the sidewalk along the back of that property to service these facilities. Vaught: Real windows are a security concern. I don't know if there are some other things that you can do just to break that up just because it is very prominent and visible as you drive Mall Avenue there. McNeal: We would be glad to add additional detailing and whether we take some of the brick and take it all the way up into columns if that is what you are looking for. There are a lot more trees than are shown on there from the trail that a lot of this back part is not even going to be visible just because of all of the landscaping that is going to be required. We would be happy to add more articulation to that and open it up if that is what the Commission desires. Vaught: Lack: I don't know what the Commission desires. Mr. Lack, you are more technical than most of us on this type of thing. I am trying to go back to the letter of the law thinking of the concerns for large, unarticulated blank walls. I think that I would have to concur that the wall would need more detail. While I would hesitate to suggest specifics, pylastering or even patterns of downspouts would serve as articulation. I think that that wall would be fairly simple to add some more detail to and get to a point. You mentioned that the south elevation, the larger, more square like building was the concern of Subdivision Committee. Could you please let me know what you changed in that or how you responded to those concerns of Subdivision Committee? McNeal: Not at microphone Clark: I think that looks a lot like what we saw at Subdivision. I know you've got more trees there but the articulation of the south side is still lacking. Trees are a great touch but it doesn't count, as Commissioner Anthes pointed out. McNeal: I think we can take the lower masonry band and bring those up and vertically divide that wall. There are going to be downspouts that are going to hit across and we can accent those instead of the width of the downspouts we can make them work out and go all the way up. Anthes: Staff, are you fine with this design? The dumpster and screening are way in the back and then the northern side of this property backs up to Goody's. Because that location faces Mall Avenue but it is far enough back you are not concerned with the dumpster screening? Planning Commission September 12, Page 45 Pate: McNeal: Vaught: Clark: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Anthes: Vaught: McNeal: Lack: Trumbo: Lack: Ostner: 2005 Correct. Directly behind it is a large telephone sub station that is also on the property that is quite large and unattractive. Unfortunately we can't do a whole lot about that. Directly north of this property is a very large drainage area with a lot of utilities and of course faces the back of the commercial structures there. There is an access drive that goes back to the bank and back to the Wal-Mart again across the drainage area so I think the distance, proximity along with the landscaping there will screen it appropriately. not at microphone I would love to see it where they use the trail system as an asset to draw people in. I love to see tenants have the availability to use that back as almost an entrance for their retail if they wanted to. That would be a neat thing to offer along such a trail corridor. We can't require that. I love this project, but it would be neat to see that option. They do have a connecter sidewalk going to the trail. Ok, we have redesigned this. The one remaining thing is the access point that I'm aware of. That would be condition number seven that you are referring to. Is everyone ok with this condition? I believe that the work that was done to align the drive between Logan's and Olive Garden was a good precedent. It worked well in that area. If we could do that on this project as the Subdivision Committee recommended I think that would be beneficial. Are you in agreement with aligning the drives and going to one entrance? Yes Sir. With that, I will make a motion that we approve LSD 05-1668, Dixie Development with all 17 conditions of approval and findings on number seven to be affirmative to relocate and limit to one drive. Findings on number one to be affirmative. I will second. With the stated changes to the commercial design standards. For the record, I am going to describe six pilasters on the southern elevation and four added to the other southern elevation since the designer Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 46 has redesigned for us right here. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1668 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. RZN 05-1688: Rezoning (JDM Investments, LLC, pp 294): Submitted by Roger Trotter for property located at 2806 Crossover at the north boundary of Candlewood subdivision. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 6.34 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. Ostner: Our next item is RZN 05-1688 for JDM Investments. Garner: Items 16-18 are all related. The applicant is proposing to rezone some property and is also proposing a conceptual plat and is also proposing to vacate some right of way that would connect the proposed conceptual plat to an adjacent subdivision. The property is zoned R -A and contains approximately 6.3 acres located immediately east of Crossover Road and north of Candlewood Drive and the Candlewood Subdivision. Access is only currently available from Crossover Road. There is an existing 50' right of way stub out from Candlewood Drive that extends to the north approximately 180' to the proposed property. The property is undeveloped with a dense tree canopy over the majority of the eastern portion of the site and the creek is just east of the site. The site is surrounded by single family residential uses to the south and west with the Lake Hills Baptist Church to the north. The zoning surrounding this property is RSF-4 with the church being zoned R -A. The applicant intends to develop the property for residential use. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from R -A to RSF-4. Staff finds that rezoning the property to RSF-4 for single family residential use is compatible with adjacent and nearby single family residential uses. The General Plan designates this area for residential uses which is compatible with the proposed zoning. The various departments in the city have looked at this for demand on public services and the Police Department found that the rezoning will not substantially alter the population and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. The Fire Department found that the rezoning is in close proximity to Fire Station #5 and has an adequate response time of 3 '/ minutes. The Engineering Division found that water and sewer are adjacent to the site on Crossover Road. Street access, it has direct access onto Crossover Road in addition to a stub out going south to Candlewood Subdivision. With that, staff does recommend approval of this rezoning finding that it is compatible and meets all of the required findings for a rezoning. Ostner: If we could hear from the applicant please. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 47 McClelland: My name is Jay McClelland, I represent JDM Investments. We are in the process of having the property located at 2806 Crossover converted to RSF-4 zoning. We are proposing an 11 lot subdivision in that location. Ostner: At this point we will take public comment. Please introduce yourself and share your comment with us. Madison: My name is Eva Madison, I live at 2600 Candlewood Drive. I am here tonight speaking on behalf of the Candlewood Property Owner's Association. We are here in support of the rezoning request of JDM Investments. I would like to state one thing that the staff member said from City Planning. There is access to Crossover. He mentioned a stub out south into Candlewood. There is not a stub out there, that is just a right of way so I just wanted to correct that. We support the rezoning request. Ostner: Is there further public comment on this rezoning request? I am going to close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I would like to share with the applicant that it is customary when we have an absence to share our rule that five positive votes are required for Preliminary Plats, Conditional Uses and Vacations. Five votes are required for this item and the next in order to move forward. MOTION: Clark: I will move we approve RZN 05-1688. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1688 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 48 VAC 05-1686: Vacation (JDM Investments, LLC, pp 294): Submitted by Roger Trotter for property located between 2716 and 2728 N. Candlewood Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Single Family -4 units/acre. The request is to vacate a right of way on the subject property. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is VAC 05-1689 for JDM Investments. If we could have the staff report please. Garner: This item is related to the vacation of the right of way that is connected to the property that we just discussed. The applicant is also proposing a conceptual plat for this property. I will summarize both of these together and it can be voted on separately. The property is located east of Crossover Road. The actual area that would be vacated is in the Candlewood subdivision and is a 50' right of way and utility easement located between 2716 and 2728 N. Candlewood Drive. The property for the conceptual plat is approximately 6.3 acres located north of Candlewood subdivision with direct access onto Crossover Road. The applicant is proposing 11 single family lots with the conceptual plat. The purpose of the conceptual plat per our UDC is to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide the developer with input and requirements before the developer invests a great deal of time or money into preparation of a detailed plat. That is the purpose of the conceptual plat that we have here. Street connectivity between the proposed conceptual plat, as mentioned, there is a 50' right of way stub out that would connect the proposed subdivision to Candlewood subdivision to the south and Candlewood Drive. Based on the city's policy for connectivity and a lot of discussion and analysis that went forward when the Candlewood Subdivision was approved, staff is recommending that the vacation of this right of way not occur and that the right of way remain as approved and intended. The purpose of this stub out, I included the minutes from the Subdivision Committee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting. There was substantial discussion about why this stub out was needed. Staff finds that this stub out would provide a third connection, as intended, for the Candlewood subdivision and provides another option for drivers to safely negotiate in and out of the subdivision (proposed conceptual plat) and the Candlewood subdivision. Other public service items for the conceptual plat, water and sewer are available to this site and would be extended to serve the development. The applicant would need to work with the City Engineer to determine if any upgrades are necessary. A tree preservation plan would need to be submitted as part of the conceptual plat to determine priority trees and groupings of trees for preservation. They would need to also work with Parks and Recreation staff to review the land and proposed development in terms of the ability for a neighborhood park. Other identified issues include that this area is identified as residential on the General Plan 2020. We also recommend a high emphasis on limiting disturbed area and tree removal. There is a Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 49 higher percentage of tree canopy along the eastern area of this site and there is a riparian area to the east of the site as well. At this point, staff is recommending connectivity for this conceptual plat to Candlewood Drive via the 50' right of way stub out for reasons mentioned above. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could reintroduce yourself and give us your presentation. McClelland: My name is Jay McClelland, I'm with JDM Investments. We are proposing an 11 lot subdivision. Our entrance that we are trying to do on this is coming off Crossover Road with a fairly short cul-de-sac at the end, eight smaller lots in the front of the subdivision starting at approximately 'A acre and going up to almost ''A acre. In the very back of the property where the cul-de-sac ends there would be three larger lots at 1 acre each. That is where a majority of the tree coverage is that would be undisturbed except for people that are going to be building houses there. Most of that would stay there. We feel that when the road comes in, there is already an existing driveway to the back of the property so as far as removing the trees, there will be very few trees that are removed putting in the new street. If the stub out was enforced and put in there is at least one huge oak tree that is at least 4' wide that would have to be removed for the street to follow on through. Also, the traffic that would increase on that short street for people cutting through going into the Candlewood subdivision we think would be a safety issue for people living on that street also. Another one of our concerns is who would pay for the new stub out on Candlewood side? I am assuming the developer would and the bids we have received so far are in excess of $60,000 to put that street in and also repair the driveways of existing residences there and replace their fences and move things over. We believe the plat that we have is a good plat, it is a workable plat and for safety reasons we think it is the best possible plan for that area. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment Madison: I am Eva Madison at 2600 Candlewood Drive. I am here on behalf of the Candlewood Property Owner's Association to support the developer's request for vacation of the right of way. The property owner's association has coordinated it's efforts tonight such that you only hear from me with the exception of the two adjacent property owners so I would ask for the commission's indulgence to allow me to let the other residents introduce themselves. If everybody here from Candlewood would stand for me. Since they are here, I am going to ask each one of them to introduce themselves. My husband, Dave Peeper, can start. Peeper: I'm Dave Peeper, I oppose the right of way vacation. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 50 Ostner: Ms. Madison, this is nice but it doesn't help us if they are not on the microphone. I think that it is sufficient that we know everybody is here and it looks to me that there are at least 35, 40 or maybe even 50. You are all on record and you all count. Madison: The first reason that we support the vacation request is a safety issue. Traffic is already a huge problem in Candlewood and we do not need the traffic from 11 additional homes dumping into our neighborhood. Based on Planning information, it is estimated that a single family home generates between 9 and 10 vehicle trips per day. There are presently 54 homes in Candlewood already generating some 540 vehicle trips per day just from the residents. With 11 additional homes this will add 100 trips per day or a 20% increase over current home owner traffic. In addition, Candlewood has a serious cut through traffic problem because our neighborhood connects Crossover Road to Township. Drivers cut through from Covington Park from out Mission as far as way as Goshen and while coming and going from Vandergriff Elementary and McNair Middle School to avoid the Township Crossover intersection. These drivers speed through our neighborhood at all times of day. The problem is most notable in the afternoon when school lets out. Candlewood Drive near the Township intersection becomes a parking lot of non-resident parents waiting for their children to walk from Vandergriff. The problem is so significant that last week the residents of Candlewood submitted a traffic calming request. Meaning that 75% of the residents in Candlewood already think that we have a traffic problem, this is without the addition of these 11 homes depositing onto Candlewood. As you can see, there are pictures of the traffic problem, the parking problem that occurs in the afternoon when school lets out. You can see that children are walking in that area, not only the children that are coming to the cars that are waiting for them but also the children that live in our neighborhood. There are approximately 73 children that live in Candlewood. They walk home from school, from Vandergriff, they ride their bikes, they play in our neighborhood. In fact, Scott Smith's son Walker was almost involved in a very bad car accident while crossing the street last spring. He was crossing the street to the ice-cream truck and there was a 16 year old kid who was cutting through Candlewood and it was a near miss. We think there is already a safety issue existing in Candlewood and we don't want to worsen the problem by connecting 11 new homes. Second, we have heard mention of the city's policy of connectivity that they would like the new development to connect to Candlewood. While connectivity is certainly a noble goal Candlewood should not be the only subdivision on which this policy is imposed. We already suffer because we do go somewhere and are not able to adequately the issues that have resulted from that. There are neighborhoods being developed all around Candlewood that are dead end developments with only a single point of access and no plans for future connectivity. For example, Jackson Place, Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 51 which you will see in the picture right here, was platted for approximately 13 or 14 homes with a single point of entry onto Skillern/Old Wire. We all know that the intersection right there is bad already but the dead end development went through city planning in 2003. Another example is the Hickory Park subdivision, which you will see is not quite as developed and as far along as Jackson Place, but it is platted for 14 homes and a single point of entry onto Crossover. The Lutheran church at the corner of Township and Crossover actually owned this property and it was the Lutheran church that was before the Planning Commission requesting that this development be approved. At the Planning Commission meeting one of the adjacent residents raised the issue why didn't the church give access so that the neighborhood could alternatively access Township as opposed to just Crossover. The issue was never even considered and 14 homes now travel onto Crossover with now access onto Township. That is similar to the issues that we are facing tonight. These are not issues like Highland Park or Lovers Lane that occurred 20 and 30 years ago. This was just last year and the year before. Clearly connectivity is not a firm policy in the city. Exceptions are obviously made for developments that are larger than Mr. McClelland's development and so we would ask that an exception be made here as well. Thirdly, most importantly, there is a fairness issue at play here. The Candlewood home owners were completely unaware of the potential for a street between these two homes because of the lack of notice from the city. The city did not require the developer to stub out the street, there was no sign posted. There was no other notice to the residence of Candlewood that a street might come