Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 10, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 05-1761: (WEDINGTON BUSINESS CENTER, 435) APPROVED Consent ADM 05-1763: (THE HAMPTONS, 608) APPROVED Consent ADM 05-1762: (RIVENDELL, 484) APPROVED Consent PPL 05-1699: (WATER BROOK II, 571): APPROVED Page 5 ADM 05-1742: (RUPPLE RD., MSP AMENDMENT) Forwarded to City Council Page 18 RZN 05-1707: (CURRY, 482) Forwarded to City Council Page 21 PPL 05-1673: (REPLAT OF CROSSROADS EAST, 333) APPROVED Page 24 PPL 05-1719: (BENTON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 245) APPROVED Page 27 R-PZD 05-1635: (FALLINGWATERS @ STONEBRIDGE, 685) TABLED Page 32 CUP 05-1725: Conditional Use Permit (FOSTER, 639) Page 33 ANX 05-1723: Annexation (JDM INVESTMENTS LLC, 295): Page 39 RZN 05-1724: Rezoning (JDM INVESTMENTS LLC, 295) Page 39 DENIED APPROVED APPROVED Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 2 ANX 05-1728: Annexation (ZACCANTI, 207-246): Forwarded to City Council Page 46 RZN 05-1729: Rezoning (ZACCANTI, 207-246): DENIED Page 46 ANX 05-1626: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, LLC, 217): DENIED Page 53 RZN 05-1627: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, LLC, 217): Tabled at applicant's request Page 53 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes (Left Early) James Graves Audi Lack Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught Christine Myres Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Welcome to the October 10, 2005 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Ostner: Clark: Allen: Roll Call: The first item is the consideration of the minutes from the September 12, 2005 meeting. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved. ADM 05-1761: Administrative Item (WEDINGTON BUSINESS CENTER, 435) Submitted by Key Architecture for property located at the SE comer of Hwy 16E (Wedington Dr.) and Double Springs Rd. The request is to extend the approval of LSD 04-1216, Wedington Business Center, approved by the Subdivision Committee on October 1, 2004. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN ADM 05-1763: Administrative Item (THE HAMPTONS, 608) Submitted by Northstar Engineering for property located SW of the intersection of Goff Farm Rd. and Hwy 16E. The request is for phasing of the approved Preliminary Plat, PPL 05-1429. Planner: JEREMY PATE ADM 05-1762: Administrative Item (RIVENDELL, 484) Submitted by Denele Campbell for property located NE of Center Street and S. Gregg Avenue. The request is to extend the approval of the C-PZD for Rivendell. Ostner: The consent agenda has three items, ADM 05-1761 for Wedington Business Center submitted by Key Architecture for property located at Hwy. 16 and Double Springs Road. Second, ADM 05-1763 for the Hamptons submitted by Northstar Engineering for property located southwest of the intersection of Goff Farm Road and Hwy. 16. Third, ADM 05-1762 for Rivendell submitted by Denele Campbell for property located northeast of Center Street and south Gregg Avenue. If anyone would like to discuss any of these items please step forward. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Clark: Second. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 4 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 5 PPL 05-1699: Preliminary Plat (WATER BROOK II, 571): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at N OF PHASE I AND HWY 16E, W OF DEERFIELD WAY. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 10.95 acres. The request is to approve Phase II of a residential subdivision with 21 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on the agenda is PPL 05-1699 for Waterbrook Phase II. If we could have the staff report please. Garner: This project was tabled at the September 26, 2005 Planning Commission meeting because the applicant was not present. The property contains just under 11 acres north of Huntsville Road and west of Deerfield Way. The Deerfield subdivision is southeast of the property and an existing abandoned quarry that is filled with water is located on the site. The applicant proposes to create Phase II of the Waterbrook Subdivision with 21 single family lots. The site is surrounded with residential single family zoning to the south and the east and planning area to the north and west. The project would have street connectivity to Phase I of the Waterbrook Subdivision to the south through interior streets one and three and the applicant proposes connectivity to the east by proposing a 50' right of way stub out extending approximately 400' from the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Street 1 to the property line. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with several conditions. Condition number one, Planning Commission determination of connectivity. Staff finds that the cul-de-sac at the end of Street 1 provides adequate right of way stub out for a future street connection to the north. In addition to that, staff is also recommending connectivity to the east with either option A) Construction of the proposed stub out as recommended by the applicant with a 50' right of way extending to the eastern property line with a sign placed at the property line indicating extension of future street right of way. Or, option B) Construction of a street stub out extending to the eastern property line in the vicinity of Lots 115 and 69 with a sign placed at the property line for this potential location. At the Subdivision Committee, it was determined in favor of Option A to construct the northern street as proposed as a right of way to the eastern property line and the Subdivision Committee also recommended that gates be placed at the end of the street to prevent access from this long street where development would not be currently proposed at this time. Condition number three states that a fence would be constructed around the abandoned rock quarry for public safety purposes. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have about this. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 6 Milholland: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering. We concur with staff's recommendations except for part of number one. We do feel that the connectivity for the future should be out to the north through Mally Wagnon Road it would be going to the northeast a little bit at the top of the ridge instead of to the east. If you go to the east it would be a closer proximity to where the ridge actually comes out to Mally Wagnon plus you would be going across a couple of draws. We feel that those areas that are small areas, would be much better served coming from Mally Wagnon Road. The lower one that they are proposing stubbing out in the neighborhood of those two lots would go through some area that we have already worked with the adjoining land owner, purchased the land, worked out with the Parks Depatturent for parks land which they would want. That is on the south side of the pit that would go through that land. We feel like that would be an interference with something that we have already planned. As an Engineer for the client we feel like one connectivity point to the north end would be a much better alternative. We request that you approve it as proposed. Thank you. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment. If anyone would like to speak to PPL 05-1699 for Waterbrook Phase II please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. If we can have a subdivision report please. Clark: I think the biggest issue we had was where to make the northern connection. We did not have this handout that Mr Milholland just presented us with and in light of some of the issues that we have had recently with some of the neighbors not being aware of stub outs we are trying to go above and beyond what is necessary to make sure that everyone knows that this road is going to continue. We picked the connection to the north of the quarry as our preference. I don't know how this new suggestion factors in. The rest of the subdivision is relatively straight forward and easy. It is just where to make the connection. Vaught: I do have a question on a different subject. In regard to the quarry that you are using for detention, we looked at it on tour and I was curious about since this is part of our detention system, what kind of clean up or environmental studies do we look at when we look at areas like that? There were some things that were a concern to me like trash and some other stuff we saw in the actual quarry. I know we are going to fence it but since it is going to be holding water that will disseminate out it was a question that I had. O'Neal: Detention ponds are usually the responsibility of the POA to maintain. In some rare cases the developer actually does retain ownership and maintenance but the city does not take over ownership of detention ponds. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 7 Vaught: This is just kind of unique since it is a big quarry, a big hole in the ground with lots of implications of what it was formerly used for and what could be in there. I just didn't know since we are going to be funneling more water into it and it draining into the White River. I know that we saw a number of pipes that were leading into it that we didn't know what they were. Does the applicant know what those pipes are? Milholland: Vaught: Milholland: Vaught: Osmer: O'Neal: Pate: Garner: Vaught: There are two pipes that run into the south end. It will cover about 20 acres out of the 30 acres. It looks like there are pipes coming in on the east side of the quarry. There were several at the bottom. It was dry so the water had drained down on that side and there were a number of pipes that we saw when we walked down to look at it. I'm just curious if we have looked at anything environmental in that area. I know studies probably aren't required, are they? I am not knowledgeable of any pipes going into it. I haven't seen any pipes going into it. The volume of that thing is tremendous. I think evaporation would take place before any overflow would take place. It is several acres large and about 100' deep. It is large enough for a stock pond to fish in. I guess there's nothing that we can do on that, but it was a concern. From a different angle, this POA doesn't exist yet, there are no property owners as of yet to be concemed as to what they will be owning. Those pipes looked like very small, possibly effluent pipes to me. Staff, have you toured this site or seen this area? I have not in relation to the existing quarry. We can take a look at that during construction plan review and see what is existing if there is any discharge to that, especially if it is sewage. It is something that would need to be addressed because this is a storm water facility, not a wastewater facility and we would have our Engineering Division address those issues through construction plan review process. I was on the tour and did see the pipes that you are referring to, likewise, I don't know what they are but just to confirm that I did see those and it did appear to be some sort of effluent pipe into that quarry. If Engineering is going to take a look at that, I guess that will be handled internally if you guys do find something, the proper steps will be required for clean up, correct? Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 8 O'Neal: That is correct. Myres: Pate: Clark: Staff, apparently on the original condition of approval we already asked that there be a connection to the north but in addition to that, we are asking for a connection to the east. The applicant is now proposing that the only connection to be made is to the north. Procedurally how do we deal with this because it is different. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine if this project meets our code requirements and connectivity is one of the policies that the City Council has adopted as part of a subdivision to provide access to other vacant properties. It was a little bit confusing, they referenced connectivity to the north. The plats are currently showing dedication of right of way all the way to the east north of the retention pond. I guess I would ask the applicant to explain that as well. Staff felt the connection that they show currently, the cul-de-sac, would function well for right of way dedication to then key an intersection to that property and potentially loop around to the north. The issue that the Planning Commission is asked to address is if there should be a connection to the east should it be construction of the full street all the way to the east property line north of the pond or south of the pond. Either one of those options, both of those options are listed, A & B respectively, in your staff report. The Subdivision Committee recommended the north option. Parks Staff is not at all opposed to removing that small tag of park land. It would benefit them for frontage and access to the park in that area and they would recoup out of the property south of there, that portion, with fees. One of the reasons Subdivision Committee went to the north is because we didn't know how Parks would feel about a road coming so close to dedicated park land. Yet again, it comes back to Planning to make the decision on connectivity. Anthes: If we have dedicated park land, I would like as many people to be able to get to it as possible. So obviously, if there is a way that connectivity could be made where by more people could access the park. Then I think that is beneficial for the City of Fayetteville. I am wanting to know if staff has evaluated the topography of these proposed connections and the viability of whether or not any of these will ever really happen. Obviously, there is quite a bit of topography shown on the handout that was just handed out and on the northern edge of the property there looks like there is a good amount as well. Obviously, we are proponents of connectivity -but reasonable connectivity that is cost effective to make. If none of these locations work, or if one is preferable to the other, I would like to know. Pate: Just looking at this topography, it looks like there is potential for a connection to the north, a stub out to the east would also allow for a loop Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 9 if that were developed as opposed to just one long cul-de-sac extending from some other portion there. The handout seems to be confusing in looking at our maps and his topography is a little bit confusing, there seems to be contour lines crossing. We were worried about the connection to the north but in looking at our TOPO maps from GIS it looked like it was possible. The one to the east south of the pond does have merit. I don't think there is anything more prohibitive than the current site would have in regard to slope and looking at waiver requests for anything of that nature regarding slopes of street above 15%, etc I think there is potential for at least looping these streets and providing more than just one means of access. For instance, if you look at this graphic, if this property does develop there has to be some means of access to that. There is not a stub out south of the pond right now, that cul-de-sac is the only way that that can be accessed because it looks relatively prohibitive to get down to Mally Wagnon Road otherwise. Anthes: Can you draw what you mean by a loop on the plan so we can all see it? Pate: Essentially it would extend this street, develop lots off of that or create a block system around the pond, potentially extend from here along this area and have lots, assuming that is single family residential, this is in the county so there are no land use regulations. If you are assuming single family lots there is some potential for development in that area. It is actually pretty flat once you get to the top of that. Anthes: Where do you think any of those three might connect at Mally Wagnon Road looking at the TOPO there? Pate: I haven't evaluated that enough to know honestly. The connection shown here looks like it would be steep. Milholland: It could go to the east a little bit. Pate: The road follows the bottom of this ridge. It would be difficult to connect but ultimately that would be our point if possible to have a means of access instead of just Huntsville. Anthes: That is why I'm asking the question. If we are going to require the developer to do this, then want to make sure that it can go somewhere. I'm not sure that we know that yet. Pate: From staff's perspective, even if it could not connect, it is entirely physically impossible to connect to Mally Wagnon, we would be looking for other means of access for that property to develop. It is likely not going to just sit there. If it does develop more means of access and ways in and out the better. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 10 Anthes: So, from your perspective, you are saying that the internal development within the property contained by Mally Wagnon Road, even if it doesn't connect to Mally Wagnon, is important? Pate: I think so Milholland: We have already run our numbers and what he just drew was about 900' of street with lots on one side and I think every developer in Fayetteville will tell you that that is not a practical way of developing. It will not work. It may be a good place for a street, but it is not practical. I thought I heard earlier before the comments were made and responded to, there was a 50' easement to the east in that cul-de-sac. That easement was strictly for the Lanes who requested it because they own the quarry and all of the land in Phase I and Phase II and they wanted access to their property. They live on the northeast side of the quarry and they wanted to have access to their home from the back. That is what that was there for. That was not for a future road. It is not practical to build a street there. Pate: Lack: Just to finish that up as well. Potentially between those two areas northeast of the park area there looks like there is a gap between that topography that could provide a connection to Mally Wagnon Road. I don't know what that is, but it looks like in a purely topographical sense, that could be a break in topography to get a street through. I'm not familiar with this particular part of the land but that is potentially an option. To know how the parcel to the north, the Lane property, accesses from the north from Mally Wagnon Road. There are other properties along that, in trying to figure out the TOPO and not knowing what intervals the contours are at, it makes it a little bit difficult. A reasonable assumption might be if those properties access onto Mally Wagnon Road that a street could also access onto Mally Wagnon Road through that area. I'm just trying to get a handle on what the TOPO is really like. If the applicant could fill me in on that. Milholland: I'm not sure what you are asking. Lack: Mark and Suzanne Johnson, Forest E. and L. Maudine Lane access Mally Wagnon Lane, where do those properties have access? Milholland: They all have access off of County Road 195 or Mally Wagnon Road at present. Lack: Right now those properties do have a driveway that do traverse that ridge. Can you tell me what the angles are on the contours? Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 11 Milholland: I could not tell you. I would probably say they are 2' contours. Lack: At this scale it is difficult to get a good picture of the TOPO in that area. Milholland: That is city TOPO so I'm sure it is 2' contours. Lack: The 3.1 acre parcel, the Johnson parcel, do those owners know that we are talking tonight about a proposal that you've made to put a road through their property? Milholland: They know that the cul-de-sac is abutting their property. They also have water service there and we will be tying them onto a larger line. As far as them knowing that we are talking about going that direction across there, I don't know if anyone has talked to them. I know that Mr. McDonald has talked to all of those folks out there. Myres: It seems to me that there are a lot of things up in the air all of the sudden about what streets are going to go where and how they are going to connect. When we forwarded this from Subdivision we thought we had a handle on how these connections were going to be made and apparently now we don't. What is the appropriate action to take because I'm not comfortable approving this with all of this stuff up in the air. Ostner: From my perspective, just about everything has been addressed in Subdivision except for condition number one which place will the stub out be located. Subdivision Committee recommended Option A which is the northern approach and Option B is the southern side of the quarry. Myres: I don't think any of us have trouble with that now that we have heard that Parks has been consulted and would actually prefer that. I am with Commissioner Anthes in that I think that is a more sensible connection and that is what I would be in favor of approving, a stub out to the east at the south side of the quarry. Vaught: I definitely think we need at least one of these built. My concern with the northern connection stopping at the cul-de-sac is when that eight acres is developed, who pays at that time to build that street? It is city right of way but it is not on the new applicant's property. I definitely think that if we require a stub out it needs to be a built stub out. That is one thing I think for sure. I like the south stub out, it makes sense. My one concern with not doing the north is for circulation for future development. But then again, I'm also concerned about building that street and not leaving much flexibility for where the connection will be made to Mally Wagnon Road. That is what I'm wrestling with with the northern connection because what we do here will probably dictate where that connection is built. For Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 12 Pate: staff, the main decision for requiring the north is just for circulation on that adjoining piece of property. Is that the main driver on that? Honestly, by default, just the location of that cul-de-sac is going to allow for a connection to the north if a property owner should ever choose to do that. That is not really anything above and beyond. The connection to the north happens to be that is how it was submitted and so there is right of way adjacent to the street and there could potentially be a connection there. The one to the east is where, the Subdivision Committee discussed it and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission and requested more information from the Staff regarding the Parks Land decision and recommended Option A without that. Ultimately, I think the question comes down to which connection is more appropriate in the eyes of the Planning Commission. It sounds like either one needs to be built so should it be the one south of the pond or north of the pond? Vaught: I agree with the Subdivision Committee that a stub out needs to be made and I think if I were on that Committee I would look at the northern one first as well just because the southern one does remove a lot and it does effect Parks Land. That is always something to consider the applicant's request the fact that they left the cul-de-sac as a stub out. I definitely agree with that. Now that I look at it, I believe the southern connection is more important to be made for accessing that adjoining piece of property as well as bringing that road by the park land again. I know it effects the park land and I do think that Parks would be in favor of as many streets by the park as possible. My one thing is if we require it we need to make them build it and plenty of signs put up for notification. I don't like this dedication of right of way. It has gotten us in trouble several times now. Graves: I don't remember being concerned about what Parks might think later on. I just felt like the northern connection was closer to the boundary line in all respects both to the north and to the east and provided a lot more flexibility for connecting future development in whatever direction it might happen. We did want it built out all the way to the boundary line to the east just to make it clear because we were right on the heels of the Candlewood situation. We wanted to make sure that there was no question that there was going to be a street built there. That is when the developer expressed some concern about folks driving down there and doing illegal dumping and things and that is where the barricade thing came from that is in the recommendation as well. My thought process was more that it made it adjacent to the two properties to the north and built it out to the eastern boundary line so that you have flexibility no matter what developed where it developed you could go in whatever direction you needed to go off of that northern built out stub out. If it goes to the south you can go east but it leaves a large expanse tracking to the north if you ever wanted to go north with it. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 13 Milholland: I know that the concern came up after Candlewood but that is one time in hundreds of subdivision. That is not going to happen forever. It is not practical to put the burden on this developer just because he owns that land around that quarry. I told him I would talk to the City Engineer, we don't want to get into a real big expense just to buy a piece of wasteland. All we want is a place to dump storm water. I see this as a method of binding him to build 400' of street that a house can't even be built on the quarry side. Some may be built on the north side but he doesn't own the land. I'm sure he would be willing to put the easement there if you wanted. I talked to him, and his preference was if he had to build a second out he would be willing to lose a lot at the south side of the quarry and the Parks Department has agreed if there is a shortage of land due to something of this, that he could pay the difference. That is his preference if you want the second out to use the south side. Still it is not his preference, but if that is what your preference for a second out that is what he would prefer. Ostner: We basically have the northern option and the southern option we are looking at. Anthes: I think that everybody is saying that they want to see something built that goes to the property line, I tend to agree with the applicant that 400' of road to nowhere as a stub -out is pretty excessive. Therefore, I'm leaning towards requiring building that stub out on the south side of the quarry towards the park land but I'm also concerned about what happens up here on the north side. I guess I would like to see the stub out go to the property line, rather than make a cul-de-sac, and it could go in the area where future road connection is shown. Mr. Milholland termed this as "wasteland" north of the quarry. It would provide a valuable connection for other property owners if they wanted to build a road through there. Yet, I don't think it is necessarily the burden of this developer to do so. I was wondering if there is a way that they could dedicate that area that the street could be constructed on north of the quarry and then if one of these adjoining property owners felt that they needed that in order to develop their property that they could acquire that or pay for that street construction rather than making it the burden of this developer? Pate: Is the question then could they just dedicate the right of way? Anthes: Yes. Pate: Certainly. Honestly, that is where we get into a situation where other property owners surrounding don't realize it is dedicated right of way. That is the tricky part of dedicating right of way for future connections. I honestly agree with Mr Milholland on the burden of the developer Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 14 without any lot being built on the south side is an expensive endeavor. If you simply move that up one lot north you could have lots basically with their backs to that pond with the separation and then potentially get a street in there. I guess it would be to dedicate it and maybe they will use it and maybe they won't. You have to go through a Vacation process if you ever want to come back through and utilize those as single family lots. Anthes: It looks to me as though that should be a long lot which could be sold to an adjoining property owner for development. I think the shorter connection is more in keeping with the scale of this development and it is something that I would support, but I would like to see some sort of connection go to the property line on the north side - indicating to where the future road connection is rather than a cul-de-sac. Lack: I wonder if we couldn't achieve some of that goal in making this an obvious extension just by taking the full dedication of right of way, 400' and extending 25' to make an obvious stub out with our standard signage that signifies this as a stub out that would alert people and then we would take the stub out to the south that would be constructed to the property line which is likely the one that is possible to build with the plan that Mr. Milholland has presented us today. There seems to be a ridge that comes near the stub out that would be to the south of the pond that would allow us to get a road eventually over to Mally Wagnon Road. If we had that stub out you could get to the 7.48 acre parcel, you could get to the Lane parcel from the stub out to the north and the 3.1 acre Johnson parcel would also be accessible from that. That would allow the full development with appropriate rights of way and access in the event that those were developed and just enough stub outs for the developer to pay for enough stub out to make that obvious. Ostner: If I could suggest that you possibly alter condition one. Lack: I will make that a motion, to approve PPL 05-1699 with conditions of approval that staff has recommended with the modification of condition number one to read that a stub out is to be constructed from the street south of the pond, the water detention facility, to the property line and that from the cul-de-sac to the north of the water detention facility there will be a 50' right of way extending to the east property line and from that cul-de- sac, a stub out of 20' with the appropriate signage signifying that as a future road. Allen: I second. Vaught: To understand this, they are building a 20' wide street section with no curb, gutter or sidewalk? Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 15 Lack: Not in width, in length from the cul-de-sac, to signify the extension of the street with the appropriate signage at that dead end. As opposed to just stubbing it there, I would want to retain the cul-de-sac so that people can easily turn around but have some extension from the cul-de-sac so that the a continuation is signified. Vaught: To me it is not signifying a stub out it is who is going to pay for that when that adjoining land develops. You are looking at 2.7 acres, 3.1 acres and 7.4 acres. They are not going to build 400' of street for the number of lots that they are putting on there. That is why I don't necessarily support that idea. The idea of a 20' wide street section running to the property line to me is better. It leaves off the curb, gutter and sidewalks or maybe just scrapping the sidewalks would be a better idea because then you are just asking those adjoining neighbors to finish out the sidewalks when that comes through for development if it does. I don't know if anyone has thoughts on it. My big concern is who pays for this when it is built in the future. Lack: I think my concern with that is the full extent of that street may not be needed. If only the Lanes develop they may just extend the street to the corner of their property. Vaught: Who pays for it when that 7.4 develops and we want to connect it through? Lack: They can access to the southern section and the connection that goes to Mally Wagnon Road. Ostner: I think Mr. Vaught makes a good point. I think it could easily be used and connected with more proper roadway beyond it and we just wind up with a chunk of gravel road between two improved roads. In that case, most likely, the city would be responsible or would ultimately pick up the tab since everyone else has gone on about their business. I think that is a good point. The land is preserved and the neighbors aren't confused. However, on down the line we would be flipping the bill. Lack: Vaught: There is access to Mally Wagnon Road from each of those lots that we just discussed. Correct, but when those come through as developments we are going to want them to connect to this road as well more than likely. We are not going to want a few cul-de-sacs sticking in off of Mally Wagnon Road. Ideally, they would all come through together but they very well might come through in pieces. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 16 Ostner: This is difficult because if I have to choose between the north and the south as the only one that I'm going to get, I think the northern one is more vital from a planning aspect. I think as a good middle ground if instead of them building the entire 400' what if they did do an actual stub out sort of like what they have offered us. A stub out to the north, they don't have to build the 400', they are building a road to their boundary. I understand that doesn't head eastward but Country Ridge is not 1,000 yards away. Vaught: And not dedicate right of way to the east property line north of the pond? Ostner: Simply built whatever Mr. Milholland has sketched here, about 100'. Vaught: I guess my problem with that is that it is an arbitrary line on the map right now. Those people to the north probably have no idea that you are going to stub out in that manner. We need a connection going to Mally Wagnon Road and that is the best direct connection to Mally Wagnon to the north. If we are not going to build it I would just rather not take the right of way. To me the cul-de-sac is signified with some signage just as good as a 10' stub out to the property line because you don't know where it will go. If you build that stub out you are locked in, if you have a cul-de-sac you can take it in many different directions. Graves: If the 7.48 acres comes through first it doesn't connect to anything. Ostner: So that would be a vote in favor of the entire 400'. Myres: As written, condition one says staff finds that the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Street 1 provides adequate right of way stub out for a future street connection to the north as it is drawn. What they are asking for is a second means of connectivity which I think we have determined should be to the south side so that it connects to the park land. So we don't have to do anything about the current cul-de-sac because staff thinks that it is adequate as it exists. Is that not correct? Vaught: It goes on to say that they want the 400' street built but you could barricade it so no one could access it if there is a concern about dumping. Myres: In addition to this northern stub out, staff recommends... so that northern stub out is that cul-de-sac? Vaught: No, the northern stub out is building 400' to the property line. You have to have the temporary cul-de-sac built for fire and emergency vehicle access. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 17 Ostner: I think Commissioner Myres has a point. The thing I was talking about was offering a connection to the north. As she stated, that is already in existence. We have got this cul-de-sac that can head north. Which eastern connection is the key. Is the eastern connection going to head from the north side of the quarry or on the south side of the quarry? Vaught: Not both? Pate: Correct. Vaught: I don't want a right of way if we aren't going to build a street. Jeremy, how do you feel about that? Pate: Honestly, I would recommend not having the right of way if the street is not going to be constructed. Lack: I am willing to amend the motion to not require the right of way to the north. Just go with Option B. Allen: I concur with that. Vaught: Are you still requiring building the stub out at the end of the cul-de-sac? Lack: No, condition one as stated with Option B selected. Ostner: I don't think I would vote for that. I think the northern connection is more vital. Graves: I agree with that. Anthes: I liked the original motion because it did leave that opportunity open but was at a cost that I didn't think was in keeping with the size of the development. Osmer: Is there further discussion? To clarify, this motion would enact condition one with B. Vaught: I am going to make a motion to amend the motion to select Option A in condition number one instead of B. Ostner: We are voting on the alteration of Option A as written first. Building the road stubbing out all the way to the northern property line on the eastern boundary. Graves: Second. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 18 Ostner: Is there discussion before we vote? Milholland: I sure hope that this Commission sees that the need for this can be determined in the future by whoever develops the land. If they buy Mr. Lane's property or Mr. Johnson's property, they can move the street further up away to put lots up to the quarry and even offer to buy the land. I know you are trying to find solutions but it is getting to be very expensive when there is no return for the developer. I just trust and pray that you don't do this. Thank you. Ostner: A vote yes is a vote for "A". Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to select Option A in condition one failed by a vote of 3-6 with Commissioners Allen, Clark, Lack, Myres, Trumbo and Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion fails. Ostner: There is a motion and a second with Option B. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1699 with Option B in condition one was approved by a vote of 7-2 with Commissioners Vaught and Graves voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 19 ADM 05-1742: Administrative Item (RUPPLE RD., MSP AMENDMENT) Submitted by Jorgensen Associates requesting a Master Street Plan Amendment for Rupple Road. Osmer: The next item on the agenda is ADM 05-1742, the Rupple Road Master Street Plan Amendment. If we could have the staff report please. Pate: This item was tabled at the September 26, 2005 meeting by the Planning Commission with a request for some additional information to be provided on the plat. The applicant's representative, Jorgensen & Associates, have provided you with that additional requested information. What you see on the plats before you represent the parcels and parcel ownership information as well as zoning on those properties. Additionally, topography is shown from our city GIS maps, the tree canopy is also derived from our city GIS maps as well as those creeks and streams that are identified. Changes that have occurred from the last Planning Commission meeting, if you look on the drawing on the bottom of your page closer to 6`l Street, prior to the last meeting, where it curves back to the east it went across the knoll and went closer to the Wilkes property. The applicant met with staff, City Engineering and discussed alternatives and instead of going in that alignment moved this connection further to the east closer to the original alignment, about 350' instead of 700'. It moves that to an area where there is more likelihood of building that street. Again, one of the purposes of this is to get it off of the mountain as it currently exists as well as move it away from another property owner's house. This would still align with Smokehouse Trail, which we felt was important. It could potentially be signalized in the future with the redevelopment of this property. Staff is recommending approval of this Master Street Plan amendment for Rupple Road. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. Jeremy has pretty much covered it all. We have met with Mr. Wilkes and he has seen this revised alignment and is agreeable to it. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment. If anyone from the public would like to speak please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I appreciate the extra information on this plat. It looks like some modifications have been made that have strengthened the plan and therefore, I will move to approve ADM 05-1742. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 20 Myres: I will second. Vaught: When does the Street Committee meeting? Pate: October 251h. Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 05-1742 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 21 RZN 05-1707: (CURRY, 482): Submitted by KEVIN CURRY for property located at 1501 W HOTZ DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is RZN 05-1707 for Curry. Morgan: This application was on the Planning Commission agenda September 26`h It was tabled at that time. The applicant has informed staff that he is in the process of formalizing a Bill of Assurance for this rezoning request and would like for this item to be tabled at this meeting as well. If you would like for me to give a staff report I can do so. Ostner: I think you might. There is a good bit of public comment so if you can give a short synopsis and then we will go forward. Morgan: This property contains 0.4 acres zoned RSF-4. It is located south of Hotz Drive west of Razorback Road. Currently it is utilized for single family residential development. At this time the applicant requests that the property be rezoned from RSF-4 to RMF -24. Based on that request, staff has recommended denial for that zoning district based on the finding that this zoning would be an encroachment into a single family neighborhood and we did receive a draft Bill of Assurance that the applicant was working with the neighborhood to formalize his request. Osmer: At this point, if the applicant is present he may speak. He is not here. I will call for public comment on this rezoning request. We are probably going to table it but this is a rezoning request for Curry, RZN 05-1707. Please step forward, introduce yourself and give us your comments. Schaper: I'm Lynn Schaper, 1940 Pratt Drive. I live in that neighborhood and am very concerned about this development. I just returned from six weeks in Germany where five story residential housing is quite common and many streets are full of five story residential housing, which is what Mr. Curry is proposing to build on Razorback Road. It works in the cities of Europe because there is a standard and five stories is a great standard for very high density housing. That is certainly not the standard in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Our standard in that neighborhood is single family, generally single floor houses on '/4 acre to 1/3 acre lots. This one is .4 acres. To allow this rezoning, in any form, Bill of Assurance or not, misses the point. The point is that densities work when they make sense and they are gradual transitions from one density to another. To go from a five story development, which is what rezoning this property would allow even though it is not going to be developed, it would allow the development on Razorback to go from four to five stories, to allow that to exist next to single family single story houses, which is the bulk of our neighborhood, Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 22 seems quite ludicrous. I agree that along Razorback Road we should have a higher density perhaps and certainly the existing densities of the properties along Razorback would allow that as is I think that is quite sufficient for the kind of development that might occur there without creating an incursion, a spike, and in fact, what I think is the worst kind of spot zoning, to take one lot and turn it from four units per acre and turn it to 24 units per acre for no other reason than to allow a developer to make more profit by building five stories instead of four. That, to me, is not in the public interest no matter what the Bill of Assurance might say. I hope you would follow the staff recommendation and deny this rezoning when it eventually comes up. It has been postponed several times and I thank you for allowing some public comment on it tonight. I hope you recognize that when a neighborhood has developed a particular way to come in and put a very high density piece just as a spot next to them, is not in the best interest of reasonable, rational development. The border of Razorback Road is one thing but coming back into the neighborhood with this kind of zoning is a very, very dangerous precedent for single family neighborhoods. Thank you. Daniel: My name is Heather Daniel, I live on Palmer Avenue. I'm a member of the University Heights Neighborhood Association. I am very concerned about this rezoning. I'm concerned about the domino effect it will have on our neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the condo building as long as it is just the four stories. Rezoning this lot would allow another story. Our neighborhood is undergoing a renaissance. We have young couples moving in, they are starting families, they are remodeling, putting money into landscaping. I really think this property should not be rezoned. Thank you. Ostner: Is there further public comment on this item? The applicant, along with staff, has requested a tabling. Is there discussion from the Planning Commission? Vaught: One question, they keep saying it will take it from four to five stories, can you explain that please? Pate: I did ask the applicant to explain that in the next letter. The Planning Commission hasn't seen the development that is sort of tracking on behind. A Large Scale Development is proposed to the east of this property on property along Razorback Road that is already zoned RMF - 24. It is a four story condominium development. I don't remember how many units, but by utilizing the additional piece of property, that .4 acres at RMF -24 would allow enough land area to increase the number of units on the overall property because they would increase the acreage of the property and thereby, the density. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 23 Vaught: So it is a density issue. It allows 10 more units hypothetically. Pate: Nine additional units. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Trumbo: I would like to make a motion that we table RZN 05-1707. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1707 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 24 PPL 05-1673: Preliminary Plat (REPLAT OF CROSSROADS EAST, 333): Submitted by JORGENSEN ASSOCIATES for property located at THE SE CORNER OF TOWNSHIP AND CROSSOVER RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 4.90 acres. The request is to approve a replat of a residential subdivision with 6 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1673, the replat of Crossroads East. Garner: This property contains just under five acres located at the southeast corner of Township and Crossover with direct access onto Township Street. The Final Plat for the Crossroads East subdivision was approved in 1978. The applicant proposes to replat Lots 1 and 2 of that subdivision with six single family lots. The site is currently undeveloped and wooded with one single family home on the western portion of the site. Surrounding land use consists of residential single family and some undeveloped land to the east. Zoning surrounding the site is RSF-4 and R -A to the north. Staff is recommending approval with some conditions. Condition one is that access to Township Street shall be limited to two curb cuts off the shared access easement. Condition two, the shared access easement shall be constructed prior to Final Plat. Condition eleven, the applicant is proposing to put a 14' building setback shown off of the shared access easement. The city is not able to enforce that as there is already a 25' utility easement on the front of the lot. That condition just reflects that prior to Final Plat if they want to have a no build zone off of that access easement, they will actually have to file an easement for that or have covenants that would specify that. I will answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Jorgensen: Justin Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates. Andrew pretty much covered everything. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to 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. Subdivision Committee of Staff, the area between this parcel and the land on the east side, it is labeled Candlewood Drive, but I believe it is a different street, does this parcel abut the public right of way? Pate: That is owned by the school district, the parcel west of Vandergrift Drive, which is a private drive. Ostner: Is it a strip of land adjacent to the right of way? Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 25 Pate: It is adjacent to Township Street, which is right of way. I don't believe Vandergrift Drive, or Candlewood Drive, as shown on the plat, is public. I believe that is private. Osmer: Ok, thank you. My reason for asking that is since none of these lots can have access down that street, since there is a school down there I just wondered why there couldn't be some sort of connection that at least lots 5 and 6 and maybe all of them, could walk through there. Has that been talked about? Clark: Pate: In terms of a pedestrian right of way we did not discuss it. In terms of a street, if you will notice, there is a lot of canopy on this lot, 82%, they are only losing approximately 30% of that and most of that is already in a right of way utility easement so if you put more vehicular access you are going to lose a whole lot more. I think there was another problem with easement on that side because it belonged to the School District. I think they are actually looking at that strip of property as well. There are no sidewalks on Candlewood currently either to my knowledge. I think that is just a street section. You can see the sidewalks along Township. I don't believe there is anything south of that. Jorgensen: The owner of the property has spoke with the school about purchasing this and it just didn't pan out to anything so he has looked into doing that and it hasn't gone anywhere yet. Clark: This is a unique platted area. We are trying to minimize curb cuts and loss of tree canopy and Subdivision Committee was impressed with what they were able to come up with on that piece of land to come out with six viable lots with frontage. I'm sure that a pedestrian right of way will develop even if it is de facto. Ostner: It could unless fences are built. Clark: We are getting sidewalks however. Ostner: Are we getting a sidewalk along that street on the east? Pate: Not on the school property. Williams: That is a private drive, not a city street. Ostner: I understand but with the school right there a lot of people could walk along that drive if they wanted to walk to school. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 26 Trumbo: I am going to make a motion that we approve PPL 05-1673 and concur with the 17 items as stated in the conditions of approval. 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 approve PPL 05-1673 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 27 PPL 05-1719: Preliminary Plat (BENTON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 245): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at SW CORNER OF WEIR AND SALEM ROADS. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE, and contains approximately 10.66 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 29 single family lots. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN Ostner: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1719 for Benton Development, LLC. Morgan: This subject property contains 10.7 acres located west of Crystal Springs Phase I. The property is zoned RSF-4 and the applicant requests approval of a subdivision Preliminary Plat to create 29 single family lots. This property is in a unique location in that it is adjacent to Salem Road, a collector street, as well as being adjacent to Weir Road. On the Master Street Plan, Gypsum Drive, located in the Crystal Springs subdivision is shown to be extended to the west to connect to the existing portion of Weir Road. The applicant, therefore, is required to comply with Master Street Plan requirements. On the plans, the applicant has reflected the recommended street improvements that staff has made. Those include construction of a turning lane on Salem Road both north and south of the intersection of Gypsum Drive as well as the extension of Gypsum Drive with a 70' right of way to the west through the applicant's property. This would be constructed to a street standard as 36' wide street with a striped turn lane from Salem Road to the intersection of Street "C" and will continue west as a 28' wide road until it intersects with the existing Weir Road. This would require the removal of Weir Road to the north of the new Gypsum Drive or new Weir Road, however they choose to name that. It would also require the extension of driveways of those single family properties to the north to the new street. Staff is recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with a total of 22 conditions. With regard to the determinations by the Planning Commission, they include condition one, determination of connectivity. Staff recommends connectivity to undeveloped property to the west. This connection would create, however, a need for a waiver of the requirement for a 150' minimum street separation unless that northern cul-de-sac is realigned to create a four way intersection. The Subdivision Committee considered that recommendation and found that a western stub out was not desirable or necessary so we would request that the Planning Commission as a whole make that determination. With regard to street improvements, I have listed in that condition the improvements that the applicant has reflected on the plat. In discussion at Subdivision Committee, staff and the applicant were encouraged to reduce the amount of subsequent costs of the off site improvements. There is a subdivision west of this property, Eagles Ridge, which was approved recently as a Preliminary Plat. They will make a Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 28 contribution of approximately $7,500 for this improvement, but with regard to investigating a reduction of the staff recommended improvements, we found that staff recommends that the 6' sidewalk to the north of Street A could be removed as well as the removal of curb, gutter and drainage north of Street A as shown on your plans off site only. In addition, there is an assessment in the amount of $6,574.32 for the Rupple Road Bridge. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Montez: I'm Michelle Montez with H2 Engineering. We have read with all of the conditions of approval and agree with all of the conditions. There is a small change to condition number one. There was some discussion about a western stub out and we just found out today that the owner of the property has sold the property to the property owner to the west who owns Eagles Ridge and they now want to make a connection to the north to have a northern stub out instead of a western stub out so the two developments can be connected. Other than that, we do agree with all of the conditions of approval. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to PPL 05-1719 please step forward and give us your comments. Broyles: My name is Hank Broyles, we are the owner of the 2.8 acres immediately north and west in the corner and have been working with Suzanne in Planning. We do have Eagles Ridge approved. We would like to come back and have that street stubbed out going to the north and let us go ahead and connect. We will let Eagles Ridge a Phase II of this project, and bring it all into city standards, we will request annexation and get it all done to city standards. While I'm up here, I hope you will consider the additional reductions that staff has recommended. There is a lot of weight put on the developer to take the street through, doing improvements to Salem Road and Weir Road on the south side without having to do the improvements on the north side of Weir Road. Ostner: Is there further public comment on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: Just for clarification, when we are talking about a northern connection, are we talking about through Lots 19 and 20 in that area? Ostner: That is the way I understand it. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 29 Vaught: One quick clarification, on number two, for the sidewalks that you are recommending that they recommend, they are the offsite sidewalks north of Weir Road, is that right? Pate: We are actually recommending if you follow Salem Road south, they would construct the ADA ramp there on Street "A" and stop the sidewalk there and the 6' sidewalk north of Street "A" would not be constructed at all along the entire frontage. Vaught: The sidewalk along Salem that goes north would be constructed? Pate: Yes. Vaught: And then everything west. Pate: Yes. For the curb and gutter, the full street curb and gutter would be constructed on this property, it would simply stop at the west property line and then curb and gutter would not be constructed west of that. Vaught: Only on the north side. The south side off site would be constructed? Pate: That is correct. There will be some additional alignments, if it is going to be stubbed out to the north, it sounds like there will be a mirror image of Lots 1-5 and 26-30 on this property, I would assume something of that nature. Vaught: When we see the adjoining property come through since this developer is putting sidewalks, curb and gutter in front of his entire length, is there a way to have them complete the improvements on the north side of Weir Road in the Lot 31 area? Pate: That is something that we would look at as far as that development goes. There is an assessment charged to that developer I believed based on three lots, which was not very much because of the traffic generation off of three lots. If there are more lots, it looks like you could potentially get 8 lots in there if it zoned RSF-4, yes, there is potential for improvements to that street. Vaught: The idea would be to assess future developments as they come in down this road to get the money to complete this northern section? Pate: If the property to the north redevelops that could be constructed as part of that. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 30 Ostner: That is part of the question I've got. North of Street "A" is Lot 31 labeled tree mitigation area. In essence, we are holding that lot in perpetuity to not be developed, who is going to build the sidewalk besides the city? Pate: I'm not sure, it would be as Commissioner Vaught indicated, by assessments in this area. City constructed with those assessments potentially. Ostner: I just want to clarify that that is a lot that they are developing. Just because they aren't building a house on it, they are holding it and owning it as part of their tree mitigation. Someone else isn't going to buy that section and develop it in the future. I just want to make that clear. Trumbo: Are you all in agreement with a stub out to the north? Montez: Yes. Vaught: That doesn't change the number of lots right? It just reconfigures that area. Hennelly: First of all, we would like to apologize for throwing this on you at this last second. I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. I don't know if this will change the number of lots. The curve there at the southwest corner would be reconfigured probably to have one of those eyebrow cul-de-sacs, basically, a mirror image of what is on the east side of the property would be done on the west side of the property. That would be the most efficient use of it. I think with this being as small as it is, again, this is not something we like to bring up at Planning Commission, but with as small as this piece of property is and as symmetrical as it is, it is pretty easy to see that we are not going to be doing any significant changing of the density or anything else on there. Vaught: Jeremy or Suzanne, any changes similar to that to realign this would be something you guys could handle administratively? It wouldn't be a major modification for them to have to come back through as they submit revised plans? Pate: That is a call I have to make when I see revisions. I would be concerned about the alignment if it is just a mirror image here of this intersection with that. I think potentially a better situation is if Street C becomes the through street there and then Street B intersects. I think we can handle it. Specifically if there is not an increase in lot numbers. Vaught: I just don't want to approve something that has to come back through if they have to come through with some changes is my concern. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 31 Pate: As long as the Planning Commission has a very clear understanding that there will be a realignment of this street with the connection to the north, often times, just like Waterbrook II they will lose a lot or shift those lots in order to accommodate that connection, this would be a similar determination. Vaught: With that, I will make a motion to approve PPL 05-1719 changing condition number one stubbing a street out to the north, Street C or a cul- de-sac whichever is determined best by staff, and in agreement with staff's recommendations on condition two and all others as stated. Clark: I will second. Ostner: I have a comment. I understand the applicant does not think a western stub out is necessary but as this property to the west develops there is a corner created and there is a potential for back to back cul-de-sacs. Of course, that means the connection was passed and the opportunity was missed. Hennelly: There is a stub out just to the south of this to the western subdivision south. I think that discussion revolved around the unusual nature of this piece of property in that there was a major reconstruction of a Master Street Plan street on the north side of it and a lot of reconstruction along the entire east side of it for Salem Road and the costs that were being absorbed by this development to include the off site construction of Street A put an inordinate amount of burden on 29 lots and the fact that they would have to construct a stub out to the west when there was one just south of there that seemed to provide an adequate amount of circulation. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Anthes: I would like to request that you redraw this with one change. Rather than just mirroring the elbow, that you consider Street C as a through street that meanders to realign with your stub -out, and that Street B then forms an intersection with Street C. It might be a way that you can save most or all of your lots and avoid that strange intersection. Hennelly: That is certainly agreeable. Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1719 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 32 R-PZD 05-1635: Planned Zoning District (FALLINGWATERS @ STONEBRIDGE, 685): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located E OF DEAD HORSE MTN RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 136.70 acres. The request is to approve a residential planned zoning district with 255 single family dwelling units proposed. Property Owner: DEWITT C. GOFF Submitted on behalf of: LAMBERTH/CARLTON Ostner: Morgan: Ostner: Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN Our next item is PZD 05-1635 for Falling Water at Stonebridge. If we could have the staff report please. At this time the applicant requests that this item be tabled in order to further evaluate the waiver requests with the Engineering Division. Would the applicant like to speak or make a short presentation? I will open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak on this PZD please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: I will make a motion that we table R-PZD 05-1635. Allen: I will second. Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table R-PZD 05-1635 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 33 CUP 05-1725: Conditional Use Permit (FOSTER, 639): Submitted by GREG FOSTER for property located at LOTS 22, 23 AND 24 OF GRANDVIEW S/D, ON HADDON STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to approve two duplexes on the subject property. Planner: JESSE FULCHER Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 05-1725 for Foster. If we could have the staff report please. Fulcher: Before I begin with the report, I did hand out a copy of the petition from some of the neighbors in the area. It does state against the rezoning request. Just for clarification, this is just a Conditional Use to allow for a single duplex on one lot and another single duplex on another lot within the RSF-4 zoning district. We just received this this morning otherwise, we probably would've covered it within our staff report. The subject tracts are located just east of S. School Avenue and are bordered by south Haddon Avenue to the west and W. 26`h Street to the north. Also, S. Denver Avenue is to the east. The properties fronting S. School Avenue are zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The properties to the north and east are zoned RMF -24. The rest of the properties to the south are mainly RSF-4. Your close up maps show those different zoning districts in relation to the two properties on the corner there. The request is for approval of two duplexes, one on Lot 23 and the other on Lot 24, both of which are a Conditional Use in the RSF-4 zoning district. All parking is to be provided onsite totaling four parking spaces per each duplex. The General Plan designation for this area is residential. Staff did look at this proposal to see how it fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, the single family homes to the south and how this would impact those properties. Really, if you look at the map, there are three zoning districts in this area, C-2, RMF -24 and RSF-4. Staff felt that the introduction of two duplexes in this area would not adversely impact this neighborhood and would be consistent with the mixture of uses and zoning districts in this area. With that, staff is recommending approval with three conditions of approval. Item two, sidewalks would be constructed or money in lieu of sidewalks as determined by the Sidewalk Administrator. Access to each lot could be from Haddon Avenue or Denver Avenue but only one curb cut per each lot. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Foster: My name is Greg Foster. I whole heartedly support the recommendation by staff. I think that it would make a good transition to the use in the area to allow for duplexes to be built on those lots. I understand the concern of Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 34 the neighbors but if you look at the zoning map, this little finger of single family zoning goes in between commercial and multi -family and it seems to me to make sense as a transitional use for those. I don't know if this is the appropriate time or place but condition two with the sidewalks, I am wondering if there might be alternatives that we can discuss with that. Ostner: I will call for public comment. Please state your name and give us your comments. Dyneke: My name is Bob Dyneke, I'm the owner of Lot 22, which borders one of the lots. As a matter of fact, I think the information that you have shows that Lot 22 is also included in this request for rezoning. Ostner: It is drawn on our map but it is not outlined. Dyneke: Some of the initial information I was given showed Lots 22, 23, and 24 and I want to ensure you that I'm not requesting that Lot 22 be rezoned. Also, as the adjoining property owner, I was not notified about this rezoning request. My neighbor to the south called me and notified me of this. My other concern is that the information that I have shows the lot sizes are about .74 acres. It appears to me based on some rough calculations that I've done that it is a shade under ''A acre for those two lots. Consequently, I think that if you were to look at Lot 24 I don't think it is big enough to put anything of dwellable size on that lot if you consider the setback. I think that is a little neighborhood in there that has been zoned single family for a reason. Whatever reason was appropriate at the time that was zoned single family I think is still valid today and I would hate to see you guys make a change to that. Thank you. Racani: My name is Al Racani, I own lots 25 and 26 in the Grandview Subdivision. We have a petition from all of the neighbors in the neighborhood and we would like to make sure that this area remains single family dwelling. We do have the multi -family dwellings with the Grand View apartment complex and we have experienced some difficulties with the multi -family dwellings and our neighborhood and we would like not to see anymore multi -family dwellings in our zoned single family dwelling areas. All of those signatures on the petition are from the residents on Haddon and Denver Avenue. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak? I am going to close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: I would like to hear staff address the question on sidewalks. I think he was asking if they needed to be constructed on every side or on one side. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 35 Pate: With a Conditional Use or a new residential structure on any property by ordinance there is a sidewalk construction requirement. It is up to the Sidewalk Administrator to determine. There are three options, one is if there is a sidewalk needed or required to be constructed, two, should there be money in lieu, three, if there are no existing sidewalks, none would be required. That is something that would need to be made. We left this open ended because we don't really know which side and because this is one lot width between two streets. I'm not sure if it would be required for sidewalks on both sides. That would be a little bit unique in my opinion, but it is not entirely out of the question either. We see brand new subdivisions along collector streets that have sidewalks on the back of the lot and one in the front of the lot as well. I do want to clarify that the agenda does say lots 22, 23, and 24 and this is lots 23 and 24 only. Allen: Mr. Foster, are the mobile home and the shop building still there at this time? Foster: No Ma'am. They have been removed. We will be replacing the mobile home with some brand new duplexes. Allen: I wondered also if you had made an effort to visit with these neighbors? Foster: No Ma'am, I have not. Allen: A lot of times problems can be worked out just by some conversation early on. Foster: I'm perfectly willing to talk. This is my first time to do something like this. Allen: I think that is always a good way to begin since you will want to be a good neighbor to the existing neighbors I'm sure. Myres: Staff, there was some comment about concerns about the amount of acreage on each of these lots. I know we are asking for a Conditional Use for duplexes, is the number of units per acre violated by putting duplexes? Pate: No, there is specific criteria in the RSF-4 zoning district that requires a certain amount of square footage for each two family unit or single family unit. If the Conditional Use is granted they have to have a minimum amount of square footage. You can see the applicant has sketched in the general area, Lot 24 specifically, will be difficult because they have three fronts, 25' building setbacks on three different fronts so it will be tight but they are required to meet the setback requirements whether they build a single family home or a two family home. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 36 Myres: I guess the neighbors' concerns are more with the density. Pate: The density shouldn't be violated. It should meet the requirement, it is a matter of whether one unit or two units could be located. Myres: In other words, what you are saying, if you could manage it, you could put two units on each of those lots? Pate: Yes. Allen: I guess I don't have a real clear feeling for the reasons for the objections from the neighbors. I'm having a little difficulty understanding that. Ostner: Would Commissioners be amenable to opening public comment and asking the neighbors specific questions? I am going to allow specific questions for some of these residents. Allen: I would rather have a duplex than a mobile home and a shop and so I guess I would like for you to clarify more your objections to the duplexes. Dyneke: The mobile home and the shop are no longer there. They haven't been for several months. They were needing to go a long time ago. Personally, I would like to have a nice single family home there, brick and sided as opposed to four units of a duplex here. That is part of my concern and the other concern too is that I really don't believe there is enough room on Lot 24 if you consider the setbacks, the drawing that you have is probably a rough drawing that has not been done by an engineer or architect so I question whether or not the lot size would even support a duplex of any size which means that you would have to scoot those two duplexes on Lot 24 over to Lot 23 in order to even make it work. As a matter of fact, the trailer house when it did exist was a very small trailer house and was actually setting partially on Lot 23. My objection is that I think a single family dwelling really fits more into the atmosphere of the neighborhood as it exists and agree, I'm sure that there is commercial in the front and Grandview Apartments behind it, but I don't really think that that is a reason to chew up more space to crowd another two duplexes on a little bitty piece of ground. Allen: Do you have a neighborhood association? Dyneke: No Ma'am. It is an older neighborhood. I think most of the people who live here have lived there for quite some time. I've only owned Lot 22 for probably a year and a half. It is a rental house and I did some major remodeling to it and am pleased with the way that it looks and how it fits into the neighborhood. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 37 Myres: Have you seen the plans and elevations of the proposed building? Dyneke: I really didn't. I wasn't notified of this meeting. My neighbor called me and let me know what was going on with it. I didn't realize that you could come by and pick up some information. Ostner: Just to clarify, this Conditional Use allows duplexes, it doesn't require the applicant to build these two buildings. These are submitted as a friendly gesture by the applicant. Myres: Condition number three states that the applicant shall construct the duplexes in general compliance with the renderings. Vaught: I understand the concerns of the neighbors and we have had discussions many times about allowing different things in RSF neighborhoods I think this situation is unique because it is surrounded by C-2 and RMF -24 on three sides. A duplex is a buffer to a straight RSF home. In that respect, I'm in favor of the Conditional Use knowing what it is going to look like and knowing that the applicant submitted drawings showing that they will fit and knowing that they have to pull building permits for these and so they will meet our standards and meet our code. Knowing that, I will make a motion to approve CUP 05-1725 with the conditions stated. Myres: I will second. Pate: Just to clarify, because the drawings shown aren't to scale, but we can add the condition that each lot shall contain a minimum of 12,000 sq.ft. as required and meet all building setbacks as required by ordinance. That would just very clearly show that anything permitted will be in compliance. Vaught: That is fine. To me that is already part of the deal. Ostner: We have a motion and a second with the additional condition of approval. Vaught: It is part of everything. They have to go back through that process and meet all of those minimums. If they don't meet them they can't build them there. This is saying if everything works you can have these, if not, you are going to have to find another solution. Ostner: I am going to vote against this Conditional Use. I believe it is inappropriate in this neighborhood. They are trying to put their neighborhood back together, improve it and make it better than it was, and when so many people come together and don't want the duplexes that seems to me to be a good show of unity. I think neighborhoods are Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 38 Allen: Ostner: important and I think that this might be a strike against the unity and a strike against what they are trying to do. For the same reasons stated by the chair I will also vote against this. However, I anticipate that this will pass and I would like to ask Mr. Foster if he would meet with the neighbors after the meeting and discuss with them any concerns that they might have. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1725 failed by a vote of 4-4 with Commissioners Ostner, Trumbo, Allen and Clark voting no. Commissioner Anthes left the meeting prior to roll call. Williams- The Conditional Use is denied, a minimum of five votes is required for a Conditional Use. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 39 ANX 05-1723: Annexation (JDM INVESTMENTS LLC, 295): Submitted by RANDALL WAKEFIELD for property located at SKILLERN RD., E OF SAVANNAH ESTATES. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: ANDREW GARNER RZN 05-1724: Rezoning (JDM INVESTMENTS LLC, 295): Submitted by RANDALL WAKEFIELD for property located at SKILLERN RD., E OF SAVANNAH ESTATES. The property is ZONED R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF- 4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Garner: Ostner: Wakefield: The next item is ANX 05-1723 for JDM Investments, if we could have the staff report please. Items 11 and 12 are tandem items, annexation and a rezoning. I will summarize these together and they should be voted on separately. The subject property contains approximately five acres owned by JDM Investments, it is located south of Skillern Road immediately east of Savanna Estates in east Fayetteville with unincorporated land to the north, east and south. The zoning to the west with the Savanna Estates subdivision is RSF-4 and as mentioned, other surrounding zoning is in the county and is unincorporated with no zoning. The applicant proposes annexation and rezoning of this property to RSF-4. The General Plan 2020 identifies this property as residential and staff finds that annexation of this property will not create an island of unincorporated property nor exasperate problems created by extensions of peninsulas. The proposed annexation is not extended further east than the property that is located approximately 500' to the south. This area is currently vacant and located adjacent to property in the City of Fayetteville zoned RSF-4, the Savanna Estates Subdivision, which is located immediately west. We find that the proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the General Plan 2020 and the surrounding developments and as part of this analysis of annexation and rezoning, the city's Engineering, Fire and Police Departments assessed the potential impacts on public services. All of those departments determined that there wouldn't be substantial adverse impact. The Fire Department noted adequate response time of seven minutes and the Engineering Division noted that public water and sewer are either adjacent or near the site. Based on these findings, we are recommending approval of the annexation and rezoning to RSF-4. Is the applicant present? My name is Randall Wakefield and I'm representing JDM Investments. I don't have any more to add to the report other than to say that one of the Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 40 members of JDM Investments, LLC is here tonight along with the engineer if you have any questions of us. Ostner: At this point I will take public comment if anyone would like to speak to the issues of annexation and rezoning for JDM Investments please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Staff, at agenda session you mentioned the property adjoining this to the south. Could you fill us in on any information on that? Pate: We have had conversations informally with the property owners to the south if annexed it would complete the connection there off of Township through that existing stub out and that is something that we have been in discussion with the property owners. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Pate: This project is adjacent to Skillern. There is a stub out off of Township through the subdivision to the south, it looks like another five acre tract to the south of this. That property is not in the city currently. Clark: If we annex this we aren't making an island or peninsula? Pate: No, we are not creating an island. We feel that this particular annexation doesn't create an undesirable peninsula. If you look at the extension of the subdivision to the south, it is not going further than that property which is already in the city and zoned RSF-4. Looking at the potential to connect that 20 acre tract there and fill in that area is something that we have been discussing. Clark: So there is not going to be un -annexed land on three sides of this? Pate: No. Osmer: There will be county land on three sides of this. Clark: There are going to be three sides surrounded by the county but it is not an island or a peninsula? Pate: It is certainly not an island. You could potentially look at it as a peninsula. We looked at this boundary and found that this is a very square boundary coming off of the existing property that does not create any gaps in service areas. There are no street connections currently there. You can see the platted roads and the backs of subdivision lots that are currently zoned RSF-4. Again, this is a situation we didn't feel created a problem. I Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 41 think if you look directly north at that long peninsula zoned R -A, that is a potential problem. Vaught: I guess I don't view it as cut and dry as Commissioner Clark. There are a lot of areas where we've got uneven boundaries of the city and some of these, even though you are extending it out a little further, you are filling in a box in a way. You've got city property that's further to the east south of it, that strange peninsula to the north which we need to annex what's between here and there obviously. To me, this is one of those areas that from the discussions of the annexation task force, this is the type of area they were looking at. My one concern with this is connectivity wishing that the subdivision to the west didn't have a bunch of cul-de-sacs. The idea of having a stub out coming from Covington up would be nice and I would definitely like to see that taken into consideration when a development plan is shown I think that is important because there are not many decent north/south connections in this area, especially off of Township. To me, I think it is a logical extension of our city boundary and it starts to fill in one of the gaps I think a lot of the annexation that we saw off of Dead Horse Mountain Road were the same situation. Where yes, you've got unincorporated land but if you look at the bigger picture you are starting to fill in the puzzle. I would rather see it all come at once, I would rather see an annexation plan which I know the staff is working diligently on and I am excited about. Graves: I would agree with what Commissioner Vaught just said. If you want to technically define a peninsula as anything that sticks out any length with three sides surrounded by city property I guess it technically falls within that definition. I view a peninsula more like what we are looking at when you look at the one mile map, the strange R -A property that is up to the north of Skillern Road. A small box sort of extending city territory that does not extend out as far as property very close to the south that squares off city boundaries rather than rounding them and making them a strange, long tail like that doesn't seem like a peninsula to me. I have said this many times on annexation proposals, those guidelines are guidelines. They are things that we look at and use our common sense and we don't selectively take one guideline out and weigh it heavier than all of the other guidelines. There are a number of guidelines in there, none of them are bright lines. You look at the thing as a whole and if it makes sense to bring it in then you bring it in. If it doesn't make sense then you don't. Allen: I would like to ask a question about the proposed fire station. Currently there is a 7.75 time and that is burn to the ground. How proposed is this proposed fire station? Is this a done deal? Pate: The one in the Tyson facility or the relocation of #5? Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 42 Allen: Fire Station #5. Pate: I believe that the resolution was passed by the City Council to allow for the property at Old Wire and 265. Williams: The former Rausch Park which is still going to have a trail head there, I think that is going to be the location of the fire station that is going to be further to the north along Hwy. 265. That is moving forward. I think they are in the process right now of selecting an architect. Lack: I think looking at the guidelines I think that is a good heading that we need to maintain I think the thing that we need to look at each time is what that guideline is trying to maintain and what the goal is of that guideline. I think with that guideline, is that we don't have gaps in service, we don't have the things of that nature, the isolated properties, the roads we have to go across that would be county for services to cross. Those would be the reasons that we adhere to the admirable guideline of no peninsulas. I think that it could even be a good catalyst as the development goes further and further that it could help us obtain that 'A section which would allow the connectivity from Township which would create a better condition overall in that neighborhood area. Clark: I didn't mean to infer that this is cut and dry. I just think it is funny that we sometimes have guidelines that are very engrained and are sometimes very nebulous. It is a peninsula. I am going to make a motion that we approve ANX 05-1723. It wasn't that cut and dry to me, I think it is humorous. However, having said that I am going to vote to annex it, I'm not going to vote to rezone it. We see so much that is no happening yet. The fire station hasn't happened yet. We have annexed and rezoned all kinds of stuff that have not met the muster of Council but I do believe if you annex it you can control how it develops and eventually when it will develop. This property will eventually develop but I want to make sure that when it does that we have the infrastructure that can support it. I will make a motion that we approve ANX 05-1723. Trumbo: 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 ANX 05-1723 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The tandem item is the rezoning request for the same parcel, RZN 05- 1724. Is there any public comment on this rezoning request? Seeing Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 43 none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. If the applicant would like to add anything you are welcome to. Wakefield: We are happy to answer any questions that you might have. McConnell: My name is Jay McConnell with JDM Investments and what we have proposed for that area is an eleven lot subdivision for that particular area coming in. It is only going to develop with 11 lots and a detention pond. Myres: The acreage in total is 5.06 acres which means a maximum density of 20 units, which we seldom see it fully built out. I am happy to hear that 11 lots are proposed. I don't consider that a burden in terms of acquiring 11 more residences in that area. I am in favor of rezoning. Ostner: For clarity, we are rezoning to RSF-4 which would be around 20 or 21. Myres: Even with that density I don't have a problem with this. Vaught: That is one of my frustrations. RSF-4 we never build out to four units per acre. I wish we could come up with more distinct titles, I wish the RSF-2 was made more flexible so it is actually used. We have it but I don't think we ever have seen one come through. You don't really get two units per acre if you go RSF-2, you get more like 1.5 units per acre. I wish there was a way that it was. I think this is a perfect example and could solve a lot of problems. I wish we could use some of our zonings as RSF-2.5. I would like to be able to offer something other than a Bill of Assurance or come up with a RSF-3 zoning. I wish there was a way so we didn't have to blanket zone all of our residential RSF-4. Frankly, RSF-2 is more like 1.5 units per acre so a lot of people won't use that. We are pretty much seeing just a little bit over two units per acre. I am in favor of the rezoning. I think that with this area that's probably the way we are going to see it developed out. I would like to see that street stub out connect down to Township. I think that is an important connection for the future. Graves: I'm also in favor with the RSF-4 zoning. It is compatible with everything that is developed out there. R -A zoning is not appropriate for that particular piece of property. I echo Mr. Vaught's comments with regard to the lack of flexibility on the zoning choices. I can't think of a time when we have come through with four units per acre and rarely 3.5 units per acre once you do the streets and sidewalks so that people wouldn't worry about if there are going to be four units per acre crammed in there. On this particular parcel, even with 20 units, I think it is appropriate. Ostner: I think the discussion about zoning districts is important but we are seeing a lot of unique zoning districts come through which are complexly Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 44 separate from a PZD which is engineering up front. We are seeing a lot of flexed zoning districts and you have to have a large parcel of land. When you do five, ten or twenty acres, there is no way. With our large pieces of land you can easily get your four units per acre and when you are sitting at the drawing board drawing it, you've got to be careful not to go over four units per acre if you squish your lots down and do a lot of single family units it can happen. I think RSF-4 is by far the number one most commonly zoned district in America. 3/4 of the zoning requests for housing are RSF-4. My concern on this piece of property has a lot to do with infrastructure. This person wrote in to us that she lives on Rom Orchard Road and is concerned with the Wastewater Treatment Plant not being on line, there is constant smell from the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant which is going to be worked on in the future. Old Wire has a blind curve just to the west of this development. I would tend to agree that that is a dangerous stretch of road. I am going to vote against this simply because I believe it is too far out for our infrastructure that we currently have. Pate: Regardless of your vote, I just want to clarify that the letter that you are referring to is not in regard to this item but for items following. Ostner: Thank you. Trumbo: I have read the Police and Fire reports that say that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. That is pretty much a standard answer. I understand where you are coming from as far as development pressures in this city. I feel that the market place kind of dictates development and with that, I don't have a problem with the rezoning. I don't think that it is going to be developed out to 20 homes. I think even if it did, it would still be ok. Lack: I would concur with that and in reviewing the Police and Fire reports, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1724 to the City Council. Myres: Second. Ostner: I think our place here is a recommendation for Council who is ultimately deciding how quickly and where this town grows. However, I don't think we often discuss thoroughly enough should we grow. Should we grow with this five acre piece tonight. It is not my decision. However, the City Council is listening. That is part of the charge that we are being given is to think larger than this piece of property whether there is too much traffic in town, too many people moving here too quickly, etc., etc. I think that it is larger than this piece of property and am going to vote against it. The Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 45 Vaught: Ostner: market will drive you crazy, sometimes you have a choice whether you want to flow with the market or curve it. My comments on the rezoning are I wish we had other options. If we had something like RSF-3 we could possibly see that coming through quite a bit. I think that is appropriate in outlying areas but the only way to get 2.5 units per acre or three units per acre is RSF-4. This is a learning process for us as well as staff but maybe we need to look at a way something other than RSF-4 an appealing district. This would've been a situation where that would've been appropriate. 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 05-1724 was approved by a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Ostner, Clark and Allen voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 46 ANX 05-1728: Annexation (ZACCANTI, 207-246): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at S OF SALEM RD., E OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS S/D. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 80.00 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: ANDREW GARNER RZN 05-1729: Rezoning (ZACCANTI, 207-246): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at S OF SALEM RD., E OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS S/D. The property is ZONED R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 60.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. Planner: ANDREW GARNER Ostner: The next item is ANX 05-1728 for Zaccanti. If we could have the staff report please. Garner: Items 13 and 14 are tandem items for Annexation and Rezoning. The subject property contains part of two tracts totaling approximately 80 acres owned by the Zaccantis. The 80 acres are proposed to be annexed and the property to be rezoned includes only 60 acres of the total 80 acres. The site is located south of Salem Road west of the approved Laureatte Fields residential subdivision and east of the Crystal Springs residential subdivision. The property contains one single family residence with the operation of chicken farming and pasture. The property is within the Planning Area and is adjacent to the city limits along the southern, eastern and western property lines. The surrounding land uses are residential single family to the west and Laureate Fields to the east. Surrounding zoning is RSF-4 on three sides. Currently the site has street access to Salem Road to the north. Gypsum Road is planned to extend east to west across the southern portion of this site and Raven Road is planned to extend north/south just west of the site. Staff finds that annexation of the property will not create an island or problems created by extensions of peninsulas but it will begin to fill in land that is encompassed on three sides by existing city limits creating a more desirable city boundary. Staff also finds that the proposed rezoning for RSF-4 would also be compatible with development in the city and the adjacent property to the west of the subject property. We find that this zoning is compatible with the General Plan 2020 which designates this site as residential and the surrounding development in the city. The Police, Fire and Engineering Departments looked at this proposed annexation and rezoning. The Police Department found that the rezoning will not substantially increase the load on police services. The Fire Department noted an adequate response time of seven minutes to the site. The Engineering Division found that public water is adjacent to this site and that sanitary sewer is also near the site. Based on these findings, we are recommending approval of this annexation and rezoning to RSF-4. I will be happy to answer any questions. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 47 Ostner: Is the applicant present? Smith: My name is Raymond Smith, I submitted the annexation and rezoning applications on behalf of the Zaccanti family. I would be glad to answer any questions here. This land on three sides is surrounded by property that is already inside the City of Fayetteville. I think it is an ideal piece of property to be annexed in. If I can answer any other questions I would be glad to do so. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak please introduce yourself and share your comments with us. Parks: My name is Horace Parks, I live in the Crystal Springs subdivision. I don't have all of the information on this. My concern is about traffic through Crystal Springs and Gypsum Road. They were talking about approximately 250 homes in that area and that is a lot of traffic going through Gypsum. The information that I have, it doesn't look like Salem Road to the north connects to this property. I have not seen the Master Plan on a north/south access but my concern is the traffic through the residential area. Please note that. Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak? I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Allen: Once again, it is hard for me to work this out in my mind about something that isn't yet there, it says the fire response time is about seven minutes to get there. That is a burned house. There is no fire station there at this time. We are talking about when it is built. It is a concern to me to build something contingent upon other things happening. Zaccanti: My name is Al Zaccanti and this piece of property belongs to me. I purchased this property when I came back from the Korean War in 1953 and I've farmed it since then. I have built five chicken houses on it. At the present time I'm tearing those chicken houses down. My taxes have gone up so high that every four years I pay the County what I paid for this piece of property. That is the reason why I'm cutting my farm operation at that point down. I own 200 acres out in the Cincinnati area and if I do sell this piece of property that is where I plan on building a new house and moving to. My wife died a year and a half ago and that's another reason. This is really a nice piece of property and there is a plan to build a high school on my east side and I have the Holcomb school on the other side. Then they are also developing the property on the south side. That is one reason why I want to get in the city limits because the property all around me is in the city limits and this property should be in the city limits and it should also be developed. Thank you. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 48 Allen: It is not a problem for me to annex this but I have trouble rezoning something when the infrastructure is not there when we don't know about police and fire. It seems to me an obligation of the Planning Commission to look at those things as well as look at what is coming and what is going to be there rather than just passing it on and passing it on and growing without planning. Vaught: It goes with discussion in the past on every single one of these rezonings that are on the fringe. The comments that the Fire Department had at the annexation task force was he talked about just like us with no annexation plan, their planning for new stations comes with development in areas. There will never be a fire station in this area unless there is development. Once again, we are worrying about developing without a fire station. We get stuck in that aspect. I definitely think we have to separate the rezoning and annexation for sure on all of these. The annexation to me is really straight forward and fills in a gap, some higher population areas need to be placed on Salem Road. The area to the south of this is where we looked at putting higher density I believe, is that over near Razorback Golf Course? Pate: Yes. Vaught: We had a development come through further south of the creek, we approved one north of this that was another phase of Crystal Springs but I remember that we have talked about wanting more density in this area as it is kind of a hub with the school there. Especially with the offer the school board tendered on the property to the east. It makes me think that there is even more of a need. At this time, it is hard to say what we need here but as it develops we might be in a situation where we would like to see the density as we have seen on Rupple Road where the school goes in and wanting to see those centers sprout up. I understand about the response time concern. I know we have approved those down near Dead Horse Mountain Road with longer response times than that. They are hoping on the Tyson Station. To me this is a logical location for a fire department especially along 112 with springwoods going in and a number of commercial projects slated in that area for the future. I would be more amenable to RSF-4 for those reasons. They need to know how we want our areas developed so they know how to respond to it. It is a Catch 22. That is a comment that really raises me. I think 7 to 7 1/2 minutes is a target where they want to know how this area is going to develop so they can properly plan their stations. I don't want to leave it R -A. I don't think that that is what we want to see it long term in the future. It is hard for the other services to plan their growth if we don't give them what we see in certain areas. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 49 Allen: Why don't we hash that out in a minute and let's start with the annexation. I'm going to move for approval of ANX 05-1728 to be forwarded onto the City Council. Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1728 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 05-1729 for the same piece of property, for Zaccanti. Pate: The property directly to the east approved for Laureate Fields Subdivision was formerly known as the Schlegel property. They originally applied for Annexation and Rezoning in the year 2000. That was not approved until 2003 because of concerns with the Fire Station. Fire Station #7 was not on line. Once we understood where that fire station was going so that the response time was diminished in this area, that is the reason that the applicant brought it back forward and it was finally approved in 2003 with the response times directly adjacent to this property. That was something that was acceptable to the Fire Department. Before that it was further out there. The Planning Commission knows about the number of streets that are going in with the subsequent developments, the Fire Department is not reviewing Preliminary Plats and so they are not able to evaluate those street connections as well as the Planning Commission which is why all of the staff members put that recommendation into you to make that recommendation to City Council. In just looking at this map and knowing all of the developments that are going on, there is an application before the City Council right now with a lot of improvements to Rupple Road for instance, which would directly respond to one of the concerns about the windy, curvy Rupple Road, signalization of course, has occurred at Rupple and at Wedington now so that helps a lot with the fire response time from Station #7 too. I think that is just a little background on something that we actually did hold off on for a while but in this area we were comfortable with proceeding in 2003 and springwoods and other properties in this area even as far as where Hwy. 112 is. Graves: Just to add to what Jeremy just told us, the Fire Chief compared it to when a family decides to build a new house or when a business expands their building, you are not going to do it when rooms are going to sit there empty. You do it whenever you are kind of busting at the seems a little bit, a little bit uncomfortable but not overly uncomfortable. There is always Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 50 going to be a little bit of discomfort in a rezoning decision when you know that the fire response times are maybe a little bit on the long side or maybe a little bit longer than what the goals are of the Fire Department or Police Department. The only way that they can justify building a station out there is if there is population out there that they need to serve in those areas. They are not going to build a station for three people, they are going to build a station for a number of people out there. Which are all reasons for not only the annexation which we just voted on but also the rezoning request, although I'm not unmindful of and it is not a concern for me that when the city grows that you are starting to get on the longer edge of response times. I think that is to be expected. As you grow, the stations are built in the areas where there is already established population and then the stations grow to the areas that are growing. This area right now and the area that we just looked at with the last annexation and rezoning request are both areas that were identified as hot spots by the annexation taskforce where there were a lot of applications, a lot of plans for building and things of that nature. We are not going to make this go away by turning down one zoning request here on this particular item. They are going to keep coming and that is because these areas are areas that are just really developing. Again, to follow up on what Jeremy said, when they give us the information that they give us, which we need to evaluate, they have to assume that it is the property at maximum build out, four units per acre, and they have to assume that the roads that get them there are the roads that are there now. They don't have any idea what streets are going to be built, what areas are going to be connected together. All they know are the roads that are in place right now and all they can assume is that there are going to be 80 x four units and they have to give us their advice based on that because that is the only part of the picture that they have. I think those are important considerations as we look at this one and any of these requests. Vaught: The maps don't match from the last item to the current item, so there are 20 acres that were peeled off the top, the property adjoining Salem Road, I wonder why. Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, I'm one of the people looking at buying this from Mr. Zaccanti. The 20 acres to the north is Mr. Zaccanti's home. He has a home there and several rent houses. He has indicated that there may be a potential for him to sale that to us. We will be working on that but right now he just wanted us to rezone only the north 60 acres because that is all we are purchasing, but he did want to go ahead and annex all of it in at one time. We started out with 40 acres and then he said go ahead and annex everything and he would sell us the other 20 that we are trying to rezone, for 60 acres. We do have a conceptual plat, we didn't know at the time that there was a chance that the property to the east would sell. We did a conceptual plat based off of that plat tying streets together and did take it Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 51 to the Crystal Springs POA and to Ward 4 to present it there and make a presentation to give the home owners notification of what we are going to do. One of the problems that was already addressed was traffic. Right now there is an opportunity through our property to bend a collector street if possible, away from Crystal Springs. There was a project to the north of Crystal Springs that got tabled the other day, we have already met with Jeremy and Tim and discussed possibly moving the collector street out of Crystal Springs to the north with our project, I believe there is a little bit of a problem once you hit Salem Road connecting to the potential of a collector street. We did have two entrances coming in from the east and we've got three exits going to the west and with a potential to a connection to the north. Vaught: The connection to the north is very important I think so no matter what happens I would like to see a connection going north because it takes the pressure off of Crystal Springs and that is the only in and out of this neighborhood. It would better connect this whole area to have some traffic going north. When I see development plans that will be something that I look for. Allen: I certainly agree with Commissioner Graves that these annexations and these rezonings are not going to go away. I'm hoping that as a city our aldermen will help us decide what kind of city we want to be and where and how we want to grow. That is ultimately at their feet. I am hoping that the kinds of comments that we make are just something that they look at when they make these kinds of decisions. Vaught: Just with my previous comments, it is hard for me as we are looking down the road not knowing what we have with the master plan for these broken areas. Part of me wonders if RSF-4 is dense enough next to these two streets. I believe that RSF-4 is appropriate for now. The type of development of Rupple Row I think is the type of development that is important for reducing traffic around these schools. There could be significantly less traffic if we build dense areas around them. If we start putting large lots around a school we are promoting more driving and more traffic. I think RSF-4 is the appropriate zoning at this time. Without seeing a plan and not knowing if the school is going there, I know we have RSF-4 fairly dense next to this and springwoods residential across Deane Solomon. That is where it gets even more difficult, not only the fire response time, but what the school board sees for this area and what the City Council sees. Trumbo: I will make a motion for approval of RZN 05-1729. Graves: Second. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 52 Ostner: I'm probably going to vote the same as I did on the last item for the reasons already stated. I understand that there are a lot of good reasons to rezone this. I'm sure it will be a fine development and there is probably going to be a school next door. Development is important to this town but the City Council is asking for our opinion, not simply our interpretation of our guiding policies. They also consult those guiding policies and find a way to vote no. It is not my decision, it is the City Council's decision but if they are listening I believe how fast the city grows and when and where it grows is an appropriate thing to discuss and I am going to vote no on this rezoning request. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 05-1729 failed by a vote of 4-4 with Commissioners Ostner, Allen, Clark and Myres voting no. Thomas: The motion fails. Williams: Just like with any action of recommending rezonings, the applicant can appeal to the City Council and this is a recommendation or not a recommendation tonight, you would have to appeal within 10 days in writing to the City Clerk's office. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 53 ANX 05-1626: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, LLC, 217): Submitted by FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP for property located at THE NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROADS. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.70 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: ANDREW GARNER RZN 05-1627: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, LLC, 217): Submitted by FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP for property located at NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROADS. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 34.51 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Our next item is another annexation for Old Wire Investors, ANX 05- 1626. Garner: These items, fifteen and sixteen on the agenda are also tandem items for an annexation and a rezoning. The property contains four parcels consisting of approximately 30 acres to be annexed and the applicant is also seeking to rezone approximately 35 acres which includes 5 acres located in the city currently and zoned R -A. The site is located northwest of the intersection of Old Wire Road and Rom Orchard Road. It is surrounded by rural residential and undeveloped pasture with unincorporated Washington County to the north, east and south and property that is zoned R -A and the City of Fayetteville to the west. There is also unincorporated areas of Washington County to the west of some of the property line. Staff has received public comment from adjacent property owners objecting to this annexation and rezoning and has discussed this with the applicant. The applicant has indicated that they have discussed this request with the surrounding property owners and haven't been able to gain support for the annexation and rezoning. Staff finds that annexation of the property will not create an island of unincorporated property but it will extend a peninsula with irregular property lines that contain some out parcels between the proposed annexation area and the city limits. We find that expanding the city limits in this configuration is not in compliance with the policies for annexation and would create undesirable boundaries and problems with creating a peninsula in this manner with regard to extending public services across county and into city boundaries and will create gaps of unincorporated property almost entirely surrounded by city limits. The site is currently utilized for rural residential uses and undeveloped pasture and the applicant anticipates subdividing the property for single family use and proposing a density of four units per acre. Staff finds that this proposed zoning is not compatible with adjacent and nearby agricultural and rural residential uses. The General Plan does designate this area for residential Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 54 land uses. However, this designation doesn't specify the density levels. Staff and the Planning Commission and City Council is charged with evaluating the surrounding land uses and this proposal's compatibility with these units. Staff finds that the proposed density is not consistent with density and surrounding zonings and existing land uses currently in this area. Engineering, Fire and Police Departments analyzed this proposed annexation and rezoning request and the Police Department found that the proposed annexation and rezoning would not substantially increase the load on police services. The Fire Department noted an adequate response time of seven minutes as well. The Engineering Division found that public water is adjacent to the site and sanitary sewer is not adjacent to the site with the nearest sewer main being approximately 2,500 feet to the west of this property and an off site sewer main extension would be required to serve the development. In summary, we find that the proposed configuration of this annexation would create an undesirable boundary and would create an undesirable peninsula and we find that rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding area. With that, we are recommending denial of both items. Earnest: I'm Hugh Earnest representing Old Wire Investors. We find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma tonight. About a month ago after careful consideration of this annexation request with staff we pulled the item from the agenda and have attempted to contact a large number of people generally bounded by Rom Orchard Road. There is a hatched area where we sent out letters to 28 different individuals asking for their support of annexation, the request was not for the land that Old Wire Investors owns but rather, for the property adjacent. What we attempted to do to meet what I believe is a legitimate concern of staff is to bring in something that is larger. However, we were unable to secure unanimous support from those individuals so we have gone back and are now bringing forward to you the original annexation request that we had earlier voluntarily pulled from the agenda in order to try to meet the objections of staff and bring forward a larger piece. Let me also make the point, five acres of the area is already inside the city. This is adjacent, it is a peninsula, the developer is willing to install the 2,500 foot sewer line to the property and the water line also to the property in response to the information that we just received from Colleen Gaston, in the many conversations that I have had with David Jurgens there has never been concern about capacity short fall in this particular part of town with respect to the capacity of the plant. Such is not the case, as you well know, in west Fayetteville. In this particular case there has never been any concern expressed on that. As recently as this morning I had a conversation with Mr. Jurgens because he is a good planner and he was talking about how he would need to wrap the 4" line down Rom Orchard Road to get water pressure into the area. Mr. Jurgens, from his perspective, is certainly thinking about the necessary infrastructure improvements that the area would require for adequate Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 55 water in that particular area. The bottom line, and the developers should be commended, Mr. Spradling, as a developer of record, is here with me tonight, the density that is proposed is slightly in excess of two units per acre. That has already been turned into the city. That discussion has already occurred with city staff. The questions that Mrs. Allen continues to ask are valid questions about fire stations. In my time with the city we certainly were aware of the issues in that area. I commend the city for moving forward aggressively and deciding to put Fire Station #5 at the corner of Old Wire Road and Crossover is their first priority. I suspect that since the city has a template for building fire stations that the station will be done well in advance of the development of this area and I think that probably occurs for the other developers in this area because the template that was used in west Fayetteville I'm sure will be essentially the one that is used in this area. I doubt that there is going to be significant changes in the design I think that pretty much covers the points that we wanted to make and we are certainly respective to answer any concerns that you may have with respect to this joint request for annexation and rezoning. Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment if anyone would like to speak to this request please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Parnell: I'm Paul Parnell, I seem to be the one right in the middle of this proposition. I don't necessarily object to the proposition. However, I feel that whoever is gaining from this transaction should defray any costs that we may have in connecting our residences to the sewer that may be established. We presently have perfectly good septic tanks and lateral fields that is not costing us anything to operate and we feel that we should be compensated by whomever is gaining from this endeavor because we don't consider ourselves gaining from this activity. We are very happy with what we have got. However, we are not opposed to developments and appreciate those things. However, fire protection, as just mentioned, is something that should be addressed at this time because we, at this particular month of October are to reconsider our contract with Goshen who has been providing us fire protection for many years. We need to have that addressed. In the event that we are annexed into the city, when does the city assume responsibility for fire protection for this area? Those are things that we feel are very important. Thank you very much. I live at 3287 Rom Orchard Road. Floyd: My name is Larry Floyd, my wife and I live at 3162 Rom Orchard Road and I didn't get a letter about it but I saw the sign in the field and fixed it up there so everybody could see it and proceeded to see what was going on. The letter that you mentioned earlier is the letter from Colleen Gaston but she really said what we are saying in the neighborhood. I have a number of people here who are opposed to this and who agree with staff Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 56 ??. on the recommendation that they made. She was unable to attend but she wrote this letter and she basically says that she is opposed to both annexation and rezoning. They are my neighbors on Rom Orchard Road. She talks about the wastewater treatment plant down at Old Wire and Crossover and the smell is unbelievable. Even when you are in your car with the windows up when you guy by there you can smell what is taking place down there. She says that there have been a number of actions to attempt to address this but it still persists. While there may be a need for additional housing in Fayetteville the question of adequate capacity may apply to development within the existing city limits and it does not seem prudent at this time to expand the land area to which the city must provide sewer service. The proposed rezoning is out of character with our neighborhood. If you have been out on Rom Orchard Road it is the greatest area in Washington County. It is agricultural. There are four of the neighbors that have large horses. I have a miniature horse farm on that road. There is an apple orchard, people stroll up and down it like you are back in the 50's and pick an apple and eat it on the way home. It is unbelievable, it is like going to the Apple Festival every day. It is just a wonderful area. There are people walking their dogs and their horses and everything else along there. Traffic is a big concern for us as well. The character of our neighborhood is 3-10 acre lots and a lot of it is livestock and agricultural use. The other thing, I mentioned the traffic, the blind curves at Old Wire Road, there are a couple of them. People frequently go off of that curve right by this development into the neighbor's fence. Their fence is being fixed all the time because of the traffic there. It is very dangerous. I'm concerned with the stop sign that was placed at Old Wire Road. The tax base unless you are farming it forces you to do something or sell out and you need to take those things into consideration. I happen to farm my five acres and I'm making enough money that it is considered a farm by USDA standards. If I'm taken into the city I plan to try to stay agricultural because I plan to continue farming. I grow vegetables, my wife sells at farmers market. We are pleased with that and we are pleased with where we live. I don't have a great concern about this particular proposal here tonight but I do think that we are sticking our head in the sand when we oppose development because it is going to increase traffic. The main traffic on Old Wire Road is about 200 gravel trucks a day now. We are in between the gravel pit off of 412 and the asphalt pit in Springdale. You people have a difficult job and I appreciate your time. I didn't plan to talk tonight but I wanted you to know that not everybody is opposed to this annexation across the street from me. Ostner: Is there any further public comment? We will come back to the applicant. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 57 Dangio: My name is Jeff Dangio, I live at 3284 Rom Orchard Road. I am the guy with the cars going through the fence. We own a 10 acre tract directly east of the subject property and have a wood rail fence around it. There is a sharp curve to the north at the intersection of Rom Orchard Road and Old Wire. I guess more than once a year we have a vehicle come crashing through that fence. If we add a high density development in there you automatically increase the traffic. There is a safety concern that is kind of unique to our property. A lower density development would be better but if you do go with this proposal we would ask that you do something to improve the safety of that curve in some way. The good thing about the cars crashing through the fence is I may never have to pay to replace that fence. The insurance companies pay for a significant portion of it every year. The down side is if there are kids around and they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time we could have a bad situation. Thank you for your time. Payton: My name is Terry Payton and I live on Bridgewater Lane about 600 yards east of the development. I just want to address the traffic concerns and make a couple of points that have not been made. In that section of Fayetteville the traffic from the east funnels to Crossover Road, you either go to Old Wire and Crossover or the Joyce and Crossover intersection. My main concern is the density that is being proposed. Tonight you approved the five acre subdivision that will be on Skillern Road from 11 up to 20. Bridgewater Estates has 22 or 24 lots and all of those lots have sold. There are only three houses there now. That is going to increase the traffic load and then if this subdivision goes in it will further increase by however many homes will end up there. The next time that you are out there and you see the Joyce Street Crossover intersection and the Old Wire Crossover intersection, both of those are backed up in the morning. That is my main point. Elliot: My name is Don Elliot, I live at 3743 Bridgewater, just east of this development. I don't know much about zoning law. I don't care whether this area is annexed to the city or not, I don't have an objection to it being annexed to the city because I understand that that would give the city more authority to regulate it. I do have a big problem with the zoning. It is totally inconsistent with the lots in that area. The land that Terry and I live on and some of the other people, that started out as a 40 acre tract, and Mr. Stevenson sold it off and in the covenants, private covenants, there can't be any lots sold that are less than five acres. I live on 7 / and Terry lives on 8, there are a couple of 10 acre tracts and a 5 acre tract. These are all totally inconsistent with allowing four houses per acre. That is not just true of that land, it is also true of the other houses in there, I would guess that they are all one to five acre lots. To allow four houses on one acre is totally inconsistent with what is out there now. I don't care about the annexing but I do have a big problem with the zoning change. Thank you. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 58 Ostner: If there is no further comment from the public I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Spradling: My name is Marcus Spradling, I am the developer. A couple of things that I ran into on the annexation was the majority of the people I talked to did not want to annex until they saw the sewer and water improvements, which is the same issue you get into with building a fire station or a Wal- Mart Super center where nobody lives, you don't do it. The people come and you bring the infrastructure to them. What we are trying to do is provide infrastructure to the area for water and sewer which eventually will lead to better fire protection for the people out there. You've got Fire Station #5 which is basically ready to go and should be built before we ever get there. The zoning, you have got one unit per acre or you've got four units per acre. There is no middle ground, there is no in between. We have handed in all of the Preliminary Plat information showing that we are just a little bit over two units per acre because we felt like that is what best fit in the neighborhood. We weren't going in there trying to put 65' wide lots with little houses in there and drop it in the middle of that market. It is an upscale subdivision and the houses that will be built in there are in the same area and the same price ranges as what is built out there now so the property values should increase. Our intent is not to devalue the property, it is to increase the value of the property. We are providing the water and sewer extension which will in turn allow people to tie into it. I don't know what other questions you may have. Anything we haven't covered? Pate: I just want to call your attention to page 13, the citizens that did speak, numbers five, six, 13, 14 and 15 did speak tonight, just so you have an idea of where they were coming from. Vaught: I guess my problem is as we were speaking of earlier, where the other one was a logical shape and extension, this one seems illogical to me with the chunks missing, the spur out and this one creates more of a peninsula hanging out there by itself. I know Mr. Earnest spoke to bringing a larger tract forward, can you repeat what you said? Earnest: What we attempted to do at the request of staff, was to bring forward a larger more together area, if you will. There is a map in there that shows a hatched area bounded by Rom Orchard Road going back to the city limits. The hatched area shows the 28 property owners that we sent letters to. The majority of those individuals are in favor of annexation, but not all. One of the burdens that we have is unanimity is required for annexation. I understand that and support it, but that is an effort that we made to accommodate the criticisms that this does not cover a larger area. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 59 Vaught: It just makes it hard for us and staff to support something like this. Spradling: It is not that we have singled out a piece of property out in the middle of nowhere. 25% of this property is already in the city. We are trying to extend what we have in the city. We are already in the city, we are just trying to incorporate the balance of the property into the city. With us putting in the infrastructure the majority of the people that I talked to will come in but they are not going to allow their taxes to be raised and not get any benefits. They aren't buying in to raise my taxes and when you get ready to bring me sewer. They can't get it unless we bring it in there, and they are not willing to do something without seeing that they can tie onto it first. That is where the consumer is today. Vaught: My concern is looking at the guiding policies, I counted six out of fifteen that this directly conflicts with. There is a peninsula issue, areas that exclude entire subdivision or neighborhoods or divide areas up, boundaries for annexation follow natural corridors. It doesn't follow natural corridors because there are bits and pieces here and there. You've got a couple of pieces of county that are kind of stuck out there in the middle of the city. It doesn't create islands but it comes close. Areas that are currently served by public services should be annexed. This is a 2,500 foot extension of sewer main, that is a pretty good chunk of sewer main to extend. Spradling: That is because it follows the road. As a crow flies we are 1,320 feet from RSF-4. Vaught: As for the engineering, I don't know if any additional lift stations would have to be constructed. I assume the one at the corner of Crossover and Old Wire would suffice? O'Neal: That one is a substantial lift station, I believe it is a 24" forced main. There is not a capacity issue at that station at this time. Vaught: While we are on it, can you address the smell of that lift station? O'Neal: Due to the time that the sewer is retained in the station it smells bad. There are a lot of other items that can be done with lift stations, that is something that we can look at. Pate: A lot of times when a lift station is large and a forced main is large and is not 50% or closer to capacity it sits there for a longer amount of time so that is why the smell is produced. Vaught: So more development would help it. My main issue is about the annexation. I know that we are stuck in that spot where it is really Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 60 difficult but it is leaving a lot of gaps and holes in there and it is an area with a lot of development. Typically something like this I would be in support of but this one I'm having a hard time with those boundaries and how you are tying together. I know you are having a hard time with the neighbors and it is a chicken and egg kind of situation, but even if you run the sewer main down that line, they are not automatically connected, they are going to have a substantial expense to connect to it. We are not guaranteeing those people will even connect to it. Spradling: No, but they will have the ability to connect to it and it increases their property values because now they have access to sewer that they didn't have before. Vaught: Correct. You think that those people are going to come in and increase this area. That is what I am having trouble with. Spradling: The consumer is just not willing to bet on the come. They want to see the baby. Graves: I have the same concerns. If it was one of the guiding policies or two of the guiding policies it would be one thing because they are guiding policies and they are things, that as I said earlier, we use our common sense on. This one conflicts with a number of the guiding policies and just as I said the first one I didn't think was a peninsula, this looks like a peninsula to me. It looks much like the tail that is on the one mile map which is in the city, but I didn't vote for anything like that. This is a peninsula without question, it is long and oddly shaped and doesn't create nice boundaries for the city, it doesn't follow natural corridors and is not an area that is easily serviced in any way and these are some longer response times than what we saw with earlier items as well and I cannot support annexing this property the way it looks right now. Spradling: I think the long response time was an issue and that is why the city is building a brand new fire station right next to it. Obviously, they know something that we may not know. They have headed off that problem and they are planning on the expansion being on the east side of town. Graves: I'm not looking to argue with the applicant, I'm discussing with my fellow commissioners this item. If the chair recognizes the applicant, that is fine. I'm not looking to have an argument back and forth, I'm just making my comments to my fellow commissioners. Spradling: I respect that, thank you. Clark: The only reason I would be in favor of annexation is we can control how it develops. I'm not in favor of rezoning at all. If we annex it I will vote to Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 61 let it sit just like it is. Step systems scare me. Development within the county close to our borders scares me. That puts us on a horn, what do we do? I don't think it is bad to annex it but I think it would be very, very bad to rezone it. I am seeing a very eager developer so I'm more inclined to annex it. Ostner: Just as a procedural issue, most developers withdraw their annexation requests if their rezonings are denied since they simply don't want to pay more taxes on land that they can't develop. Are there any motions? Myres: I will make a motion that we deny ANX 05-1626 as recommended by staff. Graves: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Vaught: My issue is mainly the boundaries and the way that this is drawn up and the gaps that it creates. I agree with staff's findings that we need a more logical boundary to create this annexation. It is an area of development, typically I would like to see this property annexed, because, like you said, there is a fire station coming in here. The way that this is coming in to me is not correct. We don't know when the stuff around it is going to come in. I would like to see a bigger picture in this and that is why I will be voting against it. Not because I don't think this is a right piece, but it just causes too many conflicts. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ANX 05-1626 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: Mr. Williams, is the same procedure in place to appeal our recommendation? Williams: That is correct. At this point the petitioner would need to decide whether they want to withdraw the rezoning petition at this point in time or have that acted upon tonight also? You could ask to table the rezoning if you wanted to think about it or you could go ahead and ask for action to go forward. Earnest: I think it is obvious that we will ask for it to be tabled. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 62 Ostner: The applicant has requested the next item to be tabled. That is RZN 05- 1627. Clark: So moved. Myres: Second. Ostner: Would the applicant like to share anything before we vote? Would anyone from the public like to share anything on the rezoning request before we table it? 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 RZN 05-1627 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Subdivision Committee Appointment: Commissioner Trumbo to take Commissioner Graves' seat. Meeting adjourned: 8:45 p.m.