through. This connection to the north from Candlewood was a major issue before the Planning Commission in 1999. In fact, at a meeting that took place on February 11, 1999 before the Subdivision Committee Commissioner Little warned that the city needs to adequately warn residents of these potential streets coming through. She sited several incidents where residents were not appropriately warned of potential streets coming through and that problems develop later on. She noted that signs needed to be posted so "there are no mistakes about that." Yet the Commission proceeded to require only a right of way and no stub out, no sign, no notice whatsoever to the home owners. Why? According to the minutes in 1999 to save the developer the cost of stubbing out the street. Even then, this connection to the north, according to the minutes, was not that significant. They looked at connecting to the east and to the south, the north was sort of a compromise. It wasn't that big of a deal at the time. It wasn't a big enough deal to stub it out. The developer didn't even ask, according to the minutes, about the expense. It was the Commission that decided it was too costly to require the developer to stub out the street. Now we are here dealing with the precise issue that Commissioner Little warned about, inadequate notice to the neighbors. We think city planners clearly knew better as evidenced by the comments before the Commission. In addition, if you will look at the two adjacent homes from the picture on top, there is Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 52 absolutely no indication from driving by and looking at those two homes that a city street would ever go through. The driveways extend well into the right of way. You can see the tape that is marked into the driveways, that is the right of way. There is fencing, landscaping and so on. Interestingly enough, it was Terminella, Inc. that developed Candlewood. It was Terminella, Inc. that was before the Planning Commission when this right of way was required and it was Terminella, Inc. that built these homes and constructed the driveways well into the right of way. If the developer who should have known about the right of ways built the driveways as he did, how can you expect the residents to ever anticipate a street there? We drive by it everyday. Maybe you expect a utility easement because of the culvert and the power lines but a street, never. A street will eat up the two driveways almost completely. Quite simply, city planners failed to provide any notice of this right of way to Candlewood residents despite numerous opportunities to do so. There was no stub out, no signs, and the city did not catch the problems at any point in the building permit process for the driveways. These lots were essentially corner lots and it was concealed from the residents until very recently when this development issue came up. Accordingly, the Candlewood Property Owner's Association urges the Commission to grant Mr. McClelland's request to vacate the right of way and to give us back the land that we have been led to believe was ours all along. Thank you. Brooks: I'm Evelyn Brooks, I live at 2728 Candlewood which is the house to the left that has half of the driveway marked off. I live there with my husband, Jay Tolley and my four children. We purchased that property in May, 2004 and only found out about the right of way in April, 2005. The prior owners certainly never mentioned anything to us about this and while we did realize there was a utility easement to the back we never knew of any right of way. As pointed out already, you can see that one wouldn't assume that there was going to be any kind of street placed in that area. In fact, when we moved into the house we made improvements to the backyard that we certainly never would have made had we thought there would be any kind of street coming through there. We spent thousands of dollars to separate the backyard from the pool area and if this goes through we will lose a significant portion of our backyard and also most of our driveway. We have a 17 year old who routinely pulls out of the garage and she would be pulling out onto a street, in effect, as opposed to a driveway. We also have three younger children who routinely play in our driveway with skateboards, bicycles and you have already heard about the traffic problems we have had. This would be devastating to us because we would move out onto the street instead of having some space there for our children. You have been told earlier about the close calls with the traffic and how much cut through traffic there is and how this essentially would be a corner lot. We were certainly never informed and had no idea that that was what we would be purchasing. This would be very damaging Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 53 to our family personally but also to the neighborhood and I ask that you consider favorably the motion to vacate. Thank you. Brown: My name is Pat Brown, I live at 2716 Candlewood Drive. My house is the one on the right hand side of the picture. To reiterate what Eva Madison just shared, the 50' right of way is between those two pieces of tape that would take out ' of my driveway and '/z of Evelyn Brooks and Jay Tolley's driveway. I was not aware of this right of way. Had I been, I would not have invested the thousands of dollars that I did on wood fencing, iron fencing, extensive landscaping, which turns out now to be in this right of way. The issue of stub out is another thing that I would like to address. As Eva mentioned, one of the reasons that a stub out was not required here was to save the developers money when they developed Candlewood. Gary Combs and Tom Terminella developed Candlewood together. We are now having to pay the price for the money that they saved. You can see from the picture here on the left that this lane had a stub out. The developer comes through and is required to cut that street out. Both of the people on either side of that stub out when they bought their homes they knew full well that one day that there could be a street, or most likely would be a street going through there and that they indeed, were buying corner lot houses. Another example is the Boardwalk subdivision, which is a little bit older than Covington, Arthur's Court has a stub out that goes absolutely nowhere right now. Again, those two people who bought their homes and all subsequent owners, knew when they bought those houses that they were buying corner lots and that someday there was a street that could and most likely would, go through that area. I would ask that for these reasons and a matter of fairness and lack of notice on the part of the city that a right of way existed there by A) Requiring the stub out or B) Requiring signs that the Commission approve this request for Vacation of right of way. Thank you. Ostner: I would like to express my appreciation for the organization that you all have done. It is easier on everyone and we appreciate it greatly. I am going to close the public comment session if there is no other comment We have a lot of information you sent us in our packets, I assure you. I will bring it back to the Commission. Vaught: Staff or the City Attorney, the right of way dedication without a stub out would not be done anymore precisely for these reasons and if you look at newer subdivisions there are signs at the end of the stub outs saying this road will extend some day. The city has learned through trial and error the importance of that. When this developer went in and built these houses and put the driveways where they are, was there any kind of permitting process? Their property lines really don't go to the middle of that easement. They are cut off at the edge so I was curious to know when subsequent owners purchased the homes, I would assume the plats would Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 54 Pate: reflect that. I'm confused on a number of reasons why that wasn't done if they are saying they weren't notified of this and why was the developer allowed to put the driveways as he did? You are entirely right. They were not notified. When you go to buy a lot unless you take a trip to the City Planning office to look at your lot or get a survey it will likely not show up. On the Final Plat on record at the County and at the City, however, the property lines do not extend within that 50' right of way. The city owns the property in that 50'. We pay taxes on the property currently. The building permits that we have in front of you show both of those homes that were constructed, they both had to meet front setback requirements, if that were a side setback that would be 8'. That is something that when we issued building permits for these homes the Building Safety Division and Planning Staff did require those setbacks. Obviously, the next property owner without due diligence in researching that property would not likely know that. In answer to your question about the signs, that is definitely something that we recommend. I would like to address one of the comments from Ms. Madison, she referenced Ms. Little, that was actually Planning Staff, Alette Little as Planning Director, that recommended very strongly three connections to the north/east and south. That Planning Commission voted not to require those stub outs. Planning staff was recommending those just as we are today. We actually occasionally see stub outs not constructed now. Typically we take an assessment for that and it is something that we do not like to see and staff will consistently recommend that they build that street to the property line for this very reason. For the very reason in 1999 that Ms. Little mentioned as well. The pavement of the street, it was also addressed in the minutes, the developer would be required to connect to that street and pay for the development of the street as part of the new development. There is another connection in Candlewood. I'm not sure the owners are aware, there is a south stub out of right of way that is between two lots currently. There were two right of way stub outs in this neighborhood, one to the north and one to the south. The one to the east was not required because of the creek and the associated bridge that would have been required to develop property to the east. There are two existing rights of way currently, one currently to the south and one to the north. That is the primary condition. I need to correct one thing in the staff report, under water and sewer responses it says no objections. The Water and Sewer Division did recommend approval of the vacated right of way but they would like to retain that in a utility easement. I would like to mention as well that fencing, driveways, anything of that nature that are constructed within utility easements are always subject to removal if a utility company needs to come through and remove those fences, driveways, anything that is constructed within a utility easement and that is usually at the cost of the homeowner. We do not permit fences or driveways, we simply permit the actual structures. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 55 Vaught: I guess it would be the neighboring developer's expense to replace the fences or extend the fences down the property line? Pate: It is usually at the homeowner's fence. Obviously, they put the money into a fence which they are losing now if it is not vacated. That is a risk at anytime, whether it is a right of way or not, if you are developing anything within a utility easement, a fence, a deck, anything in a utility easement, that is the risk that someone takes regardless of this situation. Vaught: The original developer of this neighborhood has no recourse against him on this? There is no way of having him help share the cost of any of this? Pate: I couldn't answer that. Williams: The developer did what he was required to do and therefore, the developer didn't do anything wrong. The Planning Commission did not require him to do anything but dedicate the easement, not to build the stub outs so the developer did not do anything wrong in this case. Vaught: Is there any precedent that we have seen in situations similar to this? Williams: No, this is a case by case basis. I know when I was on the City Council we actually vacated an un -built right of way between Boardwalk and Park Place. That POA asked us to vacate it. I don't know why we did it, except we thought it would develop at one time and it didn't connect between the two developments, which they do not have now. I think it is mainly a decision by the City Council to decide whether or not they believe it is in the best interest of the city and the citizens. Graves: I understand the goals and policies of the city and I appreciate staff's recommendation on this point. I know that is certainly what we always endeavor to do which is connect neighborhoods that are close together but with all due respect, we can't abandon common sense on something like this. There is hardly anyone that I can think of that would go down and check County and City plats before they went and bought a house and if they did, I suspect planning staff would be overwhelmed if that was the typical situation rather than the A -typical situation. I don't think that the city would have the staff to man all of those requests to see plats for a piece of property. I have a real problem with requiring that type of thing, with requiring a street connection there. The lack of notice, I think everyone agrees that in view of the situation there really wasn't any notice here. The other issue I take with it is just the fact that I understand that the driveways could be ripped up, the likelihood of that happening is not very likely. Those driveways are there and it seems like if anybody fumbled the ball it wasn't the homeowners. It was whoever was in charge of Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 56 making sure that driveways weren't constructed in the city right of way. It sounds like the city is paying property taxes on something that is being used by someone other than the city as a driveway. The other problem that I have with it just looking at the concept plan for the situation is that if the street were built there I don't see any way that it could be a safe street. Not even necessarily addressing whatever traffic there may be on Candlewood but that street comes in at a pretty harsh angle to the curve of the street that is already there in Candlewood. If you built a street connection right through there it is a short street between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision and it would hit that Candlewood Drive at a pretty strange angle and it would be a hard curve coming through there. I don't see how you could make the line of sight right especially with houses on both sides. I would almost rather see if we want connectivity, see that the proposed subdivision connect up some how to the parking for the Baptist church. If we are looking for another way in and out of the proposed subdivision go north rather than south. Not because we don't encourage connectivity between neighborhoods, not because it wouldn't be ideal if it hadn't worked out this way. We are taking the situation as we found it, it is this way and it seems to me that we ought to vacate this and forget about the idea of building a street through there. It just doesn't work the way it is right now in my opinion. I would support the vacation. Clark: If this is built the way that it is currently proposed, what is the distance between Candlewood and this subdivision onto Crossover? Pate: I do not know for sure, it is probably around 450'. Clark: If the stub out is built, how close will those garages and those houses be to a street? Pate: They would meet the setback requirements for the 25' at least minimum. The building permits that were issued for those houses, they were actually setback further than 25'. The one on the east is the closest based on the building permits. I would guess from the curb a 24' wide street within a 50' right of way so 36' from house to curb. Clark: Is connectivity a guiding principal? Pate: It is a policy. Clark: It is an absolute policy? Williams: No, it is just part of the master plan. Policies are not written in stone, it is just for common sense on each particular application. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 57 Clark: If you are mandated to stub out will you lose lots? McClelland: Yes, we will lose one lot. Clark: I am going to agree with Commissioner Graves that I think this is common sense and common sense says these folks did not know about this when they bought those houses. They did it in good faith, they did it with the assumption that they would not have corner lots. You can play the blame game but the only people who are going to suffer are property owners. I, in good conscious, can't fathom that and I don't care what neighborhood it is, whether it is in the north, west, east, or south, this smacks not being very bright. I am going to support the Vacation and hope that the city will let the conceptual plat go as proposed currently. Vaught: I would agree. If anyone is at fault I think that the Planning Commission was for not requiring the stub out. I think that is why we have that policy now. I hate to see this happen, is there any way as a city we can take steps to ensure that property owners are informed? I would assume a survey or your title would reflect this right of way. Not that anybody reads that. Graves: You can't tell how many acres you have unless you go look it up on some kind of scale or something. Vaught: It is something that I would assume would be the developer's responsibility to communicate down. Is there a way for the city to try to rectify these situations? Pate: There are literally stub outs all over the city and right of way that is on a plat that has never been developed. We saw Aspen Ridge PZD utilize a street right of way that was platted in 1912 and was never built. Our policies in place which we require before we sign the Final Plat, is that there is a sign placed. In 1999 is when that started. Ostner: I think it is like a lot of things, it is the responsibility of the buyer. Mr. Graves, you are right, no one is going to go downtown and look at the plat before they buy a home. Who actually buys it? It is not someone else, it is them. Ownership is a great deal of the law. These building permits are dated for 2728 N. Candlewood in April, 2003. It is pretty clear on there and on the other permit of August, 2002 for 2716 Candlewood it's there. The building setback and the right of way are drawn in there. Some of the comments that want to blame this invisible city or invisible book of rules, I sort of take exception to, we think twice. We wonder whether we are getting the full picture. We take it on ourselves to think through these things without trusting or making it someone else's responsibility. Home ownership is no different. This development to the north, this cul-de-sac with 11 lots, I would hate for them to come to us in two years or five years Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 58 and say we only have one way in and out and it is so dangerous. Why didn't you do something about it? We hear that in this room from developments that don't have other ways in and out. It is dangerous. I want to go east on Hwy. 45 and don't have a way to get over there but I'm right next to the other street, why didn't you make it in there? That could go both ways. How many times do we pass the buck? I don't think that the other Planning Commission acted properly in weighing stuff out. I think that was unfair to you all. It should be there at the very least but there should be a sign. This vacation is important, this provides an important connection to the next development. I believe it is a very important connection to your development. It is part of the policy. When traffic calming was written part of it says the more connections a development has the more calming there will be. I am against the vacation. I think there is good city purpose for this land to benefit everyone and I have great empathy for the property owners involved. It is unfortunate and it is not fair. This is not the defining body for this issue. We are hearing it and will make a recommendation and the City Council will answer your requests whether the Vacation will be allowed or denied. Anthes: I just wanted to say that going down and checking the plat is not the only way to know what is happening on your property. Every time you go for a loan at the bank they ask if you want to get a survey and most people do. These kinds of things are things that will appear on any survey of land that you invest in. Now with the GIS system up, we have plats and aerial photography available online and a lot of that stuff is easily accessible by land owners so it is not just an owner's responsibility to go down and look at plat books. Second, I'm really glad to see that you guys have applied for traffic calming in your neighborhood. Candlewood Avenue is a very long street and though it isn't a straight shot like a lot that we see come through here, it is very easy to drive and because the subdivision is not built with a large lot/block configuration, that encourages speed. There are some basic ways that you can slow traffic throughout your neighborhood with the way that the intersections, or the lack thereof, are built into your street. I don't know if you allow parking on your street, but if you do, if you would allow on -street parking in your neighborhood, that is a traffic calming measure. A lot of neighborhood associations specifically forbid on -street parking, and that is something that increases speed on your neighborhood streets. That would be something that you could look at. Aside from what is already built, we have to look at what is coming and what is the next round of development. I'm looking at the concept plan for the next development and I'm thinking about how the children in those homes are going to get to school and we have already heard from property owners tonight who said, "just try to get out on Hwy. 265 and be prepared to wait and wait and wait." When I see that and hear that, I am looking for other ways to relieve new developments from the same pressures of having to wait at an over trafficked street and if I lived Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 59 on Lot 7 and needed to get a child to the elementary school I'd want another way rather than just out on Hwy. 265. It is troubling in that if I was living in that house and had not got a survey I would be as mad as you are and yet, as a planning instrument and looking to the future and looking at how we are impacting what is to come, I have to agree with city staff's report that the right of way is available for use. Trumbo: I've spoken a couple of times on connectivity and have learned a great deal about it by being on this Commission. Sometimes in practical reality, it doesn't work. I think Candlewood Street is a perfect example of a cut through. It is not really connectivity, it is a cut through from one major highway to another highway. I understand that we need to look at connectivity in the future but allowing this road to bring in more traffic is not the right answer. I think once roads develop out to Hwy. 45 it may alleviate it but now is not the time to connect this. In a fairness issue, it says someone messed up and it wasn't the property owners. Rarely do property owners get surveys on residential lots. Common sense says I am supposed to look after my neighbors as well as developers and the city. The balance here is unfairness is brought on to these home owners. With that, I am going to make a motion to approve VAC05-1689. Clark: I will second. O'Neal: The water department has requested that the entire width be maintained as a utility easement. Trumbo: To allow it to maintain as a utility easement, yes but not as a road. Pate: I would like to mention that a Vacation does not require five votes, just a simple majority. Vaught: I just want to make sure that the property owners are clear that with a utility easement they can still have their improvements ripped out. You can still be in the same situation. It is a hardship placed on these owners whether they knew it or not. It should've been something that they were notified of. We are in a situation that no one wants to be in. This is a unique situation where I feel the hardship would exceed the benefit of the road. Ostner: I would like to talk about that too. The people who don't live here yet can't talk. There are 11 lots proposed north of here and I believe if this is vacated those people would be here just as loud. If we can imagine that northern piece of property already built up, all of the homes there and we are here tonight talking about whether or not we should do that to their subdivision, I believe the tenure of these discussions would be completely different. I think there is a greater good for this connection. I believe the Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 60 people in those 11 lots of the proposed subdivision would benefit from this road. The Fire Marshal routinely turns down developments without more than one way in and out. This fits the very minimum. It is only 450'. If it was 500' or 1000' the Fire Marshal would say no. There has to be a way in and a way out. That is for safety. There was mention that if the street were put here it would be unsafe, that doesn't make any sense to me. It would be a 90° straight angle with a stop sign. That is the way connectivity is accomplished with simple, good intersections. Part of the reason Candlewood is a race way is it has no intersections. There aren't opportunities for traffic calming. I believe we are passing the buck by vacating this and saying there have been so many problems we are going to follow bad decisions with other ones. I don't believe the safety issue is a counter. If they were a regular subdivision with a regular street in there I would like to add that Director Little asked for this continually. The city and the rules did not take this likely. The Commission disagreed with her. We often do that and disagree with our staffs approvals. The notion that the city made a mistake is something I disagree with and I'm not saying anyone here said it but it has been referred to. This body is allowed and the Council is allowed to waive those rules at times. I believe mistakes were made and tonight is the time to correct them. I will vote against this Vacation. McClelland: I could sell this and the owners may come in and do something opposite of what you are saying tonight. Our concept plat has not changed since day one. We brought the concept plat to the Engineering Division and said I can't imagine that street being there. Whenever I showed someone, a potential buyer for one of these lots our cul-de-sac concept and said we might have to put a street in here and they said no, they would rather have a cul-de-sac street. Ostner: Cul-de-sac streets are very popular and there is a reason they are very popular for a few people and make a lot of problems for a lot. Nationwide cul-de-sacs are being limited. They benefit one and make many suffer, including the people who enjoy that cul-de-sac. They pull out on these choked bigger roads that they pull out on because they have no choices and the reason they have no choices is all of the cul-de-sacs. Vaught: The city was fighting for this connection. Referring to the Fire Department, the second connection is required with anything over 30 units. We are dealing with well below that. It is just a situation on its' premise. I'm a big proponent of the connectivity issue. I just think it is a situation right now where we have gotten ourselves into as a Planning Commission, despite the city's encouraging not to do it that way. That is why I support the vacation. Clark: I will call the question. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 61 Ostner: Call the roll on calling the question. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to call the question was approved by 7-0-0. Ostner: We have a motion and a second to approve the Vacation of the right of way and a second, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of the Vacation was approved by a vote of 5-2 with Commissioner Anthes and Ostner voting no. Break Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 62 CPL 05-1690: Concept Plat (JDM Investments, LLC, pp 294): Submitted by Roger Trotter for property located at 2806 N. Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 6.34 acres. The request is to review a concept plat for a residential subdivision. Ostner: We will now talk about the Concept Plat, CCP05-1960 for JDM Investments. We have heard the staff report. Pate: The Planning Commission doesn't vote on this item. It is simply informational only. Ostner: If anyone has any comments that they would like to add. If anyone from the public would like to speak to this Concept Plat please step forward. I believe they have all left. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session. Are there any comments from the Commission? Would you like to see this come back as a Preliminary Plat? Anthes: I would like to see another way out of this development other than just the one exit on Hwy. 265. There was some comment made that talked about the possibility of being able to connect to the church property to the north. Is that a possibility or not? Pate: It is potentially a possibility but it is a parking lot and 1 am not as familiar with that property either. Anthes: Imagine there is an accident on Hwy. 265 that happens somewhere near here and a fire truck is trying to get through. If we could figure out a way to get through -if indeed, the Council votes the same way we did tonight, - if we could look at that church parking lot for possibilities, I would like to see it. Pate: This property could accommodate 25 lots because that is the zoning recommended to Council tonight. I don't anticipate that because we saw a Concept Plat tonight but there is a potential for more lots and if the lot number does increase we would investigate another means of access. Anthes: The other question I have is looking at the utility easement. If the City Council follows the recommendation of this body tonight, the utility easement that would remain between these properties, I would like to look at a walking connection so that if we had children that live in this new development, they could ride their bike to school without getting out on a major highway. Pate: 1 can mention that to the City Council for their consideration. Planning Commission September 12, Page 63 Graves: Ostner: Clark: 2005 I made the comment about possibly connecting to the north. Specifically I was talking about an apartment complex on Leverett recently where we were looking at the applicant stubbing out to another parking lot and getting an agreement from their neighbor that the parking lot could be used for emergency access. I understand that there would have to be an agreement to that affect. It seems like with a church there might be an opportunity there. If that is a parking area there typically they wouldn't be using that parking except for certain times during the week and there might be an opportunity to stub out to the north so I would like the possibility to look into that type of access. I would agree. I think that is important. I suppose if I requested a stub out to the south it wouldn't be very appropriate. Is there further discussion? Mr. McCollough, have you thought about asking the church for a shared parking agreement or access to the north? McCollough: I took a copy of the plat to them to look at but I did not ask them for a stub out. There is a school there also. I am not sure that they would entertain the idea of more cars coming through their parking lot with the preschool that they have right there. They have seen the concept plat and agreed with that. I did not ask them about the stub out. Clark: Osmer: Myres: Ostner: I think Ms. Anthes made a good point on that. Is there further discussion on this item? That just reminded me that Commissioner Anthes mentioned the idea of access by foot traffic even if vehicular traffic wouldn't be a possibility but if there is a preschool at that church to the north it might be appropriate to provide some right of way for a sidewalk between this subdivision and the church parking lot so that parents could walk their children to preschool and connect all the way through Candlewood. I would really like to see the cross connection if there could be some sort of agreement or dialogue with the church to the north or at the very least, a pedestrian access through what is possibly going to be a utility easement to the south. I think that would be terrific. It could be a narrow path that connects subdivisions. McCollough: I was told that there was already a walking trail behind the back of the property that connects to Candlewood that accesses the church and Candlewood. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 64 Pate: I know there is park property back there. I don't think the city has developed anything in that area but there may very well be some sort of access there. Ostner: Seeing it and developing it would be something important instead of saying "we are adjacent to park land" that is not the same thing as saying that we are going to develop the trail and put the connection in. One way or the other, I think those connections need to be made. If there is no further discussion, we can move on to the next item. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 65 VAC 05-1686: Vacation (Schultz, pp 599) Submitted by N. Arthur Scott for property located at 1921 S. Vale Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24, Multi family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of the right of way at the subject property. Ostner: Item nineteen is VAC 05-1686 for Schultz. Garner: The subject property is undeveloped right of way in South Fayetteville located east of Razorback Road west of Veil Avenue and south of ???? Street. The records at the Washington County Assessor's office depicts this right of way as Junction Street that was platted as part of the Meadowvale Subdivision. Currently, no public utilities or public uses occupy the easement. As you can see on page 13, Junction Street varies in width from 40' at the western most portion to 20' on the easternmost portion. The applicant's request is to vacate the Junction Street right of way and their rational is that it is no longer necessary to facilitate the construction of a public street through the area and in order to development of the lots north and south of the right of way it would be required. They can't meet required building setbacks with the right of way as platted requiring a 25' front setback. Staff has not received objection from the city and utilities to vacate this. We have not received any public comment on this item. Staff is in support of vacating this right of way. We find that it would not adversely affect the city's Master Street Plan or traffic flow to the property or other properties and we recommend this with the condition of approval that the applicant would construct a minimum 24' width private street to city standards through the vacated right of way vicinity that would provide a connection from Veil Avenue and Razorback Road and the paved street would be opened for public access and maintained by the applicant. We have a diagram in your packet that shows the applicant's proposed new private street and we are in support of that. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give your presentation. 77• My name is George ??? representing PDC and the developer for this project. We would like to vacate the right of way due to the interesting position of where it is and put in a private drive in it's place. Per staff's recommendations, we will make it a through street. We are about 350' south of Sligo so it is a good distance. We are here to field any questions that you may have. Ostner: At this point I will take public comment. If anyone would like to speak to VAC 05-1686 please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 66 MOTION: Anthes: I move to approve VAC 05-1686 with the conditions as stated. O'Neal: On the water and sewer memo dated May 16th, the vacated right of way should be maintained as a utility easement. Anthes: As he said. Pate: I think potentially between now and the time that we get to Council, if we could maybe coordinate that. With the diagrams here, the utility easements go right through the buildings. Anthes: That is true, it needs to move adjacent to the roadway within a safe proximity. Pate: Also, on condition number one I would like to add Applicant shall construct a minimum 24' width private street including sidewalks on both sides to allow for pedestrian connections from Veil to Razorback. I believe that was planned for but I would like to add that as a condition of approval. Anthes: I move to approve VAC 05-1686, forwarding to City Council with the conditions as stated but adding to condition number one to provide a 4' sidewalk on either side per city street standards and adding a second condition that we would provide for a utility easement adjacent to the street and that can be worked out with city staff prior to City Council. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 05-1686 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 67 CUP 05-1684: Conditional use Permit (Friday, pp 446): Submitted by Sam Friday for property located at 520 E. Maple and 545 Gunter Street. The property is zoned RSF- 4, Single Family -four units per acre and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is to approve an existing single family home on the subject property as a detached second dwelling unit. Ostner: Morgan: The next item is CUP 05-1684 for Friday. This applicant owns two properties at 520 E. Maple and 525 Gunter Street. The property is zoned RSF-4. The southern lot is a county lot with approximately 60' of frontage. The northern lot is very comparable in size and a conforming lot in the RSF-4 zoning district and fronts Gunter Street. The existing home on the southern lot is a historic home and it is currently located in such a way that it encroaches within setbacks and is a non- conforming structure. Access to this home is by way of Gunter Street through the property to the north. The property to the north currently has an existing single family home which is a converted garage and has an area approximately 828 sq.ft. The applicant, several months ago, requested a building permit to add onto the existing historic home in such a way that it would increase the non -conformity of this home. In discussion with the applicant, staff tried to find a solution to the problems without requiring as many variances. One of which is that the staff consider a property line adjustment such that the existing homes will be on the same lot and the setbacks from the new property line will not encroach within either structure so that the applicant can modify and reconstruct the existing structures without having to get variances. In order for staff to approve such a Property Line Adjustment we would be creating a lot which has two single family homes on it and therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Conditional Use be approved for a detached dwelling unit on the lot in which the historic structure exists. In any residential zoning district detached dwelling units can be approved. There are certain requirements for those with regard to architecture that they match the existing structure. Also, in regard to size, there is a limit of 1,200 sq.ft. for detached dwelling units. Obviously, this proposed detached dwelling unit is existing and meets those requirements. Staff finds that the architecture of the detached dwelling unit is compatible with the existing structure. Additionally, by adjusting this line we will be alleviating not only a non- conformity on the existing historic structure but there is also a shed that is located right on the property line and that would alleviate that issue also. Staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use with a total of six conditions. Condition one addresses compatibility and requests that the Planning Commission make a determination on whether you find this detached dwelling unit is compatible with the principal structure. Condition two, prior to issuance of a building permit for the second detached dwelling unit, a deed restriction to run with the land shall be filed for record which will require one of the units on the site to be occupied by Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 68 the property owner. Condition three, all appropriate permitting shall be submitted and approved by the City of Fayetteville prior to commencement of any construction to the principle dwelling. Four, that no more than one detached second dwelling unit should be permitted on the subject property. Five, addresses the area of the detached dwelling unit as it is currently less than 1,200 sq.ft. if the property owner ever wished to enlarge that structure they would need approval from the Planning Commission to do so. Condition number six, that the requested Property Line Adjustment shall be filed in order for this Conditional Use to be in affect. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Friday: I am Sam Friday, the property owner. I am willing to comply with all of the conditions and believe that this will improve the community and the city that I live in and plan to live in for a long time. Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this Conditional Use please give your comment. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: Do we have a drawing that shows what the results of this, after the Lot Line Adjustment, will look like? Morgan: As you can see, the property to the east will have frontage along Gunter as well as Maple. Anthes: Will we see a Lot Split processed on this? Morgan: No, they are requesting a Property Line Adjustment, which is administrative because there are currently two parcels and they are proposing to create one big tract with the two homes on it. Anthes: And this brings all of the structures into compliance? Morgan: That is correct. MOTION: Clark: I will move that we approve CUP 05-1684 with the stated recommendations. Myres: I will second. Ostner: This new western lot, it conforms to all lot minimums and frontages? Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 69 Morgan: Ostner: Morgan: O'Neal: Friday: O'Neal: Ostner: O'Neal: Ostner: Pate: Yes, the requirements in the RSF-4 zoning district require a minimum of 70' lot width and 8,000 sq.ft. and this has 84' lot width along Gunter and is .27 acres. The sanitary sewer on the western edge, is that a service or is that a city line? City sewer requires easement, I'm just wondering what is going to be left over to build in. I would like to add that staff has requested an access easement from either the alley way or Gunter through the Tract A where the access to the home and existing guest house are. We will be looking for that in revisions where the gravel drives are. This is a city main along the west property line. There just needs to be a minor adjustment to the easement there just north of that previous lot line to make sure that we have 10' from the center of that main. I believe the existing services come all the way down to Maple Street. It is one of the non -conforming things that we run into with the existing service for the guest house connecting to the service on the main house. There is a manhole cover on the west side of the property that might service the existing guest house. I know that the main house is serviced from Maple Street. If the service from the guest house does go to this line along the west boundary it would need to be relocated. The State Law is clear that no services can cross property lines. When you create this separate parcel if the service does cross through here then the service would have to be relocated to a different location. I am hoping that there is sanitary sewer along Gunter. I don't believe there is. It seems to me like these are important issues. I am in favor of what you are doing, it all makes good sense but without the proper information to understand whether we are creating a lot that puts you into non- compliance of a service line crossing someone else's property, I'm not ready to vote for this yet. To clarify that, you are not creating a lot. We would review the Property Line Adjustment administratively and would not allow it to be filed if a main extension was required. You can vote on the Conditional Use entirely separately, these are issues that we deal with every day with Property Line Adjustments and administrative Lot Split requests that if Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 70 something needs to meet state law or our ordinances, we do not allow a plat to be filed until such time as they do. We would see this whether it required a Conditional Use or not. If you choose not to file this Property Line Adjustment the Conditional Use goes away and we are back to square one. Ostner: It just concerns me because sometimes when things are approved they get missed. He goes and does his stuff and suddenly these two lots are owned by different people and then someone says wait a minute, my sewer line came first and then the property line and usually nothing happens. The non-compliance just goes on until who knows when. I just want to make sure it is all going to be sorted out that somehow services won't be crossing other people's property. Does staff feel they can work this out after this is approved? O'Neal: I believe so. There may be enough fall that the sewer service can be relocated along the east property line. Ostner: Ok. Is the applicant aware of that possibility? Friday: Yes, I'm aware. It can be tied into the main house since they are all going to be under common ownership. O'Neal: It would be separate seryice. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you please call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1684 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 71 CUP 05-1691: Conditional Use Permit (CAMPBELL, 564): Submitted by Denele Campbell for property located at 1397 Huntsville Road. T he property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The request is to approve a parking lot in a RSF-4 zoning district. Ostner: Item twenty is CUP 05-1691 for Campbell. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Curtis Road and Huntsville Road. The property is currently under contract and consists of two parcels. The northern parcel is zoned R -O and was developed in the 1960's. The property to the south is currently vacant and zoned RSF-4. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use in order to build a parking lot on the RSF-4 zoned property to serve a proposed use for the R -O structure to the north as well as proposed additions to that structure. The current structure to the north went before the Board of Adjustment to bring that structure into conformity with building setbacks. That was approved. This is the applicant's second request in order to make the proposed artist studios functional. The property to the south, as it is residential in nature, any development of the parking lot for use requires a Conditional Use. Staff finds that granting this Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public. The surrounding properties are developed for duplex developments and are zoned RMF -24. This property on which the parking lot is requested is very grown on the boundary lines that are adjacent to those duplexes. There is vegetative screening. The applicant intends to keep that screening to provide a buffer between this property and the parking area. There are two existing curb cuts on Curtis to the vacant property. The applicant intends to utilize those access points. The Sidewalk Coordinator has reviewed this proposal and recommends construction of a 6' wide sidewalk along Curtis Avenue and money in lieu of construction of a 6' sidewalk on Huntsville Road in anticipation of future development and widening by the city. With regard to the number of spaces constructed, a maximum of 20 spaces is allowable. The site plan on page 21.13 shows the proposal of 19 spaces. Staff finds that the development of a parking lot in this area would be able to be compatible with the surrounding developments with all requirements in place for screening and additional tree plantings. Therefore, we are recommending approval with 10 conditions of approval. Most of which reflect requirements for lighting, sidewalk, as well as screening and we have also addressed signage. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Campbell: I'm Denele Campbell and I am asking for approval of my Conditional Use request. In the past year this vacant lot has been used for parking. The current occupant of this building calls this place the Orpium and has had Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 72 musical events in there with people parking on grass. In fact, the existing buildings can't be used affectively unless this vacant lot is used for parking. I do have one request regarding condition number three. I ask the Commission to grant an exception to the landscaping requirement of one tree ever 30' or additional buffering vegetation requirement. This property is surrounded by trees and other growth except for two driveways and an area that is currently concrete, so the parking is well screened, as well as both sides of the building. At some future time I would expect to add trees and other vegetation to the area now under concrete where I will be tearing up concrete and adding greenspace and sidewalk. I am having to consider every financial demand in assessing whether I can afford to purchase this property and upgrade these buildings to suit my project needs and hanging by a thread financially on this project. It has gone way above what I thought it would cost when I first made this real estate commitment so I am asking for relief on specifically condition number three, the one tree per every 30' and the additional buffering vegetation requirement. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment on CUP 05-1691. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session. Anthes: On condition of approval number three, won't that only go into effect if there is a building addition, or is this for the parking lot as well? Pate: This is for both. There is proposed to be a building addition to the structure as well. Any parking lot with more than five spaces is required to meet our landscaping ordinance. Trumbo: Would existing trees not satisfy that requirement? Pate: MOTION: Existing trees would and we would have to take a look at what type and quality they are to ascertain if they could be a street tree. I know some of them are grown up. Our urban forester has been on the site with Ms. Campbell as well and looked at those trees. I think that is something that staff has the ability to allow those to count. By my count eight trees would be required on the frontage of the property if there were no trees at all so I think it is only going to go down from there. I think it is important to require large canopy street trees along our streets as much as possible though. I would like to make a change to condition number five, the applicant shall construct a 6' sidewalk, adding a sidewalk to be determined by the Sidewalk Coordinator. The sidewalks all south of here are 4' because they are residential properties. A likely transition would be at Huntsville to a 6' sidewalk instead of mid -block so I would like to have more time to discuss that with him. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 73 Anthes: I would like to move for approval of CUP 05-1691 with an addition to condition number three that we would encourage staff to review trees on site if applicable and on condition five to construct a 4' or 6' sidewalk to be decided by the Sidewalk Administrator. Clark: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Clark: In a parking lot there is some vegetation shown on the east side but there is a 15' space, what is that space? Morgan: That is the required greenspace. Clark: I think improvements to this corner would be well appreciated in that area. This has been a very neglected piece of property for a while. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1691 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 74 RZN 05-1711: Mathias, PP 557 Submitted by H2 Engineering for property located at Hwy. 62 West. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 1.20 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Ostner: The last item is RZN 05-1711 for Mathias. Trumbo: I am going to recuse from this item and leave. Morgan: This property is located between 6th Street and Old Farmington Road. The site is zoned C-1, R -A and RSF-4. The rezoning request involves only a portion of that property which is zoned R -A and there are no existing structures on the subject property. There is a lot of background to this. I will just briefly state that in 1992 the applicant requested rezoning for multi -family development to the north and commercial south of this property to access Huntsville Road. That was withdrawn I believe and several other requests have come forward. Most recently a C-PZD was submitted by the applicant for that type of development. Currently the applicant is requesting to square up the C-1 property in such a manner that it is a better shape to develop. Staff has evaluated this request and finds that this rezoning request will maintain the integrity of the zoning and the welfare of the neighborhood to the north and commercial to the south. We therefore, recommend approval of this rezoning request with the findings as noted. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Hearne: My name is Kip Hearne with H2 Engineering representing Mathias Shopping Center. This is a modification to the existing zoning line that we think is more conducive for development of this particular property. We are focused on the commercial part of the property at this point and I would be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: I will open it up to public comment. ??: I live at 3047 W. Sandra. Sandra is an east/west street and the west end of it runs into this property. We would like to see a picture of what they are talking about. Where the rezoning sign is posted, everybody in our neighborhood was under the impression they were asking for that whole back half to be rezoned. Ostner: You can have my drawing. ??: My objection I had I really don't have now. I can't speak for the rest of my neighbors. I just wish I would've known what they are asking for sooner so I would ask in the future that you let us know. I didn't speak to Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 75 one property owner in the area that got a letter explaining what was being asked. Ostner: That is a problem that we have. It is not a requirement or a rule to send people the letters. That is why we put up the sign and give notice in the newspaper. ??. The sign didn't explain what they were asking for. The sign was in the middle of that agricultural area and so I took for granted what they were asking for. Pate: Just to comment on that, my name and number is on all of those signs. Ostner: I'm glad you are satisfied. If anyone else would like to speak. ??: My name is Mark ??, I live at 3110 Old Farmington Road, the northeast part of this across the road from this. The only concern I have is that I'm worried about a road that might connect to Old Farmington Road because this is a narrow street with pretty much a one lane bridge. If you had trucks or anything going out that way that could cause a lot of problems. There are no sidewalks. That is a single family residential area down there. I would hate to see a lot of traffic on there. The road is really too small for that kind of thing. That road is over used and under maintained. I am concerned that there will be big trucks coming in there loading and unloading and too much traffic. Obviously, I want to keep it single family so the back side of this property could be rezoned later and become something. We are not addressing that part right now. That road is very small and hard to use it for anything other than residential. Ostner: Is there anymore comments Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Lack: I just need some clarification that on 22.10 and 22.11 I see two small triangles. Pate: It is the small triangle to the west, that's the only one. The legal description that was submitted, the 1.2 acres is simply the triangle to the west. Clark: I share the concern about anything accessing Old Farmington but because this is commercial I would assume it would access 6th Street. When this develops that is also an opportunity for neighbors to talk about if they are going to connect and they are going to have to make off site improvements and so your input to this process certainly does not stop tonight. Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 76 Ostner: On this drawing that we are looking at, does the current property owner own both and this is the only rezoning request? Pate: No, the current property owner only owns the property on the west. The one to the east is only single family home owners. That just happened to be the traverse. Ostner: I work less than one mile from this and I use Old Farmington, slowly. People try to run you down, I know, because I'm scared. 6th Street is horrible, it's not news. Improving Old Farmington is important and it is on the books to bring that street up to par to make it safer, possibly curb and gutter as development fills in We will try to make Old Farmington safer I have to tell you though, that 6th Street is such a problem that Old Farmington will be part of the solution for 6th Street. It is designated as a collector. Stay together and keep coming down here because it needs to be calmed. MOTION: Clark: I will move that we forward RZN 05-1711 based on the findings. Myres: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1711 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Trumbo abstaining. Morgan: The motion carries. Announcements MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:50 P.M.