Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on December 12, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN PPL 05-1825: (SKILLERN RD S/D/ CRESTMONT, 295) Approved Page 5 ADM 06-1878: (1949 GREEN ACRES RD.) Approved Page 5 R-PZD 05-1796: (PARK WEST, 208) Forwarded Page 6 PPL 05-1803: (MALLY WAGON ESTATES, 611) Forwarded Page 39 PPL 05-1821: (BIRWIN STREET S/D, 408) Approved Page 45 LSD 05-1828: (UNIVERSITY VILLAGE LOTS 1-4,599) Approved Page 50 RZN 05-1834: (VANTAGE SQUARE, 175) Forwarded Page 57 RZN 05-1833 (BELLAFONT, 174) Forwarded Page 60 PZD 05-1817: (THE COMMONS AT WALNUT CROSSING, 555) Approved Page 64 PZD 05-1816: (SKATE PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 366/367) Forwarded Page 69 PZD 05-1776: (WEDINGTON CIRCLE, 404) Forwarded Page 84 Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 2 ADM 05-1849: (UDC AMENDMENT) Forwarded Page 93 ADM 05-1839: (BY-LAW AMENDMENT) Tabled Page 96 ADM 05-1841: (HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS) Forwarded Page 108 ADM 05-1842: (HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL) Forwarded Page 108 ADM 05-1879: (HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP) Forwarded Page 108 Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Candy Clark Christian Vaught James Graves Andy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 4 Ostner: Welcome to the December 12th meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call, please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Myres, Lack, Clark, Ostner, Allen, Graves, Vaught and Trumbo are present. Anthes was absent. Ostner: The first item on our is the approval of the minutes from the October 24th. Do I have a motion for the approval? Allen: So moved. Ostner: Commissioner Allen approved -- moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Clark seconded it. Clark: Sure. Ostner: Is there any discussion or notes? Will you call the vote, please? Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 5 PPL 05-1825: Preliminary Plat (SKILLERN RD S/D/CRESMONT, 295): Submitted by ROGER TROTTER for property located at 3826 E. SKILLERN RD., E OF SAVANNAH ESTATES. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 4.88 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 11 single family lots. ADM 06-1878: Administrative Item (1949 Green Acres Rd.) : Submitted by Andrea Fournet requesting a variance of Chapter of the Unified Development Code for property located at 1949 Green Acres Rd. Ostner: The consent agenda has two items. The first item on the consent agenda is Preliminary Plat 05-1825 for Skillern Road Subdivision Crestmont. The second item is Administrative Item 06-1878 for 1949 Green Acres Road. If there is anyone in the audience or any Commissioners who would like an item pulled from the consent agenda, now is the time to speak. Seeing none, I will listen to a motion to approve the consent agenda. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Ostner: Thank you. Is there a second? Clark: Second. Ostner: A second by Commissioner Clark. Any discussion? Call the roll, please. Roll call: The motion to approve PPL 05-1825 and ADM 06-1878 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Anthes was absent. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 6 R-PZD 05-1796: Planned Zoning District (PARK REST, 208): Submitted by TRACY HOSKINS PARADIGM DEVELOPMENT for property located at HWY 112 E OF DEANE SOLOMON RD. The property is zone R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 139.45 acres. The request is to review a Master Development Plan for a proposed Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 856,000 s.f. commercial space and 1,712 dwelling units. Ostner: Thank you. The first item on our agenda under old business is Residential Planned Zoning District 05-1796 for Park West. If we could have the staff report, please? Pate: This item was left -- or tabled from the last agenda meeting due to some issues in getting everything resolved. I think we're much closer now. We did not present the project at that time. So we'll do a full presentation today. The property is currently zoned R -A Residential Agricultural. It contains approximately 140 acres. This is a Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District. So it is not a detailed review of street cross- sections and where the sidewalks are, and exactly where all the buildings are, and drainage. It is a Master Plan. Over 140 acres. To the south, property is being developed as the Springwoods Commercial Planned Zoning District, which is a development of residential and commercial properties. Further to the south is also the approved Sam's Club. Property to the north is the home of BioTech Facility, as well as some scattering of some single family uses, and agricultural uses further to the north. North of Highway 112, north and west of the property, is also being developed as a single-family residential subdivision. Property to the east is developed for both, single-family uses and various commercial uses, including a drive-in movie theater. A total of 15 different planning areas ... separate planning areas are proposed with this planned zoning district, each of which has been identified with permitted uses and conditional uses. They also have various setbacks, building heights regulations, densities -- intensities, which is the amount of square footage of nonresidential uses on that property. Those are all identified in your staff report as well as in the booklet. And as you'll note, there were some changes and some items that staff could not support that was originally submitted by the applicant, and you will note that in your staff report there is what our recommended planning area and zoning criteria charts should be if this item is approved. The mixture of uses on the project does vary dramatically. Some are solely single family, some are solely commercial. However, there are transitions, most notably, there is less dense toward the outer edges of the project, and it gets more dense as it gets toward the core or center of the project. There are town homes, condominiums, commercial and office retail, residential dwelling units, as well as specific densities and intensities that vary quite Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 7 dramatically. From 40 units per acre to much less 6 units per acres in one planning area, I believe. Approval of this Master Development Plan would rezone the property, however, it does not give specific development approval. Each one of these areas would have to come back through before this Planning Commission as a development item to be reviewed in light of the specific development criteria established by the Unified Development Code. The maximum intensity, the big numbers over there where all 140 - acre project, is a maximum of 856,000 square foot of nonresidential space, and 1,712 dwelling units. Again, those are maximum numbers, and as development proceeds and the actual build out of the property proceeds, we would anticipate those numbers would fluctuate, but never exceed that number. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Highway 112, which is, both to the east and to the north of this property. Deane Solomon Road, which is proposed to be realigned and has been discussed at prior rezoning of one portion of this property, and Salem Road, which is a planned collector. It's also, I believe, called Park West Boulevard through the property. It's an east/west collector street. Recommended improvements to the streets include a potential for a traffic signal at the future Park West and Highway 112. That, of course, would be in coincident with the actual development. Obviously, a traffic signal is not warranted right now with 112 an open field. So that would be either assessed or assessment contributed by the developer as development occurs and when it would meet the warrants, and be approved by the highway department, that's when the traffic signal would likely go in. And, of course, those recommendations would be made by staff to this Planning Commission as development occurs. Other improvements, of course, include widening of Highway 112. The realignment of Deane Solomon and any improvements associated with that, and contributions to a traffic signal at Van Asche and 112, which is directly north of this property. All of those improvements were mentioned in the traffic study that the applicant commissioned for this project. And again, as the development becomes more and more evident through large scale developments, we will look at those more in detail. Approximately a 7 -acre parkland dedication has also been indicated in the submittal. Of course, this project would have to go through the Parks and Recreation Board to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, but it is anticipated that parkland dedication would be dedicated or given by the applicant to meet our ordinance requirements on this property. They have also discussed with staff the possibility of a trail system to work with their, obviously, development ... which is dense in locations, to serve a wider network of the public. The applicant has also held several public meetings regarding this project, including three Ward 4 meetings. He also presented this as a concept plan, I believe, before you, is called a Graves- Vawter Concept Plan at that time before, actually, this PZD ordinance that Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 8 we have before us, was even passed or drafted. There are several criteria in your staff report. A couple of findings I would like to make, as you know, this is a zoning policy decision that have to go forward to the City Council, and looking at our zoning approval or rejection criteria for a Planned Zoning District, staff does find that this application provides for a mixture of residential, office, commercial, and mixed use, while also providing a portion of undisturbed area and usable open space. It utilizes principles of a traditional urban design to create compatible, livable, and accessible neighborhoods, as very well evidenced in the booklet that you have in front of you, with many of the images. It also transitions and manages nonresidential development within an adjoining residential neighborhoods. Density, the maximum dwelling units, and maximum intensity have been addressed for each planning area. I do have -- in looking at what we present to you on Thursday, at the agenda session, I have updated that exhibit `A' that follows the staff reports, to be more consistent between the planning areas. Most of those uses, for instances, lot width minimums are varied in some and did not in others, and if I felt, as staff, it would be more consistent throughout the development if they were the same. So I've prepared these to hand these out to you, and that way you can also reference them in your discussions with the applicant and with staff through this discussion tonight. Flexibility, just to keep in mind, flexibility within the development process is a possibility, because this applicant is proposing a planned zoning district. What's unique about the conceptual planned zoning district is that this is a Master Plan, over 140 acres, and in your booklet, for instance, you have street cross-sections. Staff has not evaluated all of the street cross-sections, because we don't know of those are appropriate to the exact development that's going in at the time of development. But what it does give the applicant the ability to do, which is different from just a standard zoning or a large scale development, is to propose a variety of street cross-sections. Staff will then evaluate those and makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission, therefore, doesn't have to go all the way to the full City Council every time something, that planned zoning district can vary, occurs. So I did want to make that point. I'll pass out these new exhibit "A's" for your use and I'll highlight real quickly what those changes are. They should be relatively easy to see. I've color copied these with highlighted changes. Planning Area three is the first change. Staff had agreed to actually recommend a maximum of seven stories as opposed to four, that was a typo in our staff report, for the plaza condominium area. As you can see, if you read the actual description of this area, it is intended to be a more dense -- densely developed area. Is not adjacent to single-family residential uses. It's actually adjacent to open space and commercial -- a commercial lot in this commercial planned zoning district for Springwoods. Also, with regard to the lot width Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 9 minimum and lot area minimum, there were several items where we felt it would be more consistent for those areas, and so the lot width minimum on all of these properties are 30 feet and 3,000 square feet, respectively. That's the majority of the changes. Planning Area 13, staff has also stricken some of those lot width minimums, because there are no single- family, two-family, or three-family uses proposed, therefore, there wouldn't need to be a standard created for that, and we have stricken those. Also, in Use Unit 14, dance halls was moved to a Conditional Use, as opposed to a Permitted Use, due to the fact than another section of our ordinance, specifically requires dance halls to be reviewed as a Conditional Use, much like outdoor eating -- outdoor music establishments in all zoning districts have to be a Conditional Use, and the Planned Zoning District does not vary every aspect of our code. It does specifically vary and allows the applicant to request variances or waivers, or changes in some aspects or if a development in the zoning code, but not all, and that's part of the learning curve in looking at a Planned Zoning District, what you can vary and what your can't. I believe, two weeks ago we discussed the sign ordinance and items that can't be varied, with regard to that, and so some of those issues have been addressed here. If you'll reference Page 5 of 46 in your staff report as submitted with the booklet that you have in your hand, as submitted by the applicant for Park West, staff is prepared to recommend this item be tabled. However, with the exhibit "A" that you have before you, just passed out tonight, the applicant does have a copy. Those address the issues that staff was concerned about in the zoning criteria charts, and if those are amended -- if the Planned Zoning District is amended to adopt these specific zoning criteria, staff is willing to recommend approval of this Master Development Plan Planned Zoning District. There are 20 conditions which would need to be met, and some of those are for the Planning Commission to discuss tonight, including parking spaces and the ratios proposed there; one per 300 for all nonresidential uses in the Mixed Use planning areas. Master Street Plan amendments, those are not -- those are something that the Planning Commission would see as development occurs. Again, we did not evaluated exactly where those Master Street Plans are going, but it would likely be modified, both on the east/west collector and where Deane Solomon currently is located. As we've discussed a couple of times, would be ... would likely be modified to be realigned to the ease. Item Number 6, vacation of existing easements and rights-of-way may be necessary, and I believe, everything else is -- has been addressed at least, briefly, tonight. So if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 10 Hoskins: Good evening, I'm Tracy Hoskins, Paradigm Development. We're here tonight to present to you Park West, one of the largest and most intricate project that we believe ever has come through the City of Fayetteville. We worked a long time on this project. I think it's been a year and a half. It's the same project we've brought before you about a year and a half ago, as a concept plat, and we spoke with a few of the Council members as well, and staff, and it was very, very well received. So with that we went back and started developing that project. Since then it's undergone a multitude of changes with the help from staff and they've been very instrumental in helping us design the project. And after doing some, you know, countless hours of research and some traveling across the country, we believe we have finally come up with one of the better -- one of the best concepts we've come up with for the project. We're here to answer any questions you have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Hoskins. At this point I will call for any public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this Planned Zoning District, please step forward. Just state your name for the record and share your comment. Blouin: My name is Chuck Blouin. My primary concerns are wetlands, and I assume that's appropriate to deal with tonight? Okay. On the -- there's a whole series of wetlands on this property, and most of them are protected. An area that I'm concerned with is the northeast area of the development. I have a map here from the Corp of Engineers, there's a delineation report that shows that. I don't know if you can see that. Do you have it with you? Not Tracy Hoskins report -- I mean, from the Corp. Ostner: It's the northwest corner of the site, sir? Blouin: Northeast. Ostner: Northeast corner, okay. Blouin: (inaudible) here east of the pond on the (inaudible) part of the property. Ostner: Okay. We're all looking at it on our drawings. Blouin: Okay. There's a considerable amount of T-2 and T-3 wetlands there, which are mitigateable. There are no T- Is there, Tracy is protecting those. We would like to see those areas protected. That's a very difficult area to build on. Per the delineation report, Corp of Engineers, Mel Milholland, they state that that area is very severe, and severe to build on, depending on Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 11 what you can do, dwellings, parks. We would like to see, if possible, because they have that area protected in some way, you can't see it on your map, but on this you can see it's a high concentration of wetlands -- and I'll be happy to show this to anybody if you like to see it. This is a Corp of Engineer document, and Mel Milholland, document. That's about it. Ostner: Okay. Well, how large is the area you're talking about? Blouin: The area -- Ostner: Approximately. Blouin: I can't give you the acreage. It's -- there's 10 areas of wetlands in there. Ostner: Okay. Blouin: T-2 and T-3 (inaudible). Ostner: We will try to address your concerns. Blouin: Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Blouin. Fink: Good evening, I'm Bryan Fink and I'm over at Crystal Springs Subdivision, and just here this evening just to find out what I can about the project as well. I just had a couple of questions I want to get some clarification on when it came to the dwelling numbers. I didn't quite hear in the back what the break down was on the 17 hundred plus dwelling units. If those were apartments, single family residences, and so forth. I just wanted to get a little clarification on that, because some of the folks will ask me when I get back to our board meeting. Ostner: Okay. Well, it's a mixture, but this is purely a land use discussion to night. Fink: Okay. Ostner: So they will have to come forward with piece of land that they develop -- Fink: Okay. Ostner: -- and request approval again, and at that point their specific number of units and which types will be laid out here. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 12 Fink: Okay. Ostner: So -- Fink: So tonight we really don't know any of that at this point, but we will -- Ostner: Well, we have maximums per zoning area. We're basically rezoning or -- Fink: Okay. Ostner: -- considering a rezoning request. And the 17 hundred is the maximum number that we're discussing that would be allowed. Fink: Okay. But we don't the -- how many of those might be apartments or condos or those kind of things, yet? That will be dealt with later? Ostner: We could ask the developer or staff. We will try get some numbers for you here. Fink: Okay. Ostner: I don't have it in front of me. Fink: That's fine. That's just something that I know the Crystal Springs board will -- would like for me to be able to report back to them on it at some point. So that was the main thing, we just wanted to hear kind of what's going on with the dwellings over there. You know, again, traffic flow with the new school going in and other things is just a big concern for us at this time, so just want to share that again. Thank you, again. Appreciate it. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fink. Please, step forward and give us your comment. Benedict: Mr. Chairman Ostner: Yes, sir. Benedict: Esteemed members of the Commission, friendly attorney. I want to thank you for the opportunity to say a word or two relative to this development, which I must say when I saw the -- or was present for the presentation at the Ward 4 meeting --last meeting, I was astounded by the marvelous idea of the concept of this type of a development as great and I salute Perry, and Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 13 whoever worked with you to come up with this concept and the idea of being the first one in Fayetteville area. I think this is great, I really do. Ostner: If you could share your name, sir. Benedict: I'm sorry. Ostner: That's okay. Benedict: My name is Dale Benedict. My wife, Marti and I own the property which is contiguous to this development, and we are -- we have been concerned about that whole area for a number of years. And in fact, I would like to share, if I may, one page to each members of you from Mr. Perry Butcher, who made this presentation a few years ago. Ostner: Just hand it to me and I'll pass them out. Benedict: We all want, if anything, a better Fayetteville, and this looks real good to me. I have a concern, two concerns, one is, was already been addressed by Chuck Blouin, and I would like to readjust one paragraph from the letter from which you have before you. This is from Mr. Butcher, quote, "I believe this is a major wetland issue involving the entire valley, extending from the bypass westward beyond Salem Road. This area serves as a natural drainage system, which should not be disturbed. The area is a marshland, and inappropriate for construction. Will tend to dam up the flow of subsurface water, thus causing structural complications, structural complications as well as restricting the flow of subsurface water. Additionally, consideration should be given to require special footage design to accommodate the subterranean water and lessen the possibility of damming up the valley's natural system." Now, if that could be done, hey, I'm for it. I don't know if any of you have on your property crawfish coming out in the yard -- see they come up from below, do you? Probably not. But as you drive out our drive to Highway 112, every year as I told Mr. Hoskins, we have an influx of crows. They come to visit, not us, but the inhabitants of those holes from beneath, crayfish, they feed on them. Well, they have to come from somewhere, they don't just walk across the dry land. That means there is a situation beneath the soil and on south, which is comfortable for crawfish, and a good feeding ground for crows. I just say, think about this and if you were to buy, and it could maybe taken care of, and if it can, that's great, but if it can't, and if you were to buy a dwelling place that is on the top of wetlands, in two or three years, how comfortably will you be with that decision? That's all. Think about it and to resolve that, let's do it. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 14 Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Is there any further public comment? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section, and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I'll go ahead and start, asking the question of the applicant. I suppose, if you're aware of this area and if you have any proposal for it? Hoskins: We're very aware of the area and the conditions. Again, something I didn't mention before, is we would like to give you a short power point tonight as well. But as we get deeper in the conversations tonight, we will probably already address some of those questions that they brought up. I'm going to move that away from me just a little bit (the microphone). I'm going to break it instead. All right. Mr. Blouin that's with the Benedicts, Mr. Blouin works for the Benedicts and we've had a few discussions, and the primary discussion for the neighbors to the north have been wetlands. And the maps that he refers to were created by Milholland Engineering and my company. Those maps that -- or the analysis that we did, of course, is protocol to send that in to the Corp of Engineers, you wait around for them forever. They send some folks up from Little Rock, tell you everything you did wrong, tell you everything you did right, go back and write their own report, and tell you to redo it. So the map that he is referring to was generated at our expense, actually. And he is correct, there are wetlands all over that valley as Mr. Butcher had quoted. Mr. Butcher lives in the area, by the way. Since then, I think Crystal Springs -- all phases have been built. There's a school going out there who've had their property analyzed prior to buying it from me. Where they're going to place the new school, you've got Springwoods, you've got -- etcetera. So there's no doubt that in that area it is a drainage basin, and with different soils you address them different ways. When we -- for instance, in this report that he was referring to, the T-2 and T-3 wetlands. I expected Tom to be here tonight to address this, and maybe he walk in behind me, but I'm not a wetland person. I don't know that much about, but from what I understand there's different qualities of wetlands and these are two very low quality wetlands. We have every intention of complying with the Corp of Engineers reports migitating as what's proper to mitigate. In the entire 106 -acre site, actually it's 140 acres, but of that, the lower area or whatever, is 106 acres. I don't know this number exactly, but I think there was a total of three to four acres of wetlands, and most of that primarily being concentrated to the south part of the property, which we're staying out of. There's also a drainage ditch across the property with mature trees, etcetera. That's slated to be preserved as well. Anything that's worth preserving, where already preserving, whether it's low quality or high quality. And on top of that, whatever is high quality that we are preserving we're enhancing as well, we're going to expand as well. But again, like I said, Milholland will have Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 15 to address that further. As far as the areas to the north of the property, that the Benedicts were referring to possibly being preserved, what I understand is these are very small areas that where, you know, a cow or for lack of -- or what have you, a tractor or whatever, put an indent in the ground so they could see some things emerging. That's why their T-2 and T-3, the lowest quality -- or the lower quality. As far as -- somebody had mentioned the soils or what have you, that this would be a severe area to develop in. As I know the report as I think I know the report, they weren't just referring to that area. In fact, they did not refer to that area specifically. They referred to the entire site, and they're correct. The entire site, you know, different areas of town have different soils underneath it, and you handle those soils differently. It doesn't mean you can't develop on them and develop on them responsible -- responsibly. You need more engineering, you may have to undercut your streets a little bit more. You may have to raise some streets or what have you, to get -- you'll get things drained. But that's all done through the engineering process. As far as, Mr. Fink, from Crystal Springs, I would like that Crystal Springs would be ecstatic about this project. We're going to be providing a lot of connection for Crystal Springs to get to Highway 540 a lot faster with the, you know, pretty major streets. Realignment of Deane Solomon Road to take away that dangerous intersection. There's a lot of things that we're doing, installing traffic lights, lots and lots of things that I'm sure we'll discuss further this evening. But I think the Crystal Springs and any of the other neighborhoods out there would be tickled about this particular development. I believe that's all I've got. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: If you could, I don't know if you have -- this packet does go through the number of dwelling units, and if they're interested, I assume they can contact you and get a copy of those type of issues? Hoskins: Yeah, absolutely. That -- the 17 hundred, I believe it's 17 hundred and 12 dwelling units, that is -- that is for everything that can possibly be lived in. Okay. That is for single family -- attached single-family, detached, for all zonings; apartments, condominiums, etcetera. That's spread over 140 acres is -- when you consider it's that spread over 140 acres, it's not -- and a lot of it's apartments, that's not such a staggering number. As far as -- I think he had also asked about -- about apartments as far as the density, etcetera. The development is designed off of basic city ordinances that we now have. RMF -24,36, RMF -40. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 16 Ostner: Okay. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. I have a question for staff. Ostner: Yes, yes, sir. Trumbo: Jeremy, you were saying that currently, you couldn't support this project -- you're in support of tabling it, possibly, unless the applicant agreed to the changes made in the exhibit "A", is this your exhibit "A"? Pate: It is. Trumbo: Okay. And if the applicant is in agreement with all these changes, you would be able to support at this time. Pate: That's correct. We have discussed with the applicant, actually gone over this exhibit since Thursday, a couple of different times. I think there are some specific issues, but 90 percent of them, I believe, have been agreed to by the applicant, and he can speak for himself about which items that specifically he -- and just specific planning areas, again. I think it's number 13 or 14 that there are some uses that he would propose that staff could not support. Trumbo: Would the applicant like to speak to those issues? Hoskins: Sure. We made great headway today on this project, as a matter of fact. We have a little bit of an understanding of what staff is looking for and worked with staff on several occasions today to try to tweak this thing, so to speak and get more in line of what they were looking for, and more in line with what we could live with. With that, the only thing that I see now that -- the staff has on their report that -- it's not that big a deal to us. I mean, we can agree to it. In Planning Area 13 they have struck single, two and three family. We originally kind of really didn't anticipate those kinds of uses anyway, even though we did anticipate apartments, and he's provided for for apartments in that area. We'd like to had -- we'd like to have it in there, so we've got the opportunity to maybe build some townhouses, a few townhouses as opposed to all apartments or what have you. We'd like to have it there. Staff and I have agreed to, if they were in there, what of the land -- the bulk land area and regulations, we `ve agreed to that . So it's a matter of whether staff wants to allow us to put it back in there or not. We don't really have a problem if they don't. It just gives us the opportunity that, instead of being limited to -- okay, I think in this area, Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 17 I think it's 15 dwelling units I think. Well, instead of being limited to 15 apartments, we could do, you know, five apartments and 10 townhouses, or five apartments, five townhouses, and five single-family homes. It gives us some flexibility that we don't absolutely have to have. But we like to have it in there, but if staff is dead set against, we're not a problem -- don't have a problem with removing it. Trumbo: So you are in agreement? Hoskins: Yes, absolutely. Trumbo: Thank you. Vaught: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: It looks like in Area 13, it looks like there are town homes committed. I was just curious if you -- it doesn't allow single-family but it does have land area for dwelling units for town homes and apartments. Myres: Use Unit 26. Vaught: Huh? Myres: Use Unit 26 (inaudible) Vaught: Would encompass town homes, would it not Jeremy? Pate: It would have to be three or more units -- Vaught: Attached. Pate: Over three attached, correct. Vaught: And you're -- and I guess, Mr. Hoskins you were saying if you want to do two family attached homes, or -- because this allows town homes, just not duplexes. Hoskins: And I don't have any problem. We don't typically go for the duplex thing anyway. Vaught: Okay. I was just -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 18 Hoskins: Okay. So are you saying that we could do (referring to Mr. Pate) town houses as long as there is three or more attached together? Pate: I believe, the definition of multi -family is three or more. Hoskins: What's the definition of three family, then? Pate: Three or less. Let me check that. Hoskins: We got three in there twice, don't we. (Laughter) Hoskins: It means we can do six. Vaught: It looks like it struck the lot area minimums. Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicant while Jeremy is looking that up. Ostner: Uh-huh. Yes. Vaught: Could you go over -- you've got these preservation areas, botanical areas, and you have detention on there as well. Hoskins: Uh-huh. Vaught: Could you go over kind of your safeguards and what you're going to do in those areas to preserve them or protect them, or --where you are doing the detention, you know, what areas is that going to be -- you might not know yet. Is a detention going to be in those areas or is it going to be inside the development areas and -- how does that relate to the wetlands? Hoskins What areas that you see on there that are green, okay. Are -- there's over 20 acres of green area that we've preserved or are preserving enhancing or using for park. I think what the park area is about a total of 28 acres or so. We -- we're going to try to do something a little bit different. One of things that we're going to do is, we're going to try to sheet flow more of our drainage, you know, since the Audubon is to the south of us. You know, we may be able to work something out there. Maybe do some over - detaining up in the upper area to where we have less detention down in the bottom area. Those are all engineering questions that will come with time, but regardless, we have this notion that the detention pond doesn't have to be a dry ugly sump hole, and -- and, you know, we'd like to do some things with that. We'd like to dress them up with, you know, some botanical gardens, the City's walking trail. I don't see anything with putting a soccer Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 19 field or a badminton court in the bottom of the detention pond. So if we have a hundred year flood, nobody plays that day, I guess. That's just kind of non -organization. That's one of our pet peeves is dry open holes, and so we want the opportunity to utilize those as features, as opposed to, you know, putting a concrete trickle channel in the bottom of it and, you know, letting it sit there for absolutely nobody's good whatsoever, other than having to mow it. We've got a lot of ideas with this project, even in the preserved areas we have the intention of going in and enhancing these areas. Even though they are preserved, there are open areas that can have park benches and whatever, swing sets and trash, you know, trash receptacles, etcetera. You know, and again, we'll show you further on the presentation, and I'm just waiting on you all's cue on that. You'll kind of see what we've got -- what our ideas are for detention areas and parks, etcetera. They're a little bit -- they differ from the normal. Ostner: If you have short presentation, why don't you go ahead and -- I mean short. Ramsey: I totally -- Ostner: 10 -- five minutes, three minutes. Hoskins: He's going to talk to you as quickly as he possibly can. Ostner: All right. Ramsey: I'm from the south, I don't know how fast I can talk. My name is Jim Ramsey. An architect with Paradigm Development, and again, we thank you for the chance to bring a presentation to you, and I will try to go through it just as quick as I can. It's going to be some images and we'll just move right through them, and the presentation does not have a lot of specific items, like how wide is this sidewalk or something like that. It's to present the project from a concept standpoint. Conceptionally, why are we trying to do something different that just a regular development? We've looked at developments in the past, and also, no offense to anybody who owns stock in any of these companies, but we don't like big parking lots with lots of cars, and lots of asphalt, and lots of concrete, and no good places for people to live, or people to exist. We want to build a development that's based on humans and not on cars. Also, our residences in the project, we would like to have a little more friendly. Our street scapes, we would like to have a little more friendly than that. And some of those images are from Fayetteville and some of them are from everywhere else. We would like to do something better, and we'd like your help in doing that. We would like to create a place that has a distinctive district center, so that when somebody goes to Park West, they know when they've Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 20 arrived, they know when they're at the center, and it's a more memorable experience. Within Park West, we would like for everybody to be able to live there. You could work there, you could eat there, you could be entertained there, you could shop there. There would be -- it would be very pedestrian oriented. Our project is based on a five-minute walking radius from the center. So you could get anywhere in the whole development in about 10 minutes. We would also like good connection to the surrounding areas, and also to the existing trail system. We want inviting sidewalks where people would like to be. Some of the images I showed you very quickly earlier are not very inviting and we have sidewalks in town that are dangerous. They're not inviting, you don't feel like as a pedestrian you're wanted there. Great sidewalks come from great streets, and we are working with setback, establishing build to lines and setback lines that create an exterior space, an exterior room, and you will see some of that in the images that we have. Our buildings, I like the phrase, "uniform variety." We don't want it to look like one -- one project and all the buildings look alike and made out of the same material. It's just an amalgamation of that. We want a lot of variety. We would like to see a lot of different designers involved and a lot of different issues addressed with the architecture. We think people are happiest when there's more people around and fewer cars. Cars are happiest when there's few people around and lots of -- and lots of places to park. So we're after happy people in this development. Parking moves to the back rather than out in front of the buildings. Hide the parking behind vegetation or screening. Our buildings, we have a no big box rule. A big box store came to us about a year ago and was looking at getting in this project, and we said, "why don't you just go down the street, because we're after a human scaled environment in this." They are down the street, by the way. Our materials for -- our material pallet for this is quality materials, not temporary, you EIFS and T1-11 stuff. We believe that place should inspire somebody, should be memorable, have a character all of it's own, and not be a development that looks like it could be dropped in Bryant, Arkansas, or Bentonville, or wherever. It needs to have its own image and own idea. It needs to be safe. If we design it, we want it to fun. We want people to want to go there. We want people to want go there just to be there, even if they're not trying to buy something, even if they don't live there. We want to be responsible with the area and you'll see the way we layout. We just didn't lay a big grid over this and put in lots, but we tried to be environmentally friendly on the wetlands, and existing vegetation that's there. I'm going to show you some real quick images of what we would like for Park West to look like. None of these are specific buildings and -- for our project, but it just gives you an idea of what we're after. I love that picture on the right, doesn't that look like a fun place to be? I like this picture, because I'm not sure whether he Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 21 bought those flowers or what, for that. But that's the kind of ideas that we're after in Park West. It's located in the northwest part of Fayetteville. I apologize for not getting a smooth fly over on this. You can see where it is in relation to the interchange there at 540. The auto park down here, the drive-in theater, Highway 112. I love this thing -- Highway 112 comes around here, there's some existing drainage feature here, and also right through here, and right in this area, on the project. The zoning around the Park West development, R -A, RSF-4, up there where Honey Lane is. There's a residential single-family up here called Bell Claire and I did not have an aerial photo showing any of that, and I think I'm incorrect on this C-2 down here. I think this may be part of this same C-PZD over into this area. The new Sam's is going down in this park, down here. This is Salem Road right here. This is Deane Solomon to help get you oriented there. Again, these are the water areas that are on the site, and also vegetation highlighted there in those areas. The Master Street Plan calls for east/west connection from over here at Salem, to over here at 112. I think, currently, that connection is close to this water over here, and I don't remember if it's north or south of it. We'd like to pull it down south a little bit further. We feel that we need a strong connection to the north up here at Bell Claire and 112. Into this property here, a future connection, and then a connection to the south to the Springwoods area that's down here. And we'll look conceptually at what this connection might be over here where we would realign this part of Deane Solomon, to something right here. That way it would line up with the new entrance to the Bell Claire area. This shows a very organic layout for zoning areas. It's not just a big grid, but it kind of looks kind of whimsical here, but really what we're trying to do is maintain these areas of natural features. So that when the paving comes in and the street trees, and everything is put on, and this is just a conceptual building layout for the development, that they do not disrupt those water areas, especially down here in the southern part of the site where we'll just maintain this large buffer here. I'm going to blast through these real quick. These are just the phases and what some of the buildings could like, what some of our ideas are for those areas -- townhouses -- there's a wide variety of styles and density on the -- in the townhouse market. A very downtown oriented pedestrian type environment. This would be our civic lawn, it's held open for a public space, and I love the Monet' painting of the party there at the park. This is more of the mixed use areas, all of it very pedestrian. You can park in back and walk all over this place. Multi- family residential, which has a wide variety -- a wide possible variety of apartment type facilities, potentially with commercial up here along the street. I like this image here, when was the last time somebody came out and checked your oil and cleaned your windshield. We would like a Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 22 service station, not a gas station. We would like service station here. That's a possibility. Audience: Just can't find somebody that will do it. Ramsey: More of a mixed use area, toward the south. Ostner: Mr. Ramsey, I hate to interrupt you, but this very nice, but this is in our packets. So if you could wrap it up, we would -- Ramsey: Okay. Courtyard multi -family, potential plaza -type condominium -- and I think that's about it. I'll just pop these up here real quick of different park ideas of very heavily designed park, to a more natural area like that -- and some quotes there. Anyway, thank you for the chance to present this. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Pate: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Pate. Pate: Multi -family is more than three attached units to the question of Commissioner Vaught. Vaught: What was -- Ostner: Okay. Vaught: -- I'm sorry? Pate: More than three. Vaught: Okay. Ostner: So it would need to be four or more to qualify. Pate: More than -- Ostner: Okay. Pate: Staff does not have a problem introducing those uses. What we do not want to do is introduce new use units in a project you already had, and request that the applicant bring up any of those changes if they were -- if they felt that they would like to add them. But the residential uses, Use Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 23 Unit 9, which is two family. Use Unit 10, which is three family, I think could be incorporated within the overall design concept of the project, and not be detrimental in Planned Area 13. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Lack: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Lack. Lack: I had a -- just a few questions, and almost oddly enough, too, my I have a few questions for staff. One, on the review and the exhibit "A" suggestions. And one of those -- with the regulation of the Unit width, it seems like what you've suggested that we should not do -- it seems like that that is something in that our Downtown Ordinance we are establishing a minimum width of lot width coverage, and that is, of course, to maintain the street scape and to contain the street. But here you suggested that we don't -- that that is not a zoning issue that we should pursue. Would you like me to -- would you like to -- Pate: I think I know what you're referring to. The reason we, again, the reason we felt that was inappropriate at this time, is because the actual Unit width, and that's speaking to a dwelling unit. So the actual width of a dwelling unit within one of these structures is not a zoning criteria issue, building code perhaps, there's obviously some -- probably some minimum widths for -- I think we've talked about it at the Downtown Zoning Code meeting last Thursday night about how you can create those places and it be appropriate. However, as part of a zoning criteria chart in a planned zoning district, we didn't feel it was appropriate to actually identify this specific unit minimum as part of zoning. If the applicant wishes to establish a minimum -- I can't remember what we called it in the Downtown Zoning Code, but a minimum lot frontage, essentially 85 percent of the lot has to be covered. 90 percent of the frontage of the tot has to covered. Lack: Right. Pate: That would be something that we could look at, certainly. Because I think that's the character that they're going after. Lack: Okay. Pate: Especially in the middle of the property, the core, which I would see as the downtown core -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 24 Lack: Right. Pate: Or in this particular Planning Area 11, which tends to be there central district. Lack: Okay. And I think that might be a -- might be a good distinction that they could adapt to and still achieve that goal. There were -- there was one classification for a request for a reduction of street setback to 10 feet on all streets, other than Park West, and then Park West would be a 30 -foot setback. And you had suggested that that was not appropriate. Pate: Planning Area Number 11, is that what you're referring -- 11 and 12? Lack: I'm sorry. I didn't write that one down to which planning area. Pate: There was some -- some confusion, actually, with regard to the central area. There was an 8 to 12 -foot build to line proposed, and then there was a setback of 30 feet from a specific street cross-section. And because we weren't approving the street cross-sections, we didn't feel it was appropriate to reference that cross-section in this actual zoning document, because that might not be the case. If there is another way to put that, I think understand the idea behind it -- to allow for a plaza or something else out front along the civic line. If that's what you're referring to? Lack: Right. Well, and -- and to be able to reduce the setback to less than 30 feet in those more urban conditions to contain the street, and to not open that room up so that it's not containable with 60 feet of setback, besides the street width. Pate: Right. Ostner: I'm going to let Mr. Lack continue. Lack: And the other question that I have -- at Sections 11 and 12, you suggested that they not give rein to dance halls and outdoor music, and I think that within our Downtown ordinance, which is -- which is certainly the case for most of the areas, but it is something that we're initiating in the Downtown ordinance, that we have an Overlay District within a certain area that allows that by right, and I wonder if that's -- could be seen as something more of a developmental preference and as to whether that would be appropriate. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 25 Pate: We did initially look at that, but there are some conflicting parts of the code that would actually have to change if the Downtown Zoning Code is passed too. Because specifically dance halls and outdoor establishments are required to go through a Conditional Use process regardless of the zoning district. So even if you zone this PZD and show it on the chart, it would still have to come back through Conditional Use, because that would over - - overrule essentially, anything else that you established. Lack: Okay. Pate: That's one of the comments I was getting to. That the Planned Zoning District ordinance doesn't just sort of waive all the other ordinances in the Unified Development Code. There's certain ones that are specifically looked at and -- for instance, signs, or the Supplementary District's chapter. We would have to look at a UDC amendment to allow for this change to occur in conjunction with the Planned Zoning District. So it's a little more complicated than that. And if the Downtown Zoning Code does allow for that, and we do see that as a plus. Outdoor music establishments, for instance, maybe they don't need a Conditional Use. Then we would bring forward to the Planning Commission, the City Council, along with the Downtown Zoning Code, an amendment to that specific ordinance. So that's why we put those in there. Not that we don't think they're inappropriate, especially on a civic lawn, for instance, an outward sort of music. I think that would be perfectly appropriate -- Lack: Sure. Pate: -- and it still be allowed by conditional use. But at this time we can't vary all those ordinances. Lack: And certainly, if we did go forward with that in the Downtown ordinance, that would maybe give catalyst for the applicant to be able to come back at a later date and challenge that. Pate: Correct. Lack: Thank you. Ostner: I believe Mr. Hoskins has some comments. Hoskins: If I may respond to Commissioner Lack. The setback that you bad brought up or what have you, along Park West Boulevard, ranges between 8 and 12 feet, and that's actually not a setback, it's a build -to line to be able to create Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 26 that outdoor space. In one instance, which is across from the civic lawn, on the north side of Park West, not on the north side of Park West Boulevard, excuse me. You have the civic lawn on the south side and there's no building there, so there's nothing to set that scale in that area. So we wanted the opportunity, across the street from the civic lawn on the north side of Park West, to be able to set that building back further. It can still be built at 8 to 12 feet back, whatever it is in that area, but there's an opportunity to set that back further as far as 30 feet to give us a situation where you might have a plaza or more greenspace on the front of that building. Because that's actually what you're comparing it to when you're standing, you know, on Park West and you look to the right and you look to the left, you're comparing green to green, as opposed to building to building. And so it's only that one case where we have that -- that modification of the setbacks. Now that you brought this up, this specifically why we want -- we most definitely want to address street cross- sections in this PZD. It's our understanding that it is more appropriate to address them that at a later time. However, the design principles of this PZD are directly related to those street cross-sections. Their setbacks, you know, how may cars you're going to put on these streets, etcetera. There's no street cross-sections that I know of that we're not currently using or that's not being proposed in the -- either the Hillside ordinance or the Downtown Master Plan. I don't know of any streets that we've even asked for that -- that are under 21 feet wide, and in most cases, are very standard streets. However, you know, if today, you know, we all loved the project and we don't discuss streets, well, the next Planning Commission or the next City Council, you know, they may not like this project so much, and they may think that we need 15 -lane roads down everything. So we're a little bit at risk there by not having, at least an understanding of, what we'll be presenting in the very, very near future. Or you know, I guess some kind of a consensus that, you know, we expect to see these -- these varying street cross-sections coming in and we support them now, so we'll support them then, at least something . And then as far as the outdoor music, of course, you know, with this project as you can tell, you know, the street life is -- needs to be vibrant as possible. If -- if some guy comes in to town and wants to sit on a bench in the civic lawn and pick his banjo, I'd hate to tell him, "wait a minute, we've got to go get a permit first." I mean, I think that it just -- the notion of having to get a permit every time somebody wants to sit down and play a guitar or -- or what have you, is just detrimental to the project. If there was something for the city attorney to come up with to where we didn't have to do that, we think that would be lovely. Thank you. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 27 Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I have a couple of questions on -- on the streets and connectivity. I guess we'll determine -- we have recommendations for -- not recommendations for street improvements, but those we'll all decide at the time of development of each of these projects. Does that take into account the overall impact when we're looking at off-site and surrounding -- I know that -- I know that Sam's Club is responsible for some additional improvements to the south of this, but they're currently litigating that license. So Sam's Club is on hold -- everything says they'll still build it. But if that doesn't build out and some of those improvements which we're kind of counting on are necessary, that will all be determined -- because what I'm worried about is when these come through piecemeal, the rational nexus for those offsite improvements, the overall project makes sense. But maybe not to, you know, the single-family portion of -- or something. When we have a clarity of what's going to happen with that, are we going to look at those off-site improvements to be made if they're deemed necessary at -- I guess in what point in this phase do we do that? Pate: I think Mr. Williams will agree, it has to be based on a rough proportionality that the development that's being proposed at that time. So a traffic signal with the very first phase is not likely going to be required. Potentially, an assessment for a later phase to pick up that -- or third or fourth down the road, which is how we would typically do a development. And yes, it will take into consideration, what other projects are going on. If the property directly east develops or to the north develops, they would likewise be contributing to those improvements based on what development they're proposing as well. So, Sam's Club, I believe, probably went above and beyond. They proposed a tot of improvements for their project and they were under Construction Plan Review, so I know they're going forward, at least at this point. So I think, again, it's just based on whatever they -- whatever they propose first, a single-family component, which indicted as Phase I up to the northwest of the site likely will not be building a Collector Street all the way to Highway 112. So I think that we'll have to just look at that as those come through. Vaught: And that was my other question. They've got suggested improvements, I guess, as they phase through. Pate: Correct. Vaught: That east/west connection is very important. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 28 Pate: Right. Vaught: I feel, and you run the risk of, you know, always it not being built out because of something happening, and the later phase is dropping, but the timing of that connection is something to determine. That large scale say, if the first half of Lot 11 comes through and we could require the whole stretch of the road be built since it's one property owner, or are we just -- because right now his phasing schedules have, you know, the first half of the road in Phase 11, but, you know, if we deem it important to connect through to Deane Solomon, is that something at that time that we can require to be -- Pate: It -- yes, and the reason we're not making specific recommendations on exactly when that occurs right now, is because these are -- these are maximums that you're looking at. So the zoning criteria is based on the maximum density or maximum intensity. It may develop at half of that or three-quarters of that, or it may be fully developed at that -- at that allowance. But we have to base those on real numbers, not projected numbers about what might develop; three-story, four-story. So I think we have to be careful, and look at it and evaluate it at that time. Vaught: I guess, Mr. Hoskins, the reason that I'm asking is that we looked at another PZD recently with a real long build -out time table. Hoskins: Uh-huh, uh-huh. Vaught: And it's just hard for us as a Commission to be able to plan that far out. And when I'm looking at street improvements and even the timing of the phases, I understand why you're doing it as you are, but also knowing that as things develop in this area, there is going to be importance to some of those connections possibly made earlier or what not, so I'm just inquiring about that. Because I think you've got 12 years for your build -out. Hoskins: We're basically anticipating a little bit longer than that, actually. Vaught: Yeah. Hoskins: We're thinking this is a 15 -year project. We hope to kill it in three, but we don't think that's going to happen. These -- the improvements that we have -- said that we would take care of or have offered up or what have you, are improvements, not things that, you know, that we come up with. We had a traffic study down about a year and a half ago, and the traffic study said, "well, this is what you're looking at, you need to do this and Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 29 this, and this," etcetera. Well, since then and as this thing has taken different shapes, some densities have changed, etcetera. The fact that Trucker's Drive has been abandoned all the way to Deane Solomon Road now, that that road is only servicing Sam's and a couple of lots in Springwoods, you know, no longer a Collector Street, etcetera. We have since had that traffic study updated. It's in the process of being updated now. The information that we gave to the traffic consultants this time, it includes exactly what you saw here tonight. Everything that we're proposing. Not only just the densities and what's going to happen once it's all built, it's everything that happens between now and then. We've even given them our street cross-sections, our street sizes, when we plan on putting those streets in, etcetera. Anything that we -- they can possibly come up with about this subdivision. They're not taking into consideration the potential bond issue that may get cleared next year. I don't know that they're even taking Sam's Wholesale Club's improvements into consideration. I don't know that they're even doing that. I do know that we will be responsible for installing a traffic light at Park West Boulevard and Highway 112, and contributing to one at Van Asche, because they're expecting 80 percent growth rate per year out there. So I think -- I think the traffic consultant has mentioned that owe 36 percent of it or something, but if that realignment of Deane Solomon Road, the size of Park West Boulevard, when it should be installed, and etcetera, that's all in the upcoming traffic report. So far from everything that, you know, we've talked to them about, and from everything that we've presented to them, we think we're pretty dead on of how we have the thing proposed. We did initially look at putting in Park West Boulevard all the way across to begin with. It was absolutely cost prohibitive. We couldn't do it. We could not afford to do it and -- and regain -- or recoup the money out of it and the interest carry, etcetera, considering how long it would take to get this thing totally built out. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I'd like to ask Jeremy -- Ostner: Were you done Mr. Vaught? I'm sorry, he still has the floor really. Vaught: Well, you know, I know we'll look at it. I just see it as important, especially with the single-family, providing as many outlets as possible and I know in Planning Area 3 you've got that road proposed through, and I just think that's important. You know, I want to see -- you know, the Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 30 more we build out there, the more I think it's important to get people away from that corner up there on 112, and allowing that flow through the development early on is important. I know you have some roads proposed, which we will review later, I know, I just -- Hoskins: Are you talking about Deane Solomon Road? Vaught: No -- well, you've got Deane Solomon Road, but also -- most of the traffic coming to even the residential is going to come 112 and take that -- those bad corners on 112, and I know in -- in Planning Area 2, which is in Phase II -- Hoskins: Uh-huh. Vaught: -- there's a road that connects it to 112 around that curve and I think that's an important step early in the process -- Hoskins: Yeah. Vaught: -- as we look at road improvements. Hoskins: First Phase we'll fix those bad corners. The bad corner that you're speaking of is Deane Solomon Road and that tight turn to the north of Highway 112 -- Vaught: There's also one -- Hoskins: -- there in close proximity. That's the very first Phase, all that goes away the first phase. Vaught: Well, also the -- over by RTC there's that major corner -- Hoskins: Yeah. Vaught: -- that has some funky roads. Hoskins: It's a sweeping corner back, yeah. Vaught: That's it. Ostner: Okay. Commissioner Allen. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 31 Allen: I wanted to ask Jeremy if you feel that the developer has adequately addressed the situation with the wetlands in this project? Pate: Excuse me. I don't necessarily if I'm qualified to answer that question -- Allen: Coughing a lot -- why -- Pate: Yes, exactly. Or can answer the question. The Corp of Engineers, obviously, they -- they mandate what has to occur and what can occur with those protected wetlands, if they are protected. Mr. Hoskins has identified which wetlands are existing on the property and submitted that, and been accepted by the Corp of Engineers. And through each one of the development projects, he will be required to comply and submit that information to our engineering division, and they will look at that through each one of these specific development projects. We know, especially, to the south, I think there's a concentration of wetlands and wet areas. As you saw on the Power Point presentation, most of those drainage areas are actually being preserved in the botanical gardens and wetland preservation, and tree preservation areas. So I think they've gone to considerable extent to preserve those areas as much as possible, yes, ma'am. Allen: Okay. Thank you. And then I also wanted to ask the developer if they had involved Crystal Springs and other neighborhood associations as you've moved through this process. Whether you've had meetings with these neighbors and -- Hoskins: I don't know, because I didn't ask which subdivision they were from. So I don't know. I would assume that -- Allen: Well, the adjoining neighborhoods -- Hoskins: Yeah. We sent notices to the adjoining property owners on several occasions. Even from as recently as last week, because we we're tabled the first go around or what have you. So to invite them back to tonight's meeting we sent notices again. We've also talked to a lot of the neighbors, like, just one on one. Sat in one of them's house for two and a half hours one afternoon on Sunday, but anyhow -- I mean, I would assume that the Ward 4 meetings and Lioneld Jordan is pretty good about getting the word out, and we've had a pretty good turnout on them. I think the last Ward 4 meeting, the final, there weren't very many people there. But -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 32 Allen: Well, if we forward this on tonight to the Council, could you arrange to have a meeting with adjoining neighbors prior to the time that the Council sees this? Hoskins: Sure. We've met with all the adjoining neighbors. I mean, I don't know of any adjoining neighbors that we haven't met with or invited them to one of these meetings or what have you. But, yeah, I mean, that's not a problem, though. We'll visit with anybody, anytime. We like to talk. Allen: The Crystal Springs neighborhood association in particular -- Hoskins: Sure, absolutely. Ostner: Ma'am, we generally close the public comment section Audience: (inaudible) Ostner: So -- Audience: I (inaudible) to speak. We have (inaudible) Ostner: Well, ma'am, I understand, hold on just a second. We opened it for public comment and we announced it pretty clearly, and then I called for further public comment. I would -- Allen: We have process by which we can ask that we've discussed where we can ask someone to be allowed to speak who didn't have an opportunity. Didn't we talk about that in our -- Ostner: Would any Commissioners be opposed to me re -opening the floor to public comment? Clark: For this lady, no. Ostner: Okay. Ma'am, if you would like to step forward you are the person who is allowed to speak at this point, and we will come back to the applicant. BenedictM: I don't feel very comfortable doing this and there's a lot that I need to say. Ostner: If you could just give us your name. BenedictM: I'm Marti Benedict. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 33 Ostner: Okay. BenedictM: And we own Bio -Tech. Ostner: Okay. BenedictM: And we had adjoin their property for close to a mile. It's -- one side is a half a mile, and the other side is probably a quarter of a mile. So it's approaching a mile that we adjoin the property that is developing. And he is building -- what I have seen of his plans, there's several issues involved in this. We've been before the Planning Commission three times and have had it turned down three times because of the land -- Kit Williams knows about it, and Tracy has offered to buy our property, but not for enough that we could afford to move. We couldn't -- we can't afford to move, and he's going -- what I have seen, he's said that he's going to hide his parking. We'll he's going to hide his parking from his development, but not from us. He's going to back up his -- his buildings all along our property line so that we will see what's being hidden from -- from his development. And I would like to request -- when we bought our property and we had it rezoned, we had talk to all of the neighbors, and they came and they told us what they wanted. We had to comply with what they wanted and we did comply. Well, I would like a park -- a parking area -- a park area all along our property line. That's wetlands, it would be an ideal place for him to put a free area next to our property line and I would like for that to be seriously considered, please. Not only that after it's built, but while he's building it his dust is going to be on our property, his dirt is going to be on our property. We have a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility there and we live in the back of the area of the facility, and we're up a little higher, and his dust is going to come up on our property, and I just think that I would like to have a reserve all along. If he takes that wetland and reserves that, then he will do two things. He will protect us and he will protect the wetlands also, and I would like for that to be seriously considered, please. Ostner: And ma'am, you're -- I have a question for you. BenedictM: Yes. Ostner: And you're property is on the north edge? BenedictM: Yes, sir. Ostner: Okay. I think we've found it. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 34 BenedictM: We have 34 acres and it's a long -- a long property. Ostner: Okay. BenedictM: Thanks. Ostner: We will talk about that. Thank you. Graves: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Okay. Yes. Graves: I just have a question for staff about what the notification requirements are, because Crystal Springs is pretty far away from this piece of property on the map. I mean, it's outside the one -mile rein on our map here. Pate: The notification requirements for a Planned Zoning District are to notify all persons owning property within, I believe, 100 feet, if I'm not mistaken, of the property boundary. I can attest to at least some of the Crystal Springs members have been present at those Ward meetings, because I've got a number of e-mails from them just asking more specifics. I've actually made copies of plans for several neighbors in that -- in Crystal Springs to the west. But no, they would not be required to be notified by certified mail. Allen: But we do have an agreement that you would be happy to speak with them. Hoskins: Can I withdraw that? (Laughter) Clark: Mr. Chair. (Commissioner Myres leaves the room.) Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for the applicant. I'm looking at my plat and you're showing a preserved botanical detention area right along the Benedict's property line. Is that what I'm seeing? Hoskins: I believe -- it figures, I'm the only one without a picture, right? Sorry about that. Well, actually, there is a pond in the north area that is kind of a Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 35 wet area and I don't know that it's necessarily classified as wetlands, I don't think it is, but it's a beautiful feature, and we intend on keeping it and enhancing it actually. So that remains, but specifically for Ms. Benedict, that's why we put residential on the north side along the south of her property line, and if you'll notice too, on the west side of her, upper west side part of the property line. I mean, it's all residential and it's all single family. You don't get any more buffer than that, plus there's also, you know, requirements that we have, still by code, keep so much buffer between us and them. As far as the dust, I'm sure we'll probably make some dust out there, and there's nothing I can do about that. I guess it's good that it is kind of wetter area, it should keep the dust down. As far as - - I don't think the Benedicts are attached to me for a mile, because I'm not a mile wide. So I think our whole project is a couple, maybe a couple thousand feet or so, or whatever. So anyway, the only place that I know of that there maybe parking next to the Benedict's property would be just on the commercial frontage right up on Highway 112 where their driveway is at. Their driveway is actually right next to this, that's their gravel driveway right next to our property line as well. Clark: Thank you. Audience: It's asphalt. Hoskins: Excuse me, their right, it has been asphalted. I'm sorry. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Clark: Let me ask Jeremy a question. Every phase of this, and this is for clarification, Jeremy, should we pass this along to the Council and should the Council pass this, every phase of construction would have to come back through. So we will have the ample time to talk about wetlands, drainage, screening, all of the different concerns we've heard expressed tonight will be -- we'll be able to discuss them, correct? Pate: There will be either -- I would anticipate a combination in several literations, just like you've seen in Springwoods. There will be probably a large subdivision that breaks out large lots with some infrastructure installed, and then those larger lots would be either further broken down or developed as large scale developments individually as those projects development -- as they develop in time. Over the course of time there may be some smaller ones that are less than an acre that may not come back through, but they would still have to meet the same exact criteria here established in this book and all the standards. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 36 (Commissioner Myres returns to the room.) Motion: Clark: Okay. I just wanted everybody to know that there is going to be ample time for comment all along this process. I know personally as this come through -- this comes back through to us, I'm going to be looking for wetlands, connectivity, greenspace, there's a whole list of things. But tonight land use and the concept behind that land use is what I'm focusing on, and I -- as long you, the developer agrees with the new Exhibit "A" requirements that staff has put forward tonight, I am prepared to move that we forward R-PZD 05-1796 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Clark -- Myres: I'll second. Ostner: -- a second by Commissioner Myres. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I just have one more thing. I love this project, it's a great idea, I wish we saw more things like this in town. The one -- the one thing that I -- in this area of town is a little unique, as you know, with Springwoods to the south, and I love to see as we go forward some coordination with the Audubon, even on some measures to reduce the chemicals in the runoff. I know that Sam's went way -- way above and beyond, but I think there are some things we can do to help control that. The chemicals I think are what they worry about as they go in. We don't have regulations on that, but, you know, I think that's an important thing to do is coordinate, as that can be a jewel for the city and you guys, being so close to that nature preserve. So, but that's all I have to say. I'm ecstatic enough -- Jefcote: Let me address a few things real quick. Ostner: Yes, sir, please go ahead. Jefcote: And assure you of our intentions and what has been done so far. In addition, with contacting the Corp of Engineers -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 37 Ostner: If you could introduce yourself, sir? Jefcote: Tom Jefcote, Milholland and Company. In addition to coordinating with the Corp of Engineers and receiving their concurrence on the wetland delineations, there were -- there are three distinctively different types of wetlands, and the wetlands on the north part of which we're talking about or are that the most concern is being expressed about on the north side, these are very marginal low -quality wetlands that are more of a supplier feeders to the major east/west ditch land that's there, and they are not true classified wetlands. But they are emerging wetlands that will never completely emerge because of the lack vegetation, the lack of drainage. There's not enough hydraulics there to support the growth of wetlands. So they are a pasture land wetlands, which is the way the Corp classifies them, a very low quality wetlands. The high quality wetlands are on the north -- are on the south side, are the established waterways there. Those are the ones that are being protected and that would be costly to mitigate for, and therefore we've avoided those from development standpoint. The low quality wetlands are very easily mitigated for and an enhancement of the existing wetlands are very desirable. They enhancements along the south property line -- because of the way the pasture has been setup historically, we've got overland flow. We do not have a point discharge along our south property line, and through negotiations with the City on sanitary sewer easements and the multi -use trail systems that's along that way, we have approached doing overland flow there. Again, there are varying methods in which to do that. That process will just have to be worked out with the trial system. So there's a lot of detail and a lot of talking back and forth of how to accomplish some of these things just as you're asking for. Because the hydraulic land is on the south side, yes, large -- or detention facilities will facilitate the chemical runoff. There are methods in the drainage system from parking lots in which some of that can be trapped before it gets there, through sediment basins before it gets to the detention facility. All these things have been talked about and discussed, and they will have to be introduced in the construction phase. So yeah, we're very aware of that and we intend to all that that we can. Again, they are low quality wetlands on the north side. We do intend on continuing the sheet flow to the south by some method. I think that the Audubon society benefits greatly from the sheet flow, rather than dumping it into the ditches, and that's one thing that we're going to try to avoid and accomplish in assistance to them, yes. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion to forward and a second. Is there further comment before we vote? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 38 Pate: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Pate. Pate: I just want to clarify -- question the motioner. Is that as with the revised Exhibit "A" as passed out tonight? Clark: Yes, I'm sorry, yes. Pate: We'll incorporate that -- if it's passed we'll incorporate that into the staff report for City Council. Clark: Yes. Ostner: Okay. Will you call, please? Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 05-1796 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 39 PPL 05-1803: Preliminary Plat (MALLY WAGON ESTATES, 611): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. For property located at HWY 16E, S 2/10 MI ON MALLY WAGON RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 24.68 acres. The request is to a approve a residential subdivision with 76 single family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item is a Preliminary Plat 05-1803 for Malty Wagon Estates. If we could have the staff report, please? Pate: The property in question is located south of Highway 16, 2/10 of a mile on Mally Wagon Road. This property is located outside of the City of Fayetteville in our Planning Area, and contains approximately 25 acres. This is a request for a preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 75 single family lots proposed, along with one lot for park land in the amount of, I believe, 1.2 -- 1.12 acres and additional two lots for detention. On September 6, 2005, the City Council approved a resolution to allow extension of sewer service outside the city's corporate limits to this parcel, which was an unusual action, a policy decision made by the City Council for this property in -- specifically. It was granted with expressed conditions that the applicant agreed to develop in accordance with all city standards, as if the development was located within the city, and that all current impact fees, including water, sewer, and parks land, and future enacted impact fees if in existence when development occurs shall be paid as if the parcel was within the city limits. As you know, the Fayetteville City Council has passed two additional impact fees since that time to include fire and police, and those impact fees would be paid by this developer, even those services may not be provided at this time. However, there is a legally binding -- in the legally binding contract, as soon as possible, the owners of the property will be required to annex into the city limits of the City of Fayetteville. Staff is recommending approval of this preliminary plat with a total of 22 conditions of approval. Again, we reviewed this project much as if it were in the city limits, including lot area, lot minimum widths, the size of streets, and rights -of -ways. The implementation of all our city street standards, including sidewalks, street lights, curb and gutter, detention, park land dedication, tree preservation. So all of that has been reviewed with regard to this project, which does make it unique. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission determination of street improvements be that the applicant is responsible for improving Malty Wagon Road, or adjacent to the subject property, to include 14 feet from centerline, curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 4 foot sidewalk. Additionally, to widen Malty Wagon Road to a minimum of 20 feet of pavement between Street F and Lot 78, and from the northern property line to Huntsville Road with asphalt overlay as needed to be Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 40 determined by the city engineer. There are -- there were at the Subdivision Committee meeting there was photographs submitted that indicates that most of this road is 20 feet wide. I think it's in one or two small areas that would need to be widened, as well an evaluation of the existing street condition and pavement section would be needed at the time of construction plan review, and if an overlay was needed that would be determined by the city engineer at that time. Additionally, Item C, the applicant would be responsible for constructing a left turn lane on Mally Wagon Road at the intersection of Huntsville Road that is indicated on Page 2 of the plat. All of the other conditions of approval are relatively standard, with the exception of those that are unique to this project regarding fire, police, water, and sewer impact fees. Also, each lot owner or builder will be required to submit an application for a building permit, even those this in the county and we don't typically require that. Staff is recommending approval. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hearne: My name is Kipp Hearne, with H2 Engineering. I also, Crystal Goedereis is here, representing Hays Family Development. We are -- we are in approval -- in agreement with all the conditions of approval. There are two items, however, that we have -- just need a little clarification on, Number 7, in regards to the structures and setback with our landscaped areas. The intent there is to have a little facility for school kids to stay in, you know, in poor weather conditions, that's waiting on the school bus and that kind of thing. We've got that designed in the two entrances there. We've platted that as common property or POA owned property. But I think there may be an issue there with setbacks. That was discussed a little bit there at Subdivision Committee, I don't know if we ever reached an agreement with that. The other issue is with Item 17. We would just like a little clarification there. Since there has been so much discussion in regards to the improvements from our property north to Highway 16. I just wanted to say that it is our understanding that the street lights on Mally Wagon would just be on the portion that fronts our property. We would be happy to answer to any questions. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Hearne. Goedereis: Hi. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner and fellow Commissioners. My name is Crystal Goedereis, and as you know we started this project well over a year ago. It was not my intent to set out to do something that hadn't been done before by getting the city sewer and water, but we did so in an effort Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 41 to see something happen that we felt really needed to happen, and that was to have affordable housing. So you go out in the county, find a piece of ground that's close enough that still has a Fayetteville address. You work you tail end off and a year later you end up here, and everything has been met, except that one goal. I have no objections, because everything that the staff has done has been absolutely wonderful. Everything that everybody has done to help us has been great, and the development will still be reasonable, but it won't it be affordable like I such wanted. I do certainly hope that we can clarify the issues so that can -- one of the goals I listen to you. I watch you on TV all the time. One of the things that you say, is you don't like to have major transportation clogs in the morning. Why not put a functional gate house with heater and an air-conditioning, and a bike rack out there, so that when the children are in a subdivision they can go to the bus stop and wait for the bus without a parent. Because I'm a mom and if I'm going to drive my kids to the end of the street, I'm going to drive them on to school. So, you know, I try to listen to things that you have said and incorporate it into it. So I do hope that we can work that one out. And as far as it went, would I do it over again and do it the same way? Sure, because it was the right thing to do. We don't know what septic systems are going to be like or what these step systems are going to be like 10 years from now. It's just that I hope in the future we can start expanding on some RSF-7 boundaries and thinking about that. When I brought this forward I wanted to go forward with a RSF-7 so the builders could pay less for the lots, but yet, put the covenant so the houses were just as nice. So the money could go into the houses and we could have some really, really cool affordable housing in a real unique situation. It didn't happen this time, but I'll be back. So -- but maybe we can do an RSF-7 before too much longer, but yet, still maintain all the characteristics of a bigger development. So -- but anyway, I appreciate your time and I certainly hope that you move to push this forward, and we'll look forward to working with you again. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I'm going to call for public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this Preliminary Plat 05-1803, please step forward. Seeing no public comment, I will close the public comment section, and bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Pate. Pate: I can clarify both those conditions, I believe. Item Number 17, yes, it is intended only along the property frontage for sure glass to be installed. Item Number 7, that's something that staff nor the Planning Commission can allow unless the ordinances are changed for a bus shelter within the city limits. That's -- that's something that I think -- has been discussed in recent past about whether to allow those types of shelters, either within the Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 42 public right-of-way or within the building setbacks. Because obviously, they need to be located near the street and it's typically a covered shelter. To my knowledge, unless there's another ordinance to deal with specifically with public transportation. I'm not aware of anything that is currently on the books that will allow for a structure to be located within that area. Ostner: Can they not request the Board of Adjustment? Pate: I think we're getting on a little tricky ground, because it's not in the city. The Board of Adjustment only deals with issues of zoning, which is in the city. This property is not zoned, therefore, variances cannot be -- cannot be granted by the Board of Adjustment. Ostner: Okay. Williams: I think this is probably something that the City Council themselves, would need to look at and probably should look at this, and maybe have this as a - - at least an option that the Planning Commission could grant in the right case. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes. I have a question to follow up on that. If the City Council, as Jeremy, you had mentioned that they had had some discussions on public transportation issues like this. If that is something -- since we're not in the city, we're in the county, they're subjecting themselves to our ordinances and most -- I mean, most all instances, if the law changes in the City of Fayetteville, will it automatically change on this piece of property? Pate: Yes. I would venture to say so, but again, the issue is that we couldn't issue a building for that because it would be within the building setbacks. But I know we've talked about it on Dickson Street with the potential for the depot and what could -- what -- are there possibilities there for an actual stop, and I think that's sort of the impotis for some of this discussion, but we'll continue that at the City Council level. Ostner: Okay. Great. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 43 Clark: Jeremy, should this land eventually get annexed as they said they intend to do, can they then go to the Board of Adjustments or -- Pate: They could. Motion: Clark: Okay. I think it's a great idea and I wish our ordinance would allow us to protect school children a little bit better in some of these developments, because I think we're going to see this in future developments. But as long as those two conditions are clarified now and to -- Kipp, are you satisfied with the answers? Okay. And I will move that we forward Preliminary Plat 05-1803 with finding fact as indicated we approve this. Ostner: Yes, yes. I have a motion to approve this preliminary plat by Commissioner Clark. Vaught: Second. Ostner: And a second by Commissioner Vaught. Vaught: And I have one question. Ostner: Yes. Vaught: Just for clarification for everyone to understand. How are they going to trigger the mechanism for automatic annexation? It is going to be a covenant on the plat or how are handling that? I don't know if the city attorney wants to clarify that. Williams: We do have an agreement which allowed them to get sewer, and part of the agreement says that as soon as they are legally able, which means once they abut the city limits then they must seek annexation. Of course, it's still up to the City Council to annex them, but they must seek it. So as soon as we touch them, then at that point in time they need to start the process, go the county judge, and then back to the City Council and seek annexation. Vaught: But who will do that? The -- that will be passed down to the individual lot owners as this develops, I assume, or the POA, or -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 44 Williams: It's still the -- the agreement we have is with the developer. So I would assume that the burden would remain with the developer to fulfill that agreement. Vaught: Can -- I just wanted to make sure that's clear, because I don't know how the developer could seek annex the individual lots if they've already sold them off. That was my question. How's that going to trigger -- and Jeremy, you had mentioned possible remedies? Pate: It will be noted in the final plat, or conditions indicate that, and with each building permit they will be notified of that. Vaught: At the developer's expense, I assume? Goedereis: We can take them -- Ostner: Hold on, hold on, just a second. Vaught: At the developers expense or is the individual lot owners responsible for that? Williams: I think the duty is upon the developer himself to do this. He -- that's the agreement that the city has -- is with him. Vaught: Okay. Goedereis: And what we had planned on doing was also putting that in the covenants. So that everyone before they even bought a lot, they have to sign the signatures off on the covenants. That as soon as it was able to be annexed it would be annexed. So -- and we're only like two properties away right now to being annexed. But that's no guarantee that the City Council would want annex it. Vaught: Well, with city sewer I imagine they would go ahead and do it. Ostner: Okay. We have a motion to second, is there further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to forward PPL 05-1803 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 45 PPL 05-1821: Preliminary Plat (BIRWIN STREET S/D, 408): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at the SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND BIRWIN STREET. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.99 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 7 single family lots. Ostner: Our next item is Preliminary Plat 05-1821 for Birwin Street Subdivision. If we could have the staff report, please? Garner: This property contains just under two acres. It's located at the southwest corner of Old Wire Road and Birwin Street. The applicant proposes to build a residential subdivision with seven single family lots. The site is adjacent, as mentioned, to Old Wire Road, with is a minor arterial, and Birwin Street, which is a local street. We did receive a fair amount of public comment at the Subdivision Committee meeting regarding neighborhood compatibility with adjacent property owners and traffic congestion concerns, and also comments that the proposed density is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval of this preliminary plat with conditions of approval as noted in your staff report. I wanted to call your attention to Condition Number 2, which is Planning Commission determination of street improvement. Staff recommends, based on discussion with engineering division and -- we originally recommended improving Old Wire Road and Birwin Street to Master Street Plan standards. Then after looking at it closer between Subdivision Committee to Planning Commission, we determined that Old Wire Road was slated to be in our CIP improvements, and so we're recommending that they just improve Birwin Street to Master Street Plan standards. Other than that, most of the conditions are relatively straightforward, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Is the applicant represent? If you would please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Kemmet: Good evening. Bruce Kemmet, with Project Design Consultants, representing the applicant. Answer any of your questions. We're agreeable with all the comments that staff has. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, we'll get back to you. Kemmet: Okay. Ostner: At this point I'm going to call for public comment on Preliminary Plat 05- 1821 for Birwin Street Subdivision. Step forward and tell us your name. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 46 Blagg: I'm Brenda Blagg. I'm a property owner across the street from the development and I was here at the committee meeting, but I was here late, so I did not speak. I just arrived as they were finishing up, and I also have some of the same concerns about density, but I wanted to raise a question about drainage, actually. I live across the street at the bottom of the hill and I can see up the hill, and I'm just curious about how the water is going to be controlled on that property. When I moved into the neighborhood none of the property above me had been developed at all, and so what -- what has happened in the time since, is that all of the roofs and all the driveways, and the parking lot at the church above me, have put a lot of water on my property, and I wanted to be sure that the water that is going to be coming off all those houses and all of those driveways is going to go into a ditch, and not into my yard. And I wanted to make sure that that some how is going to be controlled on that side of the road. I -- the density strikes me as being awful intense for that little bitty lot comparatively. There are four houses I think across the road and they're going to put seven in this space. I -- again, that's the main concern that I think the whole neighborhood is expressing, and I will just repeat it. Ostner: If I could ask you exactly where you live? Blagg: Sure. I am the second house on Birwin as you leave Old Wire. Ostner: On the north side of Birwin? Blagg: Right. On the north side of Birwin. Ostner: Okay. Okay. Blagg: And other questions? Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Blagg. Blagg: Sure. Ostner: At this point I'll take other public comments, if anyone would like to speak? I will close the public comment section at this point. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 47 Vaught: At Subdivision, I just want to let the other Commissioners in our discussions. Most of our discussions were on street improvements. Since this piece of property is already zoned RSF- 4. I mean, they have a right to develop it. I guess, it's actually just a little slightly below four units an acres is what they're proposing. We talked about possibly adding turn lanes on to and off of Old Wire Road, as ideas help alleviate congestion, as this one intersection is an issue, but it sounds like from staff's recommendation, they have not recommended those and that -- the developer at the time would ask that the Birwin Street improvements be waived maybe in lieu of other improvements because the character of the neighborhood. And, you know, right now it's got the open ditch, but so those are the most of our discussions. We all felt that it was important for the Birwin Street improvements unless something more viable could be added to ease the congestion in this area. So those are the most of our comments. I guess staff could address the drainage issue as well. That wasn't something we -- had discussed. O'Neal: We've been working with the developer's engineer up close on this. I'll have to defer to them to see what the solution they have on the detention. Ostner: If the developer share his plans for storm water detention. Kemmet: We're still working on the drainage plan in the report. Obviously, with the small property that's there in 1.82 acres. It's going to be difficult to do an aboveground detention. So we're looking at alternative ways to reduce the post -develop runoff to the pre -develop runoff to meet the city ordinance. Vaught: And for the neighbor -- we have ordinances on the books for every development that the post and pre -development flow drainage are equal. So that -- that's something they'll care of through the building -- the permitting process of this development just for you to know. Blagg: The reason I'm here tonight is that I didn't come when the other developments happened. Ostner: Okay -- Vaught: That's a great reason to be here, but most of these ordinances are newer than those other developments, unfortunately. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 48 Clark: Jeremy, I am curious why staff is not recommending any improvements to this insane intersection. I mean, I know seven houses is not a large development, but you take your life in your hands a lot of times at this intersection, especially when schools are getting out. Pate: That's exactly one of the reasons that the -- again, you have to look at a rough proportionality and how six additional -- there are actually two lots on this property, so they could build a house right now. Five additional -- or six additional units on the property is just simply not that much as far as the improvement. You might get some curb and gutter, but you wouldn't be realigning the intersection. You really wouldn't be doing -- Clark: Something else for people to drive over. That will be good. Pate: What we did evaluate, though, is that -- I believe, it is in our Capital Improvements program to improve timing -- I'm not -- I can't speak to that as of right now, but it's also in our Bond Program. There have actually been a number of scenarios developed for this very intersection because it is such a high traffic -- Clark: I was certainly hoping you're were going to say that. Because, I think, hopefully this development might spur that to happen a little bit sooner now, rather than later. Because this is just a crazy intersection. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commission Allen, yes, ma'am. Allen: I don't know the property owner, Mr. Hatcher, Rudy Hatcher. He may or may not be here this evening, but I am aware that he owns a piece of property on Sycamore Street, a house that he has had for about five years, and the -- he continues to get building permits and then they lapse, and he gets another one, and this has been an on going process for about five years. So it makes me concerned as to whether or not he would have to develop this particular project --just a comment. Earnest: That's an appropriate comment. I discussed that. The owner -- the owner of record is now Bob Schmidt. Ostner: If you could introduce yourself, sir, for the record. Earnest: Hugh Earnest. I'm sorry. The owner of record of this property is no longer Mr. Hatcher. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 49 Allen: Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Earnest. Allen: Perhaps he's working on the other project. (Laughter) Clark: He's sold it so he could, I'm sure. Ostner: Okay. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes. Motion: Clark: With that having been said, I would move that approve Preliminary Plat 05- 1821 with all findings and facts as indicated. Ostner: Okay. Myres: And I'll second. Ostner: Thank you. Does the motioner find in favor of the determination of street improvements? Clark: Yes, with all findings and facts as indicated. Myres: Yes. Ostner: Okay. That would be Commissioner Clark on the motion, and Commissioner Myres on the second. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve PPL 05-1821 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 50 LSD 05-1828: Large Scale Development (UNIVERSITY VILLAGE, 599): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located SE OF BEECHWOOD AND 15TH ST., N OF THE CROWNE APTS. The property is zoned C- 2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 7.45 acres. The request is for 38,774 s.f. retail space and a 22,038 s.f. hotel on lots 1-3 with 325 parking spaces and detention on lot 4. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is Large Scale Development 05-1828 for University Village. If we could have the staff report, please? Fulcher: This subject property contains 7.45 acres, located north of the Crowne Apartments and south of 15th Street and Beechwood. It is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The proposal is to construct two retail buildings totaling approximately 38, 800 square feet. A 22,000 square foot hotel with 109 guest rooms and 321 parking spaces. This item was heard at the previous Subdivision Committee and forwarded to the Planning Commission. A consensus was not reached regarding Commercial Design Standards at the Subdivision Committee. Staff finds that the proposed elevations as submitted originally-- I believe, displayed here, do meet the requirements set forth under Commercial Design Standard guidelines, and therefore, staff is recommending approval of this project as proposed with 13 Conditions. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Is the applicant present? Ellis: Yes, sir. Ostner: If you could come forward and introduce yourself, and give us your presentation. If staff wouldn't mind spreading those out, maybe, so we could have a better look. Vaught: Just the -- the side elevation is the one that I was curious about. Those behind it. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Vaught: Thank you. Ellis: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Ellis. I'm an Arkansas graduate, but a non-resident right at the present time. The City has been very kind to us. Three years ago we started this particular area in a phased development, and have completed the first phase, which is the Crowne Apartments, and they're successfully operating now. This Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 51 particular large development contains a hotel, which is a Holiday Inn Staybridge Suite Hotel of 109 guest rooms, and approximately a 38,000 square foot retail center upscale -- we're trying to do it on an upscale basis to compliment and help the southern part of Fayetteville has this type of project. I represent the ownership as well as the development. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, sir, we will get right back with you. Ellis: All right. Ostner: At this point, I'm call for any public comment on this Large Scale Development, 05-1828 for University Village. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Once again, at Subdivision as was stated, we discuss many elements of this at Subdivision. I think these elevations don't do justice to the breakup as well as the -- kind of overhead shots. They stated they've used different bricks on the different facades, so it almost appears as different buildings. And I think that the issue -- I think I'll let -- Commissioner Ostner was the decenting vote on the Commercial Design Standards, so I'll him speak specifically to what he found. But most everything else in the -- we had agreed on in this preliminary plat. Ostner: Yeah. This seems like a great project. It's got a lot of square footage -- hotel, which I didn't catch the first time. I just saw the structure. The that far right rendering is what caught my eye, that -- that's the reason it didn't get approved at that level. I didn't find in favor of that commercial design standard. There are lots of smaller -- well, smaller looking facades that are broken up nicely with different colored brick and the way they sort of pull out towards the front, it's that curved part of the building. So -- so that was my opinion last week. Allen: And perhaps he would be willing to explain to us more about what that is. It looks kind of like a tent. I'm having trouble understand -- what materials are used? Ellis: The -- Ostner: If you could step forward for the microphone, please, sir. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 52 Ellis: There's some small (inaudible) that give you a better -- a better sight line visibility. The facades are all brick, except brick and glass, and in that particular area there is some stone columns that come up to the roof line. There is -- I had a local architect -- but I had my -- I've been a developer -- 35 developer years, and I've built about 5 billion square feet of property around the country, and I have a consulting architect that also reviewed these plans and your requirements. Then he was very complimentary of what had been done. I think what -- in an arrow visualization, you see more of the roof line than you would normally from the ground site line circumstances. That that is a -- it was -- the whole idea was to encompass it to fit in with -- across the street there is a metal -roofed Baum Stadium, there's a very large structure in the Convention Center facility, the Tyson Track Center, and we were trying to tie it all together so that it flowed rather than -- that it was something really different. I think it's very attractive, it'll -- that corner also reaches the corner, l5th Street coming around into Beechwood, and so the part of the instructions from your guidelines are to ( ? ) the circumstances and try to work in the particular circumstances of design that exists in the area. The hotel is four stories and it has -- it's all shown in brick, but it doesn't have any -- it's more of a square type object rather than a flowing one, and this gives you an opportunity to see all the elements of the design in a pleasing manner, and that was all it was intended to be. To be a visually pleasing type circumstance. I think this has been accomplished and it also fits in with the -- with the Crowne, which was our first phase. The Crowne Apartments were all finished and they're very -- very well done in terms of architecturally pleasing and a lot of greenspace and that type of thing. So that was the -- that was the goal and I hope that we accomplished it, and our tenants that have been contacted around the country, and have submitted the preliminary design have been pleased with it, and have been very positive about coming through this market, and I hope that you will enable us to have a groundbreaking out there before too long. We would like to do it by this March. It's about a 15 million dollar next phase, and then we've got another phase beyond that about 30 million. So we're trying to bring some tax dollars to south Fayetteville. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: I'm not quite sure Ms. Allen was done. Does that satisfy you? Allen: Yes, thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 53 Ostner: Okay. Yes, ma'am. Clark: Did we get a materials board, Jeremy? Pate: I believe so. Clark: Because I'm curious about the metal mural on this. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: One thing I -- this elevation I feel points out the roof line better than the overhead shot, and -- I did have a question. I think that -- for Commissioner Ostner, what part of the Commercial Design Standards that you feel it violated? Ostner: I thought it seemed unarticulated and to elaborate a little bit more, the Commercial Design Standard does extend to roofs. We're only allowed to talk about walls, and that's the rules we need to follow. And I believe that facade is weak. There are lots of great facades. It just doesn't seem to match the others. And on the -- on that other notion of the -- of the -- of fitting into the surrounding area I understand that is a design factor. We have no jurisdiction and our standards don't apply to the university land. They are outside the city limits. So -- Clark: Mr. Chair, now that I have the metal I have -- I like the design, personally. And I probably would have gone for it, but my question is about the metal. Because of the configuration of that roof it's -- it's slanted. Is this going to be shiny and pose a safety factor? I mean, is the sun going to reflect off of it and blind drivers? Because it would be my luck, I'd be the driver -- Ellis: (inaudible) from what the engineers have told us. Excuse me. Yeah, go ahead. Gee: My name is Kim Gee, I'm the architect on the project. And I think it was mentioned earlier, and I think that it stands to be mentioned again, that the perspective that you see in this drawing is what we call a "bird's eye view" or one that is taken from a higher elevation that you might see from, you know, an airplane or a high-rise building adjacent to that. Which is really misleading in that the elevation that you see here is more at the eye level that a person would actually see that. That roof pitch is -- and I believe it's about a three, or two -to -one slope, which is a very shallow slope pitch. The Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 54 -- that eave height here is approximately 10 -- well, this is 10 foot at this elevation here. And so it's a very large expansive roof, but it's a very shallow slope, if you will, so someone coming from the parking lot or even driving along the street, won't see a lot of that roof. Does that make sense? So as far as being shiny and being a hazard, I wouldn't see that at all. Actually, this galvanized material does fade over time as well. We've all lived with that quite a bit around here, and so you see that becoming duller over time as well. So I think that would be even less. And discussing our situation, now what we propose is in this elevation you see the -- these four facades if you will, on each side of the curved area there, and if you keep mind that the two building work together. You've got this building as well as this building, you pick up the same elements of the (inaudible) elements here and here. We have the same roof line if you will, a curved segmented roof line there and that we're picking up here with the galvanized metal. What we've proposed -- and the brick samples I think were left -- they're here? Okay. Anyway it -- we have a (inaudible) different bricks colors for this and the color -- the brick colors are blends as well, so it's hard to describe a blend with one brick. So actually we have about 20 bricks that we share with you -- but the basic scheme is that we would do the solid brick for these pilasters, solid red brick would used for these pilasters, and then each facade would have a different blend, if you will, that are similar to one another, yet different at the same time. So there's a lot going on here. There's a great deal of, you know, elevation changes as well as color changes. And when we get to that curve, if you're familiar with Signature Plaza there at Crossover and Joyce, the sign standards that you have on that building is basically a very similar situation here -- that hangs from the gutter and it's very difficult to see on that large drawing, but on this drawing it's a little easier. It's a arch -steel structure that hangs from that gutter line and creates an arch there and it's also used a backdrop for -- to attach signage to and that type thing. And in that regard, it is very articulated. That is -- this is a 10 -foot overhang, this area here overhangs the store front 10 feet. These are brick pilasters, by the way, in the middle, and (inaudible) casts a very deep shadow at that point. And what our attempt is, is to, you know, we could've continued the brick store front around the curve and all around the building, but I've -- our thinking was that that would become more monotonous than having broken up the brick facades the way that we've done that. And the two buildings working together compliment each other, where we do have those brick facade elements broken up with the -- with the metal roofing, so to speak, to create more of a -- oh, I don't know if you would consider it the farmer's market of a community there or the, you know, maybe the more rural business, if you will, of that whole little community there. So that was the thinking behind and like we say, I think the discussion here is about meeting design Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 55 standards, the commercial design standards and whether or not we need to add some bumps and mounds here and there, or for, you know, articulations I'm not sure to what degree articulations -- where we start and where we stop. It's difficult to describe. So we feel like we've gone to a great effort to, you know, produce something that would be well liked here and well done, and we would appreciate your consideration. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Motion: Vaught: I was at Subdivision and I felt that this met our design standards at that level and going through the five of them -- as there is unpainted concrete detention block walls, square box -like structures, metal siding which dominates the main facades, large, blank and unarticulated wall surfaces, and large out -of -scale signs with flashy colors. I believe there was some landscape issues at that time, which they've cleared up I assume. Is that correct? And with that said, I'll make a motion to approve LSD 05-1828. Graves: And I'll second it. Ostner: I have a motion to approve Large Scale Development 05-1828, University Village. Is there further discussion? Clark: Yes. Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for staff. I know I'm just being overly worrying tonight, but that's a lot of glass and a lot of metal. Jeremy, once it's constructed, is there anything that would police the safety factor if there is a reflection issue. I know we've talked about it in some large buildings that have come through in terms of windows. I know it's not very -- I like the design, I really do, I just don't want there to be a subsequent safety factor. Pate: I think if the structure were located closer to the street and it was actually in your sort of vision, that triangle vision -- visual triangle there I think it would be more of an issue, but it located quite a bit off the street. The parking area, plus the 15 feet of landscape, plus the street right-of-way, all those, I think, contribute to the factor that it is quite a ways off the street and will be screened. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 56 Clark: Thank you. It's certainly not a box -like structure -- and I like it. Vaught: It is a 10 -foot overhang, as well, and faces north. Clark: Well, I love the whole development that's going on down there. It's certainly is helping to revitalize that whole section of town and it's much needed, and I'll whole-heartedly support it. So -- Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion carries to approve LSD 05-1828 with a vote of 7-1-0, with Ostner voting no. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. The next item -- actually, we're on item 7. I think we're going to take a five-minute break. Ellis: Before you take a break, I would like to say thank you very much for your consideration and we'll try to be good corporate neighbors. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ellis. It's 7:35 and we'll reconvene at 7:45. There was a brief recess. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 57 RZN 05-1834: (VANTAGE SQUARE, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOC., for property located at LOTS 6C AND 7A IN VANTAGE SQUARE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT, and contains approximately 13.47 acres. The request is to rezone the subject properties to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is Rezoning Request 05-1834, for Vantage Square. If we could have the staff report, please? Pate: This is a property the planning commission originally saw -- I believe, it's been a couple of years ago now -- 2004, last year. That was originally zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It was rezoned at that time to a Planned Zoning District called Cambridge Crossing, and that's the majority of the property. Of the 13.47 that are requested to be rezoned to C-1 and C-2 tonight. The rest of the site, .44 acres, actually a very small portion of it is currently zoned R -O, Residential Office, and it's located along the eastern (inaudible)of the property. This site is currently vacant, with newly constructed Regions Bank to the northwest, as well as Vantage Drive. The -- as I mentioned, the City Council did rezone this property from C-2, to R- PZD, eventually that planned zoning district will expire and they will have to return to the Planning Commission and, or City Council for revocation, and this action will effectively do that, because that project is no longer going to continue. The property is -- the applicant is requesting the property be rezoned from Residential Planned Zoning District to C-2 -- back to C-2, and also to C-1. The C-1 Zoning District will be adjacent to the existing RMF -24 Zoning District, which is developed as Butterfield Trail Village. Also, staff has received no public comment, either in opposition for or against this particular request. The proposed zoning is similar to the previous zoning of the property, prior to approval, the residential planned zoning district as I mentioned. Staff does find that it is compatible with surrounding uses and zoning districts, as well as the C-1 zoning that is requested to the east, which is compatible with RMF -24 properties, and may provide commercial areas that are a convenient way to meet the shopping needs of adjacent residents. I would also mention that buffer areas are always established between non-residential uses and uses per our unified development codes. So there will be a buffer area between the residential uses that are already established. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request to C-1 and C-2. And if you have any questions feel free to ask.. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 58 EllisD: My name is Daniel Ellis, with Crafton, Tull and Associates. We are the representative for the owners on this rezoning. I believe the staff report was very thorough in the description of what we are asking for, and we don't have any objections to any of the statements in it, and we would ask - - answer any questions that the Planning Commission would have of us. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, sir. At this point I will call for any public comment on this rezoning request, Vantage Square, 05-1834. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Trumbo. Trumbo: Quick question for staff. What -- do we know what the zoning was prior to the PZD? Pate: It was C-2. Trumbo: It was C-2? Pate: Uh-huh. Trumbo: All right. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Motion: Vaught: This seems pretty straightforward. It's kind of -- as you look at the map, it's kind of filling back in the blocks that were already C-1 and C-2. So to me it makes sense, you know, it's surrounded by C-2 and C-1 -- various uses, but it is very appropriate to this area (inaudible) so I will make a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning 05-1834 to the City Council. Trumbo: I'll second. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 59 Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Vaught, a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion carries to forward RZN 05-1834 carries with a vote of 8-0- 0. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 60 RZN 05-1833: (BELLAFONT, 174): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC., for property located at N OF JOYCE BLVD., W OF VENTURE RD AND S OF BELLEFONTE GARDENS. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 25.29 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-3, Central Commercial. Ostner: The next on our agenda is Rezoning Request 05-1833, for Bellafont. If we could have the staff report, please? Pate: This property is located across the street on Joyce Boulevard. It's actually north of Joyce Boulevard. If you will reference your maps on Page 22 of 24, it more appropriately -- more adequately it shows exactly where that is. Stearns Street is also being constructed, and Vantage Drive is being constructed to the south in this area recently with developments that have occurred over the past year. Current zoning on the property is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and the applicant is requesting to zone to C-3, which is Central Commercial. The property contains four parcels of about 25 acres. As I mentioned, it is currently zoned C-2. Adjacent uses include multi -family development to the north and the east, which is the Stearns Street Apartments to the north, and another apartment development to east as well as commercial development to the east, the Post Office, Lindsey Office building, which is currently under construction, to the west. The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance to address the uses, density, height, greenspace, and current requirements and issues of connectivity and cross -access between developments. The C-2 and -- I'm sorry, the C-3 Zoning District is -- this request is a little unique and that is it currently is only located near the Downtown area. However, if you look in reference Page 224, you find that it specifically talks about the purpose. It is designed to accommodate commercial and related uses commonly found in the Central Business District or Regional Shopping Centers, which provide a wide range of retail and personal service uses. It is the applicant's intent to provide those types of personal service uses, commercial development, as well as a mixture of residential uses. So there is a proposed mixed use on this property. You can also see enumerated there, the differences between those -- or outlined there, the differences between those zoning districts. For instance, Use Unit 17, Trades and services, Use Unit 20, Commercial recreation, large sites, and Use Units 33, Adult live entertainment club or bar, are not allowed in the C-3 Zoning District. So those would -- if this property is rezoned, those would be removed. Additionally, conditional uses -- Use Unit 21, Warehousing and wholesale, and Use Unit 32, Sexually oriented businesses, are also removed from those allowances within the C-3, Central Commercial District. This area is indicated as a regional commercial area on our future land use plan, and C- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 61 2 or C-3 Zoning District would fit appropriately within that area. Additionally, staff did have initial concerns with regard to building heights. C-3 has no building height, and C-2 does. The applicant has indicated that they set a height limit with the Bill of Assurance, and again, on Page 3 of 24, it goes over all of those criteria that staff had concerns about and have been addressed. With the Bill of Assurance we feel appropriately and adequately. Site coverage is included in that. 20 percent, actually, which is above what we would require, 15 percent is typically our maximum of site -- or greenspace area, and that has been indicated as a Bill of Assurance that they would be maintained -- maintaining 20 percent of the overall area's greenspace. Also, with regard to driveways, if you'll note in our current codes, shared drives and cross -access between property shall be encouraged to develop in undeveloped properties, except in C-3 and C-4 zones. Based on the location of this property we felt it was appropriate to have -- meant to encourage cross -access between these developments so that every vehicular trip does not have go -- does not actually have to travel on arterial streets to get from one development area to another. As I mentioned, height regulations have been indicated here not to exceed 12 stories for residential uses and not to exceed 16 stories for any other use, including residential buildings. The density has also been -- the density has also been limited. The current C-3, I don't believe, has a density limitation if I'm not mistaken. And this would limit it to 18 units per acre, which is actually less than what is currently provided. And the parking standards, there's one item that has been addressed with parking standards of to -- also. You will find this Bills of Assurance beginning on Page 14 of 24 -- I'm sorry. Beginning on Page 9 of 24, in your staff report. With this offer by the applicant and petitioner, staff is recommending approval of the C-3 zoning. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly, with H2 Engineering. Jeremy pretty much summed up everything that we've discussed in -- with staff. In the rezoning of this property, initially, we has thought about just keeping the C-2 zoning and asking for some variances, but this was a much cleaner way to do it, and it did makes it more restrictive uses than what is allowed in C-2 and kind of fit the project that we are going to propose a little bit better. We don't have any problem, and have worked with staff on the -- on the Bill of Assurance and the height restrictions, density, greenspace. There is a -- we have worked with Doug Lynch at Liberty Bank in trying to develop and coordinate with them a cross -access between this development and the bank property that's located at the bottom and the center of this. Just to the Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 62 west of that, that small parcel I believe is 1.6 acres is excluded from this rezoning. We'll be bringing that through as a large scale development within the next, I believe, the next submittal date, but it will remain C-2. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. At this point I will call for public comment on this Rezoning request for Bellafont 05-1833. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. I have a question for staff. I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Current zoning has no height or density maximum? Pate: C-3, that's correct. Ostner: C-3 is unlimited height and unlimited density. You can cover your entire site. Pate: Yes. Ostner: Okay. And they're proposing C-3, which has an 18 unit per acre residential density. First off, how is the density measured if it's not residential in C-3? Pate: Just to clarify. The current C-3 does not have a density limitation. That's what they're proposed. What we put on that staff report is what they have proposed to limit it to 18 units per acre over the entire site. Ostner: All right. That answers a lot. Okay. So on their proposal, they're offering the Bill of Assurance of a 12 -story limit on any non-residential building and 16 -story limit on residential buildings, is that -- Pate: Correct. Ostner: -- what they're proposing? Pate: Correct. Also any building -- we wanted to make sure the original Bill of Assurance that was sent as a draft to city planning said one was office building, one was residential, would it not address -- let me see to make sure. We indicated it non-residential building needed to be -- needed to be -- in case one was mixed use or one was strictly office, one was commercial. So no structure shall be allowed that is taller than 16 stories in height. Ostner: Okay. That answers my question. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 63 Ostner: Mr. Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: The zoning they're asking for seems to be less than the C-2 that's currently there. I think seeing how Joyce is developing, this zoning falls in line with what's presently there. Their Bill of Assurance is on the height. The 12 stories and the 16 stories, I might be the only person in town who doesn't -- doesn't mind buildings taller than 12 or 16 stories. We may not seem them in my lifetime, but it seems to be a hot issue these days. So anyways, having said that, I'm going to move that we approve RZN 05-1833. Graves: And I'll second it. Ostner: I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Trumbo, as second by Commissioner Graves. Is there any further discussion? I would like to concur that this is in -- in some aspects a down zoning so to speak. And it seems like a great project. I -- it's a -- not part of the land use rules, but I somehow do wish it -- it wouldn't be so tall. But yet -- zoning lapse it. So - Clark: I just want a stoplight there. So, Tom, once again, we're going to be talking stoplights in the future, I'm sure. Hennelly: Let me just through this in. We have already been discussing with staff and have a traffic study underway. Signalization along Joyce, along with Joyce Street improvements, will obviously need to be a part of this project. I know we're not discussing a -- a development issue right now, but, you know, just to make you guys put your minds at ease -- a development of this size and density, and use, is going to create or contribute to already drastic problem on Joyce Street, and our clients understand that and are working with all the adjacent owners to try and kind of master plan the widening of Joyce to eliminate all those problems, or as many as we can. Clark: Cool. Ostner: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 05-1833 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 64 PZD 05-1817: Planned Zoning District (THE COMMONS AT WALNUT CROSSING, 555): Submitted by ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES for property located NORTH OF HWY 62W, LOTS 137 & 138 OF THE APPROVED WALNUT CROSSING R-PZD. The property is zoned RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (R-PZD) and contains approximately 6.45 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 53 single family lots. Ostner: Our next item is another Planned Zoning District. Excuse me. I have lost track and I am recusing from this item. So -- (Commissioner Ostner leaves the room at this moment.) Allen: Our next item is PZD 05-1817. Planned Zoning District for The Commons at Walnut Ridge -- Walnut Crossing. Could we have the report from Andy, please? Garner: Yes, ma'am. The Walnut Crossing R-PZD 04-1181 was approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission in September 2004, and by the City Council in November of 2004. And the Commons area of Walnut Crossing was identified on that PZD as a cluster development, allowing multi -family dwellings. And the applicant now proposes to develop this property with some slight changes to the zoning, and that is why we're here today. They are also proposing to development the property for residential development proposing 58 single-family lots. The property contains about six and a half acres. It's located along the northern border of the approved Walnut Crossing R-PZD. And the surrounding land uses consist mainly of vacant agricultural land that's zoned Residential Agricultural and planning area to the west, and the remainder of the Walnut Crossing PZD is located to the south. As mentioned, the applicant -- requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for residential subdivision containing 58 single-family lots. The intent is to design single-family homes to serve the median -income market. Each house would consist of two -car garages, spaces for two cars in the driveway, additional parking track provided to many of the homes along the side of the homes. Specific building footprints and facades would established by the developer, who would also build the homes, the common area, and entry features, to have a cohesive appearance. This style of the homes would be a craftsman kind bungalow as shown in your booklet, and you can see on Page 6 of your booklet, some of the homes will front onto a private street and a public street. And that's the zoning booklet the applicant has given you. And some of these -- these homes have been designed with two front facades and in general building setbacks are 15 feet off the public right-of-way, 0 foot off the rear, side, or private streets with a minimum of 10 foot building separation. Access to this -- this portion of the Walnut Crossing would be through the Walnut Crossing PZD Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 65 to the south off of Holland Drive and Lynn Street. And from these two main streets the proposed houses would be accessed off of a looping 20 - foot wide one-way private street system. Parks and tree preservation requirements were met with the original Walnut Crossing R-PZD. And staff does find that this proposed PZD is compatible with surrounding land uses. It is a little bit more intense than some of the other Walnut Crossing areas, but we find that it's compatible transition between a development and potential development surrounding the site. We also find that it provides flexibility and variety in the type of housing in this area, and it also preserves natural features on the site as part of the Walnut Crossing PZD as a whole. And meets the intended purpose of our PZD ordinance. And we are recommending forwarding this to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. And I wanted to call your attention to a couple of the conditions noted there. Condition Number 1, signs shall be placed on private one-way streets specifying no parking allowed on trash days. And that's just something that that they've coordinated with our solid waste division about trash pickup on these private one-way streets. This Condition Number 5 states that the zoning criteria and a booklet, and development standards presented are the ones that -- they're binding to the project, and Condition Number 6 is referencing that lots containing double frontages, and we've called out those specific lots shall be designed with -- have two fronts so houses aren't looking on to the back of other houses. Because a lot of these homes are really close together. Other conditions of approval are relatively standard, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Allen: Thank you, Andrew. Is the applicant present, please? Hesse: Good evening. I'm Kim Hesse, with Rausch-Coleman Development Group. As Andrew stated, the report is very conclusive. I read the staff report. We have agreed with all the conditions. Many of you remember Walnut Crossing when it came through a year ago. This is just that extension. We did make the major change of going from a town home configuration to single lots. It is truly presented as a subdivision, single- family subdivision. The big uniqueness on this is the tightness of it, the density. We're doing that for the reasons of the overall concept and to get that afford ability on the homes. This does create some challenges, and we as developers have to take some additional responsibilities, and it took some extra thought in the actual design. That's why we ended up -- we chose to go with one-way streets, private drives. Because we do have, you know, are setbacks are close to the streets. The water and sewer, all the public utilities are in the center of the street. The utilities, like gas, electric, phone, are in the back. The rear setbacks are basically established by those Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 66 rear utility easements. And there are some tight configurations, and so we really -- we had to put a lot of thought into the design of the home, exterior and interior. The actual placement of how they are laying on the lot. So when this is approved, there will not be any changes to the lots. There will not be any changes to the footprints. We will be building them as -- you know, we are very specific on what works next to what. In that we have chosen to do all the landscaping on every -- the front of every home. I mean, imagine this is going to be tight street. It's a private drive. The drive is 20 feet wide. We stuck with the 20 foot wide for the fire protection reasons. For that reason we went without the sidewalks. There's not going to be that much traffic on these one-way drives. There will be no parking at any time. That's the stipulation that we're going to put on that. It's not really just for the trash days. We don't want the look of a bunch of parked cars on those tight streets. So that is why we gave each house three parking spaces outside the double car garage. So that you have a controlled look on where the houses park. We will do the landscaping and the POA will be established specifically for The Commons, and they will be doing the maintenance on all the front yards. There are several lots where we will actually landscape and maintain the backyards, just because of the way they are configured in a kind of cluster. So we have put a lot of thought into it. It's a little different from a regular subdivision. But we feel, you know, that we're going to add something to this part of town. There are some graphics on the inside of the book like they mentioned. On 16, we show the elevations. We have remained -- we've kept with that craftsman style look. And because there are those few homes, I think there's probably 10 lots where you -- the house front both the public street and the private street. We will have two fronts on all those homes. And like I mentioned earlier, we agree with all those conditions and we're here to answer any other questions you might have. Allen: Thank you, Ms. Hesse. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this project? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment and bring it back to the planning commission. Vaught: Madame Chair Allen: Yes. Vaught: I have one question for the applicant. On the double -fronted homes, what direction are the driveways going to face. Are they going to be on the public street or off the private alley way. Hesse: They're on the private alley way. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 67 Vaught: Okay. So they will still be the back. Hesse: Yeah. And it's actually a private drive more than an alley. Vaught: Yeah. Driveway. Clark: Madame Chair. Allen: Yes. Clark: I have a question for Kim. Since we started talking about this a long time ago, and you mentioned a figure that is affordable. How are we now defining affordable homes? What's the price range? Hesse: We're looking at -- these homes are 13 to 16 hundred square feet. We will have some 12 hundred square foot homes. We're looking at 125 to 160,000. Clark: I remember when -- Hesse: You're right. We have inched it up. There's about -- one thing we can't control is the cost of materials. The cost of the site construction. And the density of the rock that happens to be about two foot below the surface out there everywhere. So the cost has increased as we've gone into the project. I don't know if we've mentioned this, but Walnut Crossing is under construction right now. So those bridges are going in, the streets are in, and we're in full realization of what this is going to cost us. But we still -- I mean, Rausch-Coleman is a builder of affordable homes. That's our mission, that's our vision, and so -- I mean, we're going to stick to that. Clark: I'm still a major supporter of this development. I think it's needed. I just - - it's just sad that affordable keeps going up, and up, and up. And I know that it's no fault of your all. I just remember when we started -- I think it was 80 to 90,000, and I'm not surprised material costs have gone up. We see it in our business as well. But at least I'm glad somebody is still using the term "affordable housing," and actually putting their actions behind it. And I still will support this project. Lack: Madame Chair. Allen: Yes, Commissioner Lack. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 68 Motion: Lack: I would concur with the -- with the attempt and what the idea that we've placed the importance on doing quality subdivisions with the goal of affordable homes. And with that, I would like to move for approval of PZD 05-1817. Clark: It would be R-PZD, wouldn't it Jeremy? Lack: R-PZD. Clark; And I'll second. Lack: With staffs' conditions of approval. Allen: Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Lack and a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve R-PZD 05-1817 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. (Commissioner Ostner returns to meeting.) Allen: Thank you. Oh, as Mr. Chair is seated, I might mention again I was reading in there Jeremy, about fire response times, and I think I mentioned to you a meeting or so ago that there seems to be some ambiguity about what is an adequate response, and different numbers we get from the fire chief, as we get from a fireman, as we get from one meeting to another. So I still am hoping that at some point we can have someone speak with us about that. Maybe at an agenda session. Pate: I'll certainly -- Allen: I spent a lot extra time in there with the Downtown Master Plan, but it is a concern. Pate: That's exactly what -- we're trying to coordinate the best time possible to that happening. Allen: Okay. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 69 R-PZD 05-1816: Planned Zoning District (SKATE PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 366/367): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS for property located at the SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ASH AND CHESTNUT STREETS. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 3.38 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District (R-PZD) with 34 dwelling units and an existing industrial structure. Ostner: Our next item is Residential Planned Zoning District 05-1816, for Skate Place Condominiums. If we could have the staff report, please? Garner: Sure. This property contains about 3.4 acres. It's located at the southwest corner of Ash and Chestnut Streets. Scull Creek is located in the western portion of the site. And the property is zoned I-1. And contains approximately 32 percent tree canopy, which is mainly associated with the Scull Creek floodplain and undeveloped area on the western portion of the site. The abandoned Skate Place skating rink building and the parking lot is located in the eastern portion of the site. The applicant requests a rezoning and large scale development approval for a mixed use development within a R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of this site is for park and recreation uses in Planning Area 1, as shown on your plat, condominium units in Planning Area 2, and industrial uses would remain at the abandoned building in the eastern portion of the site, which is identified as Planning Area 3. The intent of the developer is to provide affordable housing units and to revitalize an abandoned site in this industrial neighborhood. We have had a fair amount of discussion at the Subdivision Committee. Mainly concerned with the compatibility of this proposed residential development in this industrial neighborhood. And the discussion centered, and we had public comment in. Also, subdivision committee comment about the existing businesses in the area that operate trucking businesses and other transportation businesses that operate toad horns, and large diesel trucks, and those sorts of things. That the business owners were concerned that they may start getting complaints from the subdivision once it comes in. And that was the main concern at Subdivision Committee. Staff finds that -- we do find that it would a compatible use. We find that this site is on th western edge of this industrial corridor along Gregg Avenue. And we do find that his project provides a flexibility and a different type of housing, condominium units. And we find that it is compatible with the adjacent uses. We do understand the concerns with noise and those sorts of issues, but we do find that this proposal meets the intent of the PZD ordinance. And this site is all -- is identified as mixed use on the General Plan 2020. And we find that this development would help this site start to achieve those goals for the mixed use area in this area of -- it was identified in the general plan. And with Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 70 that, we are recommending forwarding it to the City Council with recommendations for approval. And wanted to call your attention to Condition Number 1, which is determination of street improvements. Staff does recommend the following street improvements. One A, is improving Ash Street to Master Street Plan standards along the project frontage. And then Condition B, is referencing the improvement of Chestnut Street, which would take place with this development. Chestnut Street would be connected from Ash Street south to Sycamore, and improved to a full street section throughout the project site, with parallel parking on either side. And south of the project site will transition to a 28 -foot street section with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Condition Number 8, wanted to call out Planning Area 3, where the abandoned Skate Place building is, we are recommending that if this area undergoes substantial change in the exterior facade, that the front facade, even though it is industrial, should be designed to the city's commercial design standards. There are a couple of other conditions in there related to some consistencies between the plats and the booklets, but I feel like those can be worked out, and they're relatively minor. There is Condition Number 21, which is referring to the tree mitigation that's required. And just of note, the applicant is planning to mitigate all trees on site with on-site plantings. Other than that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Scott: Yes, my name is Art Scott. I'm with Project Design Consultants. We are seeking approval. It is a 34 unit condominium project -- brick construction. And we are leaving tree -- permanent tree preservation area along Scull Creek. And also dedicating a portion of property over there for the trail system that's slated to come through that area. And at some point when that happens, this will also connect across to the apartments there -- Creekside Aparments that exist on the other side of the creek. And so we felt that was a compatible use and worked together well with that. We are here seeking your approval and I'll answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Scott. At this point I'm going to call for public comment on this Planned Zoning District, Skate Place Condominiums. Please introduce yourself and give us your comment. Lock: Certainly. My name is Bill Lock, I'm with -- I own the Mayflower moving company here in Fayetteville, that's located at 664 West Ash Street. I'm one of the trucking companies that was referred to in the subdivision planning -- subdivision committee meeting on December 1 st. My Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 71 concerns, obviously, are we are in an industrial neighborhood, and if I look out and try to reverse the situation, and I wanted to buy three acres in the middle of Savannah Subdivision and have you guys turn it into industrial land, I doubt that would fly very well for a number of concerns. Some of the other businesses that are located on Ash Street, which appears to be the main entrance into this proposed development at this point. We have a cabinet shop. You recently approved a new building on part of their property, a new commercial use building on property they recently acquired. Mini storage from Heckathorn. We also have also have adjacent to this development under consideration right now. Heckathom owns and operates a commercial storage lot for all of their unused or underutilized building materials, which there's basically a field that contains a lot of various building materials. We have fire extinguisher repair shop. A metal working shop. An auto repair shop. Auto detail shop. My moving and storage building. My building is 15,000 square feet, 30 feet high. It's been there for about 25 years. And then we have a trucking company, and I believe that landowner is represented here. My concerns primarily are -- concerning sound issues. As I referred to in the previous meeting, we're a trucking company. We're required to comply with certain laws as pursuant to our industry. One of those is a pre -trip inspection prior to each truck leaving our yard, our drivers perform those. And in the industry I'm in we operate not necessarily from 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, but are crews maybe leaving at 6:30 in the morning or returning at midnight for an example. If they leave at 6:30 in the morning and perform their pre -trip inspection required by the department of transportation, that includes blowing of the air horns to make sure it works. And the proximity that I'm going to be to this proposed development, I'm not necessarily wanting to be a bad neighbor and I don't know whether I support this or not. My concern is two years down the road when the residents that have made a financial investment in affordable homes are now complaining about the noise generated on the industrial land that is currently there. That's really my concern. I do have a safety concern. We do operate big trucks. So does the other property owner. As far as the traffic and integration of that traffic with 53 -foot trailers and tractor trailers in that area. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Lock. Zotti: Good evening. My name is Scott Zotti. I own two parcels directly north of the property on the other side of Ash Street. I'm one of the trucking companies that Mr. Lock referred to. We have a lot of the same concerns. Because we -- our businesses operate somewhat similar. I would say our hours of operation, though, probably are generally longer than his. We're outside a lot. We operate a loader that, you know, when you back it up, it Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 72 goes "beep, beep, beep," you know. And if you're living across the street from that you're not going to want to hear when it gets dark outside. And those kinds of things are going to go on. So what I really see happening here is, you know, we've got 34 proposed residents that are going to be living directly across the street from us and in roughly three, three and a half acres. And I , you know, really that as being 34 opportunities for conflict between what we do and what everybody else does currently on Ash Street. And, you know, I just don't think that's a good fit in this situation. Our building was built in 1971. It's been around for a while. It's been used as a trucking terminal since it was constructed. I just wanted you to know that, you know, we've been in that location for some time and just don't fell like it's a very good fit at this time. So that's all I really have. Thanks. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Zotti. Earnest: Hugh Earnest. And I certainly don't want this to be a debate between adjoining uses. Antidotally, admittedly, because I heard about this problem. I visited the site Saturday morning very early, Sunday evening quite late, and this morning at 5:15. In those three visits I noted one truck that was getting ready to tie to something to go somewhere. The -- that's not a fair comparison, but in checking those three times, I did not note a lot of activity on the site. The other thing that I think needs to be corrected, is that the principle ingress and egress will be Chestnut. That will be constructing over to Sycamore. So you're going to see different -- a different pattern in the site, not necessarily using Ash and then going over to Poplar. So you're going to see this -- you're going to see this site primarily fed from the new street that we're constructing in from Sycamore. Any questions? Ostner: Thank you. I'm going to call for anymore public comment that's -- that's not a part of the development. Audience: (inaudible) Ostner: We generally limit it to one, would there be an objection to having this man return. Okay. Come on. Lock: I would agree with his comments on the trucks. Probably this morning and the times he witnessed it, I'd also tell you that 65 percent of my business happens in the four months of summer, because typically people will not move when the kids are in school. I think probably a better sampling would be June, July, or August, when many times I'll have eight or nine Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 73 trucks lined up waiting to unload in my warehouse on any given morning. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Is there further public comment? The public comment section is closed. We'll bring it back to the commission. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, what is the legality of having -- should we allow this to develop, and you have institutional use by right, industrial use by right. I mean, where would -- what would happen if they start blowing their horns and people who buy the condos get upset and call. I mean, is that a valid -- would that be a valid noise violation? Pate: It would be a noise violation whether -- well, if it is a noise violation, it's a noise violation now. So their zoning is not changing. The zoning on those industrial -- industrial zoned properties, if they're allowed there by right, and allowed to be utilized there, it's my understanding that we don't enforce the noise ordinance. The police department does that. Mr. Williams may be able to add something to that. But I don't believe that -- Clark: Please, do. Pate: -- that that would change that. Ostner: Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. Williams: The noise ordinance is regulated not only by time, but also by land usage. And so there's more -- variance, more allowed, and more louder noises allowed in an industrial zone than in a residential zone. But the police will come out and measure at the complaining person's property line. And if we change this to a residential area, that has about 10 decibels less, I think, than allowed in an industrial. So, in fact, I think it could have an effect on - - if this is rezoned residential. Because the noise ordinance will protect the owners of property from noise not generated on their land, but that is invading their land from another area. And that's why there's different levels for residential zoned land as opposed to commercially zoned land, and industrial zoned land. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Were you done Commissioner Clark? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 74 Clark: Yes. Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Allen. Allen: May I ask the applicant a couple of questions, please? I wondered if you could tell me the approximate size of these units and a guesstimate of what you're considering obtainable in terms of price. Scott: Approximately 14 hundred square feet per unit, and a price range is probably around 150,000. Allen: 150,000 -- as many of grandparents 360 in their graves. (Laughter) Allen: -- this is something that I'd like to hear other thoughts from the Commissioners about in terns of this land use. Because at the present time I know there is a battle going on with the east Lafayette -- there's an industrial zoned area that backs up to a neighborhood, and that was there before the neighborhood, and there has been quite a bit of concern and debate about that. So I would like to hear what other commissioners think about this land use. I like the idea of having the homes there and certainly you hope that when you buy that you look all directions, and are a little bit savvy to what's going on around you. But I'll be interested to hear what others have to say. Graves: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Graves. Graves: I was the one commissioner that's referred to in the packet that didn't feel that this was appropriate at this location. Following up on what our city attorney has said with regard to how the noise ordinance works. From a practical standpoint, if it's a residential area, there are people there at night trying to sleep, trying to live their lives. If it stays industrial, there aren't people there at night who are having to deal with different types of noises. It's also the fact that our noise ordinance is complaint generated. Regardless of what the decibel levels are that are allowed, it's probably unlikely that an industrial neighbor who is also generating noise on their industrial is going to do a lot of complaining about their neighbor as compared to a residential neighbor. So from a practical standpoint, let's look at reality here, and looking at reality -- bringing a group of residents Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 75 who are attempting to live in the center of an industrial neighborhood is going to bring complaints to these businesses that are already there, that have already been doing business there for some time, and suddenly they're going to have to deal with something that they've never had to deal with, strictly because the planning commission decided to stick a bunch of residences right in the middle of that particular area. And I think that the public comment was exactly right. If they were bringing forward an industrial rezoning request in the center of a residential area, I don't even think we would still be talking about it. I think we would have already voted and it would be over with, and we would be on the next item on the agenda. The fact that this has a potential to be a quote, unquote, "redevelopment area," you know, to me is probably not very realistic given the fact that we just approved an expansion of Kitchen Distributors in that area. It's becoming more industrial, not less industrial. And the fact that they're the first, and I understand in any redevelopment project, you've got to have a person that goes first. A person that decides this is an area that ought to become residential. But generally that happens on the edges and not right in the middle. And so I just don't feel that this location is appropriate to put a residential subdivision or a group of residences right in the center of a bunch of existing businesses that have no intention of going anywhere any time soon. And so that was the reason that I was opposed to it, and I've heard nothing tonight that changes my mind on that, and I'm still opposed to it. It's just not appropriate, and in my opinion, it would be a case of spot zoning. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. Scott. Scott: I would like to point out one thing. The developers feel like the building that is -- main industrial use is going to be an indoor climate controlled storage. Very low intensity, very low noise encloses, probably 10 or 11. Large building that is along the entire east side of this project, which is where most of the intense noise generation is from, east of that building. I kind of feel like that is a pretty decent screen. It's metal. It's large. It's, you know, it's four-sided and that should help reflect some sound away from that direction. And to the north there is some -- there is some uses up there. So there will be, maybe some spill over noise in that direction. They feel like their construction with brick and late -- you know, the latest technology, and windows with two or three panes is a nice way to help from having sound influx into the building. So they feel like their construction combined with the screening on the side of that large building was a pretty good way to stop it, and again, distance is the biggest thing that makes sound deteriorate, and a lot of that use is farther to the east. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 76 Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes. Vaught: I have a question for staff and the city attorney. On PZDs we have R- PZDs, we have C-PZDs, do we have I-PZDs, industrial? Pate: Yes. Vaught: And I know that we typically determine that by the main uses on the site. Pate: Correct. Vaught: In this situation, it is split, and it's a large industrial building on the site and some residential -- not that I would want to take peoples right's away necessarily, but it would be compatible to me if there was an I-PZD. Therefore, we're in unusual situation. Usually we're protecting the residents from industry, here we're protecting the industry from the residents in a way. So if there is a way to level the playing field so they are playing by the same rules. Since this is an unusual area of town, I don't know what the city attorney or staff has to say about that, but just a thought. Pate: It would be have to be -- the industrial uses would have to be greater than 50 percent. It would have to be at least 51 percent or more of the actual project. So we can't just designate it commercial, industrial, or residential, by ordinance. It has to be at least 51 percent of the uses on the property. So the residential units would potentially have to decrease and more industrial uses proposed. Vaught: And would that -- is that measured in land acreage or square footage of buildings or -- Pate: It depends, because residential units are often times just measured in the amount -- the numbers of units or acreage -- land area that's utilized for that particular use. I believe the industrial use on this property is .935 acres, which is in the Planned Area 3, and the remaining three -- or two acres, approximately 2.3 acres is utilized for residential uses. And that's why is was indicated -- or decided that it was a residential planned zoning district. I would mention that the I-1 zoning district actually does allow for -- for residential uses by right. It has to be an accessory use, but this property could be developed. It would have to meet all the I-1 setbacks or - Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 77 - and everything else associated with an industrial property. But an I-1 property does allow for accessory residential uses by right as well. Vaught: And I guess one more question. Typically when you see something other than residential go in next to residential, you have screen requirements. Do you ever have an opposite that where having residential go in to the midst of industrial, and I assume this developer would not have to do anything for screening or buffering between -- I'm thinking really for the residents more than the industrial, but there's no kind of buffering requirements in this situation, is there? Pate: There is. And actually we required a screen between the proposed Planning Area 3, and the proposed Planning Area 2, because that's a residential use adjacent to an industrial use. And so there's actually screening, I believe, showed on your site plans -- vegetative screening there. Vaught: That's all I have for now. It's very unique and it presents us with a unique set of circumstances I think. And I guess for the city attorney, I guess, or staff. Is there anyway -- I guess there's no way to overlay those sound ordinances on -- on this PZD, is there? Since it's residential PZD we can't -- we can't -- I -- if you know what I'm saying. Williams: Well, the sound ordinance was, of course, enacted before we have PZDs. And so they talk about residentially zoned land and industrial zoned land, and that stuff. But this, I think, our interpretation has been since we've started doing these, that if it's a residentially planned zoning district, then it's residential land, and then that's how the sound ordinance would work. I mean, I guess the City Council could go back and change it right now. But I don't recommend that because it was a big battle. That's one of those cans you don't want to open. Ostner: Yeah, well -- Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Commissioner Clark. Clark: To me, I wish we could zone this industrial and have the residents there. Because to me, you're setting up conflict that the industrial patrons are going to lose. I mean, when the horn blows they get a complaint. They violated the ordinance, and I'm afraid even if you educate the people who are buying the condos today, five years from now they've hands, we're back into punishing people who were there first using the land by right, and Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 78 I don't -- I'm very uncomfortable with that. Now if there was someway we could marry the two concepts. Have residential living harmoniously with industrial under the same guidelines, and rules especially with regard to noise, I'd be all for it. Because, you know, developing that area is very important to me. We did just expand Kitchen Distributors. So we said, yes, we want more industry down there. If we could make them all live in harmony, that would be one thing, but I don't think we could do that as this plan is currently going through. So reluctantly, I will be voting against it, in hopes that we find a solution that will allow everybody to live and not narc on each other, and the industry -- the industrial users will -- Ostner: I've got a question for the applicant. Have you all made any -- any provisions? Is this going to be a townhouse -- Scott: Yes. Earnest: Yes. Ostner: -- a development. So individual units will be sold. Scott: Yes. Ostner: Have you all made any provisions to basically warn or thoroughly emphasize the -- the buyer beware situation. Or are you simply letting peoples' common sense -- if they drive up to it they will see the surrounding. Earnest: Quite frankly, until last week we weren't aware that this issue was going to raise -- was going to be brought forward. And as an ex -planning commissioner from my perspective anyway, what the staff has done in this area, and it is a difficult area, and I sympathize with the desire to protect those people. But I would point out that that entire area is shifting to residential. And I would agree that the industrial area in all probability is being challenged. But if you look across Scull Creek, and I drove the entire area three different times at different times of the day and night, and that entire area is moving to high density residential. The -- the -- I would suggest that this is not spot zoning. It is obviously moving into an abandoned site. The Skate Park is abandoned. The land adjacent to it is not being used for anything, and what the developer has tried to do with some vision, is to accommodate high density residential. And also the use of the Scull Creek corridor, which we have donated the land for, and that is one of the intense interest of this city is to develop that corridor. So I guess we're just pleading for some understanding about what we're trying to do Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 79 in that area. The developer, quite frankly, if this is turned down, will simply go back to an industrial use. Ostner: And speaking of that -- that plea. I want to -- I want to state that I'm in favor of this. When -- when someone comes forward and they've got their pocketbook on the line, and they present a proposal for us, we have to watch out for the big picture. But when they're willing to push upstream, the opposite, usually we have a -- a low intensity use, and someone wants a more intense use nearby, and we have to watch out for the residences. If someone is going to take his risk and push a little bit upstream, that gets my attention. And I wonder if -- if he's willing to risk it, maybe he knows something I don't. And as I drive down there, I do see underdeveloped property everywhere. These fine gentlemen who have come forward, and all due respect, if these guys presented a price that sounded good, they might just take their industry at a better -- at a better price somewhere else. Industry isn't a home. It's not residential. It can be moved when the economics point the way. So I'm in favor of this. I've lived next to industrial land. South Fayetteville had -- I don't know, 10, 20, 30 acres industrial less than five years ago. There's still several parcels and if any one has turned on Government near the National Cemetery, there's a giant mountain of tree trunks and this guy has an industrial spot and it works. I'm in favor of this. I think the area is changing. I understand we did just let Kitchen Distributors upgrade their building. But there again, you know, they don't live there, it's not there homes, they're not tied to it. With 20 years of family stories -- if someone came forward and said, "hey, Kitchen Distributors, you've got a brand new building. I'll take it for, you know, what ever you paid, plus 10 percent," and they're gone. And so I'm in favor of this. I think it's a -- almost exciting that a developer would see some potential. I'll be watching. If it doesn't work for you guys, then I think we need to pay attention. But that's -- that's my opinion. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Motion: Allen: I'm going to agree with the Chair. It's not even that far to a residential areas from this one little industrial area. I do believe that it is changing. I'm going to go ahead and move for approval of R-PZD 05-1816. Ostner: Thank you. I have motion to forward. Is there a second? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 80 Myres: Second. Ostner: The motion was Commissioner Allen, the second is Commissioner Myres. I do have one more comment that I wanted to make. Did I understand staff correctly that the -- as the zoning is today, industrial next to industrial, noise complaints are measured at the source property line or the complainer's property line? Williams: The complainer's property line. Ostner: Okay. Okay. There's RMF -24, not a hundred yards away. It might even be adjoining the industrial uses -- the trucking firms. There are people in those multi -family units today. And it's not like we're introducing residential where there is none. So I believe the ordinance is setup to sort of take care of that. I don't think we're going out there and begging for complaints against these gentlemen. I would hope that as people buy these, they drive through and they -- and they see buyer beware. So -- Allen: Mr. Chair. Another short comment. Ostner: Yes. Allen: Once again, the obtainable housing is a significant reason for my voting for this. And then I would hope that the developer would develop or would be ethical in making a point of letting the buyers be aware of what surrounds them, in case they're Stevie Wonder. Ostner: And don't notice the trucks everywhere. Clark: Only fitting that the other side gets to say something too. Ostner: Sure. Clark: As a business owner, this scares the heck out of me. Because this means wherever my business is it can be encroached upon by your all knowing, all being residents, and you're going to vote for it. Well, I hazard to say this, if somebody offered me my purchase price, plus a good percentage for my home, I might it too, and that could be a factor. But buyer beware, why? They win. If there's a noise complaint the buyer's going to win. And these guys are going to lose, and I just don't -- I just see that's kind of inherently unfair. And that's -- you know, and 150,000 bucks, affordable housing? Wow, that's expense stuff. If you were building something that was maybe 60 - 70,000, that to me is affordable and I might have a different bend on Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 81 things. But as it is, I think it's a fairness issue for me. I respect your project. I wish it was someplace else. I wish we could marry it with no complaints and nobody would get hurt, but I don't know that we can do it right now. So, there you go. Now we vote. Ostner: The last issue that I have not asked is the difference between the complaints and actual noise violations. Anyone is free to complain, of course, and the police come out and measure to see if there is actually a violation. Am I stating the obvious. Well, then my reasoning is that people already live next those trucks. People heard those trucks this morning and last morning, and a year ago, and as long as they've been in business. So that's where when I'm on the fence, I want to go with the guy whose taking the risk and looking at what he is seeing in the project. So -- Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I have a couple of additional comments and questions. Sometimes I feel like we have a different opinion than the City Council at this level. As you remember we saw a rezoning a little bit north of here that on Poplar, that was turned down. Well they approved for zoning that -- I believe it was -- Jeremy, was it C-1 for Honda Pro that they approved? Pate: With a Bill of Assurance, yes. Vaught: With a Bill of Assurance? Pate: I believe so. Vaught: So to me, that tells me that they see it as an -- one of the last industrial vestiges -- or commercial type vestiges in town. Well, these businesses can be located close -- in close proximity to customers or various services in town. You know, right now the -- quickly thinking the only other major industrial center is south of town. It's a good ways out of town. It's not convenient, especially if you're doing local deliveries or local services that that this area is. And I do worry that as soon as we rezone this, we've opened the adjoining property owners up to these complaints. It's not a matter of, you know, when they develop or if they develop. These people have been here for a number of years and have their rights as well. And to me I feel like I'm taking away their right -- some of their rights in a way. Grant it, it's a noise ordinance, but I don't know a remedy right now and that's what I'm struggling with. I don't know how I'm going to vote on Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 82 this. You know, it is a great idea. It's a great concept. It's a great project. I guess my is for staff, is there anything else we can require that can help mitigate sound, other than just screening or -- I know we can't anything with building code, necessarily, but that's the major issue here. Is how are these residences going to interact with the commercial surrounding it -- or the industrial surrounding it, who might be there 10, 15, 20 years and I don't want it deluged with complaints -- I don't know. I understand the redevelopment argument as well, and it's important, and there can be similar uses built into an area of dissimilar uses, and it can work very well. I just wonder how it's going to work for the next 10 or 15 years. Are we going to run these businesses out of town, basically, is my question. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Earnest. Earnest: One of the many things that I believe that we could work out with the adjoining businesses. And frankly, it's a trucking company across the street. They have a large lot, and maybe we could sit down and work something out with them, where the trucks could go to the back of their lot, at the back of their facility, and check the air horns and the air brakes. And that's all we're really talking about here are air horns in the morning and checking your air brakes. Two separate issues. And quite frankly, as someone whose been in and around municipal government for an awful long time, we run very large and very noisy garbage trucks in areas between 4:00 and 7 o'clock in the morning, we just do that. And I'm not saying that there's not going to be noise across the street. But I am saying that we would be willing to sit down and work with them, and see how we could best mitigate that problem, that potential problem. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Earnest. Vaught: Mr. Chair. I guess one of my other concerns comes from that, because we're building a new city street that connects down to Sycamore through this property that could be a convenient avenue for some of these larger trucks for entrance and egress into this area of town, and I worry about it basically running right through the middle of this project. I guess, staff what were your -- I know we have a connection to the north, but did we investigate not having a connection to the north so it kind of helps separate. I believe the residential improved on the other side of Ash, on the other side of Scull Creek, we basically eliminated the connection over Scull Creek; is that correct? That will never be made? Pate: Well, it's not eliminated. There's still a right-of-way there. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 83 Vaught: But they're not building it, they're not constructing the park next to their property. They're building this trail. They donated this land to the trail system. Pate: Correct. Vaught: They're in city right-of-way, but it's my understanding that if they're going to pay for it, that's not going to be built. To me that helps separate the uses a little bit better, there's a buffer, there's some trail land, some parkland. Granted, you know, the proximity there's still that proximity issue, but was that looked at? Pate: We felt that it was important to have at least two entrances -- ingress and egress points, and I think that the fire department would agree with that to have at least two points of ingress and egress. And actually one of the very first items that we discussed with this development was the -- most specifically the southern connection to allow for another connection, because right now that street is a long dead end street. I understand your concern about -- about the additional traffic on new Chestnut. However, I actually think that would help alleviate some of the problems that are currently in that neighborhood which they have only, I believe, one way in and one way out, currently. Public streets can be utilized by anyone. So I think -- that was staffs' position with regard to that issue. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. If there is no further comment -- Pate: Mr. Chair. I just do want to remind the Commission that it does take five positive votes to carry this item. Ostner: Yes, it does. Vaught: On PZD, on appeals process, they have the right to appeal to City Council - - well, obviously. Ostner: Yeah. Okay. Will you call the vote, please? Roll Call: The motion carries to forward R-PZD 05-1816 with a vote of 5-3-0, with Commissioners Trumbo, Graves, and Clark voting no. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 84 PZD 05-1776: Residential Planned Zoning District (Wedington Circle, 404): Submitted by Rob Sharp Architect, Inc., in behalf of Greg House and Steve Mansfield for property located NW OF WEDINGTON DR., AND GARLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY -24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 6.13 acres. The request is to review the Master Development Plan for a Residential Planning Zoning District. Ostner: Our next item is for R-PZD 05-1776 for Wedington Circle. If we could have the staff report, please? Pate: This is the last development -- actually it's not a development item, it's a zoning item tonight in the last planned zoning district. This is a request that's been in the works for a number of years. Actually, in discussing with the applicant a week or so ago, Dawn Warrick, who is the former chair, first -- I believe, meet with these applicants in discussion a recommendation and what should -- what could occur on this property. This property is currently zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, and C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It is located behind the Harps -- west of Harps on Garland and Wedingtion. The property consists of approximately 6.13 acres. It's one of the last remaining tracts along this area that has not been developed. There is dense tree canopy on the side as you can see, most primarily, from Wedington. Although, there is a larger cleared area that the Highway Department cleared several years when widening Wedington. Also, there are 10 percent -- approximately 10 percent slopes. Those do vary across the undeveloped site. As I mentioned, the site is zoned for a higher density and higher intensity uses. It is located north of Wedington, just west of Garland and does have frontage and proposed access on James Street. The surrounding current land uses -- apartment complex to the north and some single family homes in RMF -24 zoning, single-family homes across the highway to the south, zones RSF-4 across Wedington. The the east is Harps and Arvest Bank, those are zoned C-2 and C-1, and to the west, single family homes and apartments zoned both, RMF -24 and RSF-4. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Master Development Plan. This is not developmental approval, but Land Use Zoning Policy issue only. Based on the Master Plan and statement commitments, development standards that have been submitted to you in your packet, is to consist of seven phases, the first being installation of required infrastructure dedication of right-of-way. The remaining six phases will be development of structures for residential and retail office uses. This proposal consists of 93 percent residential use and 7 percent nonresidential use. The purpose, as I mentioned, of this request is to allow for a mixture of uses within the entire project, and to create an urban environment for those who desire to live close to the university. As you Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 85 know, this is close within walking distance of the University of Arkansas, within one mile of the central downtown area. There are some major multi -model transportation pick-up areas, plus pick-up areas in this area as well. As well as, you know, public services such as banks, grocery stores, restaurants, things of that nature within the immediate vicinity. Staff did recommend this item to come forward to you as a Planned Zoning District for a number of reasons. There are some inherent challenges to developing this property because of it's given slope and tree canopy, as well as the presence of the Highway Department right-of-way that severely limits a lot of the develop ability of the property. Additionally, the request to develop at the density that's proposed, which approaches 49 units per acre. We do not currently have a zoning district that would allow that to be developed, unless it was C-3. As we mentioned, there is a C-4, as we mentioned earlier tonight. The applicant, though, is seeking for of a residential project and therefore, has come through this process. The proposal is to allow for a maximum of 296 dwelling units -- 428 bedrooms on the property, and then there also associated commercial and residential uses with a maximum of 16,576 square feet, primarily, located on the lower floors of the proposed structures. As you can see, starting on Page 2 of 34 and continuing on Page 3, there is just one Planning Area, as opposed to the Park West Planned Zoning District we saw tonight. There were 15, of course, it's a 140 acre site, this is a 6 acres site. The -- there is one Planning Area proposed with the permitted uses there, including these such as office studios, eating places, shopping goods, and neighborhood shopping, home occupations, professional offices, and of course, multi -family dwellings. And also, conditional uses as mentioned that would have to come back before you as a conditional use. Density and intensity is outlined in that chart as well, as are the bulk and area regulations, setback requirements. Maximum height is placed at six stories for this property. And signage, also, that shall comply with the C-2 Zoning District regulations, where commercial and RMF -24 where there are buildings continued on the residential dwellings. One of the primary issues we discussed on this site too, is tree preservation. It is -- does have a lot of canopy existing -- 88 percent, I believe -- 89 percent existing tree canopy. As you know -- or as you saw in the Park West property we don't have tree preservation numbers. This developer actually did go ahead and provide a survey, because it was important to the overall development site. A more thorough analysis and evaluation of that survey, and what is proposed when actual construction plans are developed for a large scale development, obviously, will occur. But at this point, and again, this is early, approximately 18.4 percent of the existing canopy on the property is proposed to be preserved. Normally, with the Planned Zoning District, we anticipate the full -- at least the minimum, 25 percent is preserved. The applicant has done a lot of work to bring these numbers up Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 86 to where it is and because of the slopes, the remaining walls that will be required -- actually more have been required to increase the amount of canopy. I would also mention that this applicant has gone through three landscape administrators in this project, Craig Camagie, myself, and now, Sarah Patterson. In reviewing the various alternatives for developing this property and still retain a large, at least, area of tree canopy. The staff felt we could present as being protected and staff is generally recommending in favor of the proposal. We would -- we do anticipate -- I think it's included statement commitments that they the applicant will go above and beyond the mitigation requirements. I believe they have committed to a certain percentage or a number of trees within this area that would not normally be required for our mitigation requirements. Access is also crucial to this property. The applicants did conduct a -- commission a traffic study and have discussed with the Highway Department where the best access onto Wedington would be, because I believe -- this -- two ways in and out of this property is crucial. One access is proposed on James and one access is, I believe, is proposed to the south onto Wedington Drive at a location that would have to be approved by the Highway Department. Park land fees in the amount of $118,272.00 are required for this project. The applicant has met with the Ward 4 meeting -- been at the Ward 4 meetings at least twice with neighborhoods in that surrounding area. And there have been public comments and they have addressed a lot those public comments and gone back to the Ward meeting to present again. Staff is recommending forwarding this Master Development Plan Residential Planned Zoning District for Wedington Circle to the City Council. We feel that we're in support of it. We feel that it creates a mixed use development of this property to serve as a transition between existing commercial, multi- family, and single-family residential uses. It does create a more dense urban living environment in close proximity to existing infrastructure, including indirect access from Wedington to I-540, to the University within walking distance, and walking distance, in my opinion, to the downtown area, and also multi -modal transportation readily available. So we are recommending approval of this higher density in this area. We feel that it is appropriately located. There are currently 11 Conditions of Approval shown in your staff report, beginning on Page 5, and continuing on 6 and 7. 1 don't believe any of them are significant enough to go over at this point, but we -- staff would be happy to answer any questions. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Mansfield: Yes. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 87 Ostner: You can set one over here if you like. There's roll by that pole. Mansfield: Go evening. My name is Steve Mansfield. I live on Deerpath Drive here in Fayetteville and I represent Mansfield House, LLC, developer of this project. I appreciate you letting us come before you. This project has actually been through a number of evolutions. The original conception and ideas Jeremy had mentioned really came about meeting that we had years ago -- well, almost 5 -- well, I guess a little over 5 years ago now. About how to provide a dense, living, urban, walk -able, working environment within the City of Fayetteville, and we had numerous conversations with planning staff at that time conceptualizing what that looks like and why the City of Fayetteville, up to this point, really hasn't had any of that kind of development occur, and yet most major cities, and minor cities, and comparable cities do have that type of development. And what we found was the current zoning laws really prohibited or provide disincentives for developers to bring that kind of project forward. And we worked with staff to try to come up with some ideas of what we thought might work. We've been to the Ward meetings actually three times, met with neighbors, and neighborhood meetings to get their ideas. We've redesigned the project based on input and ideas from the local neighbors. And basically what we've come up with is something we think the City of Fayetteville will be very proud of. The density is higher than anything that the current zoning laws permit. There is a reason for that. We believe that having covered garage, underground parking was something that most residents would have interest in. We believe that the outdoor walkway, typical standard MF -24 type of project, which effectively brings all the parking on the surface and keeps all the building facade -- or the outdoor facade out to the public arena as being less attractive. We've taken an interior corridor building and designed that, and created public spaces, walkways, connectivity to the adjacent commercial areas, and tried to provide a density that allows for much of the transit that's being talked about we grow as a city. We found a site that we think fits very, very well, both with access to 540, walk -ability to the University, and access to the commercial surrounding uses that people seem to enjoy today. Anyway, we've gone through an awful lot of work. We've done more than, I think, what was originally anticipated under the PZD conceptual plan. We actually hired the same traffic engineers that Dover -Kohl had used for doing our Master Plan downtown. We presented traffic studies. We've bad had discussions with -- or at least, preliminary reviews by the Fire Department, Police Department, and have walked this project through, we think, pretty much all of the -- or trying to get checked off or at least agreement that what we're trying to do seems to make sense for many, many of the people in Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 88 this City as well as neighbors, and I'm more than willing to answer any questions, give you any input on specific items, but -- thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Mansfield. Mansfield: Sure. Ostner: We'll get right back with you. At this point I'm going to call for public comment on R-PZD 05-1776, Wedington Circle. Nock: Good evening. John Nock, speaking as a non -related developer to this project. But what strikes me about this project and I wanted to comment about is whether or not they've used appropriateness with density. There are times when we don't want to see density, there's times when we want to protect our environment, there's times when there is appropriateness. But I really like what they've done is they've given real consideration to the site and also it's -- where it's in it's context to the university. The other -- the environment of neighborhoods around it, as well as some of the shopping centers nearby. And even though there is a beautiful tree canopy there right now, that eventually could be developed in some other way. But I really like what they've done -- is they have tried to give some real consideration to not just today, in the standard we have, but just as the guiding vision of 2020 and 2050, and on down the road. They're looking at how it's going to look in the future and I really like what they're doing there, and sometimes density can be a real positive thing. And I think that what they've done is put a lot of thought and I think it's something that the City of Fayetteville will be proud of Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Nock. Is there further public comment? I'm going to close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I have a -- one question. I don't know if the developer or staff is best to address this. First of all, I think it's a great project. I do think it's appropriate -- this type density. It's provides walk -able access to the university, to downtown, to shopping. I think it's a great concept for this part of town. My one question was on access. Has access been explored -- vehicular access been explored to Harps or to that alleyway next to Arvest to promote -- I know a pedestrian walkway can just look a sidewalk, but Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 89 you know, if I want to make sure people know -- and also you get more options to emergency traffic flow or other things that need to happen to this site. Mansfield: Yes, as a matter of fact, we have looked at access to all those surroundings sites, in particular, besides the James Street and Wedington access -- the Wedington access -- the State Highway Department was involved in as far as picking location, how wide, where it should be. As far as access to Harps, the northern street -- we can't have -- or I guess it does work to make access directly into that parking lot. The southern one that actually goes into the back of the Arvest Bank, that particular access as far as vehicular traffic, is possible. It might require some variances. We're taking a look at it. We certainly will have pedestrian access from all those surrounding properties, but as far as vehicular access into the Arvest site, we may or may not and we'll focus on that. We would like it if we can. Vaught: I would -- and I know that's probably something we will look at as we see - - Jeremy, this is a concept, not a detail, right? Pate: Correct. Vaught: So I will see access type discussions at the time of large scale. I think that at least the one to the north that connects to Harps would be an important connections. I would love to see pedestrian access to the new apartments next door. I think that would be a real assets to those residents for easy access to this type of commercial development. So I think it's great. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Just a second. Are you all going to show us something. I mean, if there is a presentation -- Sharp: We just have about nine slides that will just describe the project in general detail. Ostner: Okay. If you could hold on one moment -- Commissioner Clark wanted to speak -- Clark: No, go ahead (inaudible). Ostner: Let's go ahead see -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 90 Sharp: A very minimal presentation. This is -- generally, the site plan with Wedington Avenue along the bottom. Ostner: If you could introduce yourself for the record. Sharp: I'm sorry. My name is Rob Sharp. I'm working with Greg House and Steve Mansfield on the project. Just a general site plan showing that the center of project is a traffic roundabout and the way the buildings are arranged on the site, and one -- you will particularly notice the street trees are planted along the rights-of-way and also the connections that Steve was talking about with the new Harps and the Garland Park Apartments into Wedington Avenue. This shows the overall context of the project. One thing that we are particularly excited about is the idea that this will be the beginning of developing that intersection where Oak Plaza is. That's a major entrance to the university and right now it's -- it could look better. So we're thinking about that whole neighborhood -- that's the existing conditions in the area. And then -- this is a typical -- right now we're zoned for RMF -24. This is a typical product that would -- normally what the property is zoned for and this is the kinds of things that tend to crop up next to the university, and then this project is conceptually more -- something like this where there is activity on the street, street tree planting. We got room for offices and shops, and the parking is concealed, which is a major part of the apartment complex is having to deal with all the cars that are a part of that. This an aerial view sort of giving the character of the development. Ostner: Thank you. I would just like to add that I think your figured ground was a little bit lacking, but I think it's on your behalf. The entire building at the southwest corner of Wedington and Garland was missing. So that was just -- the existing building was not on that figured grounds, so -- and that -- that an old version or something. So it -- there's a big building missing that relates to this. That's good, that would help. Commissioner Clark. Clark: I think it's a wonderful project. But I do have a question -- because we're seeing increasing numbers of projects coming through with underground parking. Jeremy, are there any safety standards particular -- in particular for underground structures? Because I'm reminded that Fayetteville is built smack on a fault line and I'm claustrophobic anyway, so parking underground is not my idea of a good time, but are there any safety features? Or safety standards that have to meet? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 91 Pate: Of course, the building code standards, like the town center, of course, has underground parking and we have our own parking structure in town that are -- Clark: We're talking like, under, underground. Pate: It will be similar -- I anticipate it will be similar to the town center. It's a structured parking underneath the structures. Obviously, there will be some part of the building where -- retain part of, you know, one side of the wall will be a stem wall and the other will be opening from one end or maybe both ends. So I anticipate it will be a little bit of both, but just because of the nature topography of the site. But it tends to work best, actually, on sites that -- or it can work better on sites that actually have some topography. Clark: And this is, of course, not specific necessarily to this development. Its just -- I'm just seeing it come through more and more. And I do believe in the worst case scenario at times. So don't let it be during a bad time. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: Since we're talking zoning and density, I agree with the comments that this is appropriate in this area. It's close to the university. I would much rather see a development like this come in at 49 units an acre than what we currently have coming in all over town. It's what's been shown -- the 24 units an acre and it a large parking lot with a building it, and all tenants and residents are forced to get in their vehicles, drive to grocery stores, drive to laundries, just not a walk -able complex. I love the idea of having mixed use in here. It makes sense. With that, I'll go ahead and make a motion for approval of R-PZD 05-1776 and agreement with all of staffs' recommendations on the conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion to forward by Commissioner Trumbo and a second by Commissioner Clark, I believe. Is there any further discussion? I would like to agree with Mr. Trumbo's comments. I think this is appropriate and a qualification to the application's statement. I believe we Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 92 do have a higher zoning district than this. I don't think I've ever seen a request for the RMF -- higher than 40. Okay. 40 is the limit. All right. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Allen -- I mean -- Allen: I would like to throw out a kudo that's often withheld to the developer about the involvement of neighborhoods in this area and going to the Ward meetings, and putting their input from the surrounding area. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. I think it's a good project. Ostner: I do too. I would assume when more people in the neighborhood -- well, there is a propensity for people to be very afraid of this and I completely agree. I would wish the developer well and I would hope that the Council would see fit that this is a plus for the community. So any further discussion? Okay. Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to forward R-PZD 05-1776 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Sharp: Thank you. Mansfield: Appreciate it. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 93 ADM 05-1849: Administrative Item ( Accessory Structure/Use UDC amendment): Submitted by Planning Staff to amend the Unified Development Code to clarify the intent of the accessory structure and use ordinance. Ostner: The next item is Administrative Item 05-1849 for the Accessory Structure Use UDC amendment. If we could have the staff report, please? Pate: Planning staff has brought this amendment to Unified Development Code forward to the Planning Commission and to hopefully forward it on to City Council. Based on several complaints, concerns, citizen input, regarding accessory structures being developed in the City of Fayetteville. Currently, the Unified Development Code pretty broadly defines -- it's based on your perspective. Accessory uses are structures in terms of zoning as a user structure on the same lot width and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principle use or structure. No where in that definition or in the accessory use or structure ordinance does it actually say what that size means or what's subordinate, or defines what is customarily incidentally insubordinate to. Staff would leave it up to interpretation by the zoning development administrator. I don't -- I would feel more comfortable because I have seen building permits issued in the past for structures that were larger than, or as least as large as the principle structure. And I do not feel that that is the intent of this section of our Unified Development Code. We are recommending that language be added to further clarify that. Simply state that accessory structures would be of a nature in size less than 50 percent of the principle use or structure on the property and then obviously thereby there would be incidental and subordinate to. This will help us in future determinations in building permitting and uses of both issuance of building permits and certificate of zoning compliance, which are office issues. Page 3 is the proposed ordinance changes. What you see there in strike -through is proposed for deletion and primarily, that striking -through buildings and inserting structures in their place. Because that's how the definition defines them -- or relates to them and the bold text proposed for insertion includes structure in their place. Also Number 4, Size of accessory structure and I'll read this for the benefit of the public. "An accessory structure shall be less than 50 percent of the size of the principle structure. Any accessory structure requested that is 50 percent of greater than the size of the principle structure shall be allowed only as a conditional use and shall be granted in accordance with Chapter 163, governing applications of conditional use procedures; and upon the finding that the requested structure is designed to be compatible with the principle structure on the property and those on surrounding properties." That in essence does not entirely prohibit them, but it does require conditional use request, much like you've seen Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 94 accessory structures be constructed prior to the principle structure as a conditional use request. There's some other -- why Section B there, trash containers are in that section I don't know. It's not no longer applicable, so staff is -- has removed that area and -- or that portion of the ordinance. And staff is recommending that this be forwarded on to the City Council for approval. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there any public comment on this item -- Administrative Item 05-1849, the UDC amendment. Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. I have a question for Mr. Pate. On Page 3 of 6, the -- when you say "accessory use of structure" we're basically inserting "and size less than 50 percent." That's at the first change. Is size clearly defined? Pate: I believe so. In looking at a size of a structure in it's square footage and -- for instance, a building permit is issued for the specific -- or specific structure it was less than actual size of that structure -- 50 percent. Ostner: So the size would not be the footprint on the earth, but the gross square footage mulit-level. Pate: That's typically -- yes. That's typically how it is utilized. Ostner: Okay. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I have one question so I can understand it. When you approved a variance before for a pool house that was over so many square feet, it that a separate ordinance and how does this relate to that ordinance? Pate: It is a separate ordinance. That was a -- I believe it was a request for a second dwelling unit on the property. Because that pool house also had a granny unit. The other condition on that property was that those are limited to 1,200 square feet, I believe. And so the house was actually much greater -- something like 8,000 square feet, and so potentially they could have a 3,999 square foot accessory structure, but again, it gets back to the actual relationship to the principle structure on site. And that's what we feel is important to establish here. Vaught: So this goes hand in hand with that ordinance. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 95 Pate: Correct. Myres: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: I appreciate the fact that this amendment clarifies this item and should actually make everybody's job easier. I would like to move that we forward Administrative Item 05-1849 to the City Council with our approval. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Myres. Do I have a second? Clark: Second. Ostner: Motion by Commissioner Myres, a second by Commissioner Clark. Any further comment? Clark: I guess we are approving that size does matter. Ostner: Okay. Call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 05-1849 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 96 ADM 05-1839: Administrative Item ( Amendment to Planning Commission Bylaws, Article III ): Submitted by Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, proposed an amendment to the time allowed for presentation of comment by the public. Ostner: Okay. Our next item is another Administrative Item 05-1839, for the Amendment to the Planning Commission Bylaws, Article III. AKA, time limits. Pate: As noted at the last Planning Commission meeting in pursuant to your bylaws, this is the item to request -- requested to change your -- the Planning Commission bylaws to reflect the following under Item H, which is located under Article 111. "Presentation by an applicant shall be limited to ten minutes. A speaking time limit of three minutes per citizen shall be enforced by the chair. Extension of speaking time for either the applicant or a citizen shall only be allowed by unanimous consent of the whole commission." That's the language that was presented at the last meeting and is up for a vote by the Planning Commission tonight. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this issue, Administrative Item 05-1839? Terminella: Good evening. Tom Terminella. I just wanted to clarify. Is this for the Planning Commission or City Council? Because -- Ostner: This is amending our Planning Commission bylaws only. Terminella: Okay. Another point of view, would it not be reasonable to think on a typical lot split or maybe a vacation of something that that would be acceptable. But as we've seen unfold this evening with Park West, that was some hour and 30 minutes of presentation, would seem reasonable to cut them back to 10 minutes for an applicant or a landowner. That becomes my only question and comment. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Terminella. Any further public comment? Okay. I'll close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I continue to be adamantly opposed to this amendment to our constitution. I think it's regressive. I think if we analyze the meeting tonight, that very little minutes of the meeting involved public input. That, as I've said Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 97 before, we have met the enemy and the enemy is us and if we are ever more succinct in our thoughts then our beings can be held out. I don't want to see us go backwards. This is -- we are elected officials -- we are appointed officials to represent the elected official and if we don't have time to listen to the public, we don't have time to be on the Planning Commission. Ostner: Thank you, Commissioner Allen. Myres: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I would concur with Commissioner Allen. I really don't think that it's fair to limit the amount of time that an applicant or a member of the public can speak unless we do the same for ourselves. And I just don't -- I just don't want to put a limit on it. I'm hardily opposed -- no offense -- to this. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Ostner: I don't know if I necessarily agree. I think I would more so if it was the only idea of expression. That we have multiple meeting, that they have opportunities to contact us by e-mail, they can call the staff any time. There's multiple avenues for them to express their opinions. The primary - - one of the primary functions of the Board is to make decisions and do it through the facts and details -- and that's something that, you know, a big part of what this meeting is. It's our time to hash it out as well. Limiting our speech on items I think would be counter productive more than anything, since that is the main purpose of this meeting. I feel like the public expression is something that can be done throughout the process in a number of ways. So I don't feel like we're cutting anybody off and not allowing anyone to have their speak -- their speech or express their opinion. It's my opinion, if that's really the attitude of Commissioners. I'm for some sort of time limit. I'm not saying that 10 minutes is the ideal time or not. But I do agree that it allows people to collect their thoughts and ample time to express a multitude of opinions, but if that's the wish of the Commission is not to have that ordinance. I don't want to ask someone to stay brief even. Because then which would be interpreted as haphazardly or unfairly applying unspoken time limits to people and limiting to people speech in that avenue. Limiting some but not others. And I think that is a dangerous road to be on. I think that if there is some kind of limit implied or factual, I think we need to have the actual limits and not have this Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 98 implied, you know, keep it brief, that we ask our chair to enforce, haphazardly or at his discretion. I feel like that's a more dangerous ground. But I would be in support of some kind of a time limit. As I said, it's not the only avenue of speech, the only way to communicate to us. There's multiple avenues to us that aren't at all limited. I'm sure Jeremy would love to talk to anyone as long as they wanted to any day of the week. So I feel like it could be a step forward, but if we don't approve I don't want to get in the situation where we're asking the chair whoever that may be to arbitrarily administer some kind of unspoken time limit. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Vaught. Clark: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I don't ask want the chair to enforce a designated time limit. I mean, if we're going to be restricting them to 3 minutes of time. I mean, somebody is going to have to be watching a clock, I don't want to do that, because I think I should be listening to what's going on. I don't want to be judging somebody and cutting them off. And I'm also troubled by Article H, which says that an applicant or citizen can have their time extended only by unanimous consent of the whole commission. That means one person could have shutdown several of our speakers tonight giving their presentation, and I'm not saying I'll be that person, but you know, if were going to start taking shortcuts, and to me this is a shortcut. That could be very dangerous, because it requires all of us to agree. Now if that point we all agree, then why don't we give time limits, if we don't agree we're going to be shutting down some people who are potentially making presentations that are worth while and answering questions we need to hear. I'm just troubled by it. I think this is an avenue by which the public, win or lose, get to say what they want to say and then walk out the door knowing they had their chance to say everything they wanted to say. And I do agree with Commissioner Allen and I do agree with editorial in the newspaper, that Commission Allen was absolutely right. If you don't have time to listen, don't do this. People send me e-mails all the time and they empty into my spam folder because I don't know them. So I -- they could be about Planning Commission, I don't read them. We get stuff sent to us all the time that I don't see because of my spam filters filter it out. So this is where I come to listen to come make up my mind and I would hate to see it cut -- I would hate to see these aggressive rules, in my opinion, be put into play. That's my opinion. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 99 Graves: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Graves. Graves: I am not opposed. I think I said this at the first reading. I'm not opposed to a time limit and I doubt that many of the public speakers that forward on issues they probably don't talk longer than 3 minutes. I can't -- 3 minutes is actually longer than it sounds -- a lot longer than it seems when you look at it on paper. And very few of them take 3 minutes unless they are trying to read something to us. Sometimes they hand us something and they want to read it to us after they've already handed it to us and those are the kinds of things that can maybe helped by a time limit rather than seeming rude and putting that type of pressure on the chair that -- say, you know, we can read and thanks for giving it to us. But it does put a lot of pressure on the chair and makes the chair a bad guy sometimes to try to enforce -- what right now is kind of a arbitrary decision on his part, on whether that's been covered before, or whether it's repetitive, and it's a subjective judgement at least on his part. And this makes sort of an objective outline on what -- how long somebody can talk, and they can talk about what they want to as long as I guess they're not personally attacking someone or something. The bigger issue for me is the same one Commissioner Clark expressed. My concern with language about it taking unanimous consent in order to extend speaking time. Mr. Terminella raised a good point and there are particular projects that come through, and as PZDs become more and more used, large projects that require a lot of time and review, that probably requires more presentation time on part of the applicant. I still suspect that the public speaker would not take more than 3 minutes a piece on those. There might be more public speakers on those issues rather than one or two showing up, there might be 20. But the 3 minute time limit probably isn't going to effect them that much. The 10 minute time limit on the applicant is probably -- would put a substantial strain on them on those larger projects. And I don't mind putting a 10 minute time limit in there if it were easier to extend it, you know, by some majority or super majority required in the bylaw that didn't allow one lone holdout to somebody who's just tired and wants to go home or whatever. And I'm not accusing -- no body here acts that way, but it would just take one person to say, no, I don't want to hear anymore from that person and they're stuck with their 10 minutes no matter how long large or how significant the project is. And so I would be for this particular amendment to the bylaw if there was some type of a change in the language about what it would take to extend speaking time. Again, tonight we extended the courtesy of allowing some members of the public to come up more than once. And again, I don't know if the total amount of their time was 3 minutes or not, but it was sort of an informal, Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 100 you know, ability to let that happen even if they had already gone over 3 minutes of speaking. And the way this is worded, if one person had not wanted to hear that person come up again, then it's over and they can't talk again. So that would be the only concern I have about this particular bylaw change, it just I would rather it say something that allowed a little bit easier hurdle to overcome in order to extend the courtesy, especially on projects that -- there are projects that it takes a little while to make the presentation, especially by the applicant. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Graves. Lack: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Lack. Lack: I think that at times it is important to establish rules when you do have to regulate procedures and to have to regulate the procedure with the ambiguity of having to make the judgment calls to when to disallow somebody to speak is a difficult task. I am concerned about the presentations by the applicants and how we will actually force that time limit. As we saw tonight, we saw numerous applicants that gave a partial presentation and then after a little bit of public comment there was more presentation, and then a little bit later there was a Powerpoint presentation. So what do we call the applicant's presentation with regards for regulation of time and what do we call interaction that is definitely necessary and can extend beyond that. I think I would agree with Commissioner Graves in that I think that three minutes is quite a lot of time for most public members, sometimes we do see public members accumulate their speaking into one or two, maybe three, figureheads for the group and there may be some provision for that -- their time to be accumulated. But mostly the presentation of the developer and how that regulation would effect that and even just for the beginning of it to access the 10 minutes to a development. I've made presentations in that tight and there are projects which cannot be explained in 10 minutes. Clark: There are projects that shouldn't be explained in just 10 minutes. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Are you done Mr. Lack? Lack: Yes. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 101 Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: I believe this is going to cause more problems -- create more problems than solutions and I'm going to vote against it, so I'm going to make a motion to deny Administrative Item 05-1839. Allen: Second. Ostner: Okay. I have a motion to deny Administrative 05-1839. Could I offer the motioner a tabling mechanism until all our members are here? Trumbo: Absolutely. Ostner: We're missing one tonight. Trumbo: Sure. Absolutely. Clark: (inaudible) ?: Are you motioning to -- Motion: Trumbo: I'll move to table. I'll change my motion to table the item. Clark: Indefinitely? Ostner: Well -- until the next possible meeting? Trumbo: Yes, that's fine. Ostner: Okay. Allen: How many members does it take for this to pass? Ostner: I believe it's five to change our bylaws. Williams: Either way. Either the motioner's table takes five and also the underlying motion (inaudible). Ostner: Okay. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 102 Trumbo: I still move to table. Ostner: That's fine. Thank you. I'm not politicing, I'm simply assuming Commissioner Anthes might have a point of view. Myres: You know she does. Ostner: Some ideas, some solutions, have been presented. Mr. Terminella, Mr. Lack, everyone has offered great solutions and if this fails tonight, well, that's fine. Then we'll figure something else out or we could bring in our last commissioner, so that's why I'm bringing that up. Myres: Does the motion need a second? Ostner: It does. Williams: Yes. Ostner: It does. Myres: I will be happy to second. Ostner: Okay. Allen: I seconded the -- I motioned to vote, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to -- Ostner: I believe Mr. -- Williams: Actually, a motion to table of the underlying motion is available, even though it's unusual for the original motioner to move to table his own motion (inaudible). Ostner: It's a preemptive -- Allen: Just making a point, you know, that it may take quite a while before all nine of us are here. It may be that next meeting someone else will be absent. Ostner: Well, okay. I'm not trying to delay it forever. I mean, we could vote right now. Graves: Mr. Chair. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 103 Ostner: Mr. Graves. Graves: I have a question for staff, real quick. I would prefer -- I could get behind some type of bylaw change along these lines, but I would rather see -- maybe go back to the drawing board with some of the comments that have been made tonight. I don't know what the process for that would be and for bringing something else forward. I know we had to read this once before we could vote on it at the next meeting, and so I don't know what the process would be if we were to table this and leave it sitting out there, and at the same time staff is working on some changes to it. Mryes: A substitute? Pate: I'd be happy to look. I came here from Colorado and all jurisdictions have time limits on speaking there and so I can look at various alternatives that what they've done. I believe, just really looking quickly through amendments -- at the bylaws. Even if we indicate 10 days prior, which we typically do anyway, for notification. I think you could -- whatever alternatives -- I could present several to you with these amendments and, I think, the next meeting would be fine. As opposed to going to another meeting and waiting two weeks. Graves: That's what I would prefer to happen and, specifically, I would like the staff, from my standpoint, the staff to address the hurdle of extending time and also maybe account for the fact that sometimes people do group their time together and I think we should encourage that. I think we should encourage when 20 people show up, that they may select three spokesperson who come up and speak, and that should be encouraged in some fashion. Ostner: Thank you. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: I'm going to speak right now. I would be glad to -- for this to fail and to go back to the way it was. If I start cutting people off the way I want to, somebody up here is not going to be happy, and a lot of those out there aren't going to be happy. And the basic thing I was driving at was predictability. Applicants have prepared for tonight for weeks, months. Did they prepare for 10 minutes or an hour? When they get here it's a little late to rearrange things because I say so. Same with citizen groups, they plan on these meetings -- it's a big deal, it's their homes. It's -- the biggest Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 104 investment any American has is usually their home. Okay. A lot is on the line here. When they come, I wanted something predictable. Gee, I know there's a limit or I know if I can finagle that guy I can talk for over an hoar. So, it's not predictable and it doesn't seem fair to me the way it is now. That if they please me or if they don't seem to Alan to be out of line, Alan is going to let them go, and your exactly right, some big irregularities went on tonight, because I'm just taking it as it comes. The newspaper did have its opinion. I'm not sure the newspaper is aware of our constraints. I would be curious to know whether our ethical obligations to not discuss these things with each other was made clear, we're not supposed to. When we get here this is the first time we've gotten together and talked about these, for us to go on and on is vital. For people to hand us something and to go on and on, and to show it up there is repetitive, and it doesn't help us help the community. So I want predictability. The fact that it's 9:30 and we've still got the Hillside Ordinance, it is a detriment to the community, that we're all here and that we're all tired. We're not our best and we're not our sharpest when things have gone on and on. We do discuss things too long, however, that is part of the democratic process, just like hot dogs, no one like to watch them in production, we just want the result. So, I would agree that what happens before tonight is crucial. We have a mountain of paper, this is about half of it. I think a lot of citizens don't write planning staff. Just write your letter to staff. You can e-mail it, paper mail it, drop it off, and we get it. We get it and we study it for four nights and five days, and if you have to come down at the last minute and I truly believe in three minutes you can get it out there. Part of the reason I requested Jeremy write up some bylaws, I've been watching people leave. It's 9 o'clock and they haven't heard their item, "forget it, I'm going home." That's not right. I think, that when a few people get to vent their emotions, that we get tired and other people are prevented. So I don't think this is a proper forum for people's personal venting to go on when it goes to far. There's a lot of venting that goes on, anyway, it's going to happen. That's my opinion. So I appreciate the option to table and the option to change these. Graves: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Graves was going to ask -- Graves: And that's exactly all I was suggesting. Is I think that there -- from the comments I've heard tonight it sounds like there are a number of commissioners who might support the idea of some type of time limit. I'm just not so sure they can support the way this is worded and, you know, the fact that it would require unanimity to extend time to anybody seems kind Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 105 of oppressive, and the fact that this seems almost to encourage people to come up one at a time, rather than to group and select spokespeople. If they all -- if you put a three-minute time limit on each person, they all may feel like they need to take advantage of their three minutes, and there may be a way to draft something that encourages people to -- that have a common interest in something to get together and select a spokesperson as we've seen a lot of times in here. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioner Allen? Allen: I was going to say that I'm aware of any arm of our city of government -- of Fayetteville government that restricts time and input from citizens, and I would be very, very, saddened to see the Planning Commission be the first to do that. The Fayetteville public schools are battling with this issue and this barely breaking ground and letting people to be able to put forth their thoughts, and to me it would be a real tragedy for that to occur. If people have gotten to say what they feel, then no matter how the outcome is, they feel better. They have gotten to put their two -cents worth in and they can walk away thinking they were right, they were wrong, but they heard me. And I feel very strongly about it. I hope it gets tabled until I'm off the commission, because I will ashamed to be part of a commission that wouldn't allow people to speak. Mr. Chair. Ostner: Thank you. I would like to just -- this is actually allowing everyone to speak for a limited time. Allen: I understand that. I mean, we just have a different opinion. Mr. Chair. Ostner: Well -- Vaught: I would also want to add. I believe the public school board's -- or rules go much further than this in limiting speech. In the ability of people to speak, I believe, don't you have to send a written comment and then be approved by the board? This opens the floor to people, it just tries to keep it in an orderly fashion that makes it fair and equitable to everybody involved. Right now, we're not fair and equitable, and that's a concern to me. I'd rather see a time limit that's fair to everyone than arbitrary -- arbitrary application of an unopposed, unspoken, limit where we ask people to be brief, but, you know, some people honor that and some people don't. And Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 106 putting the chair, whoever the chair may be, in that position is dangerous I feel, and also feel it's dangerous because every time the chair turns over, the application of that arbitrary judgment changes, and so I don't feel like that's a safe place for the city as well. I believe there is a solution we can reach that might (inaudible). Ostner: I think I would appreciate term "personal judgment," instead of arbitrary. There's a difference. Vaught: Well, I know, and you do the best of your personal judgment in asking people to speed up. We've asked people as well, and I'm not saying you, it's always happened to try to keep their comments to three minutes and then we try to police that. Right now we have no leg to stand on and it becomes arbitrary. It can be perceived as arbitrary and capricious, maybe I should say that, but in application you need to use that judgment as chair right now. But that changes with the next chair and what they feel and believe and it changes the commission. I believe rules can be a good mechanism of leveling the playing field, I view that as being what this is. Once, again, since this is not the only avenue of speech available. Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion to table. Clark: Is there (inaudible) on the table, the motion? To table (inaudible) made the motion to table. Ostner: He asked for the -- our next meeting to bring this forward. Yes, next meeting. Clark: Point of clarification. You also asked Jeremy to do some research to bring us back information. I'm not sure that can be done by the next meeting. Ostner: We can ask. Lack: Do an extended time. We don't have another meeting. Ostner: You feel you -- Pate: Yes. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 107 Ostner: -- you can have -- okay. Clark: Given the time (inaudible). Ostner: Okay. If there's no further discussion, let's vote on the tabling. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table ADM 05-1839 carries with a vote of 6-2-0, with Commissioners Allen and Clark voting no. Commissioner Anthes was absent. Ostner: Okay. Back to our agenda. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 108 ADM 05-1841: Administrative Item (Hillside Overlay District Unified Development Code Ordinance Amendments): Submitted by Planning Staff to amend the Unified Development Code Chapters: 151 Definitions, 156 Variances, 161 Zoning Districts, 167 Tree Preservation, 169 Physical Alteration of Land, 170 Stormwater, and 172 Parking, and to adopt a hillside overlay district and ridge top preservation zone boundary. ADM 05-1842: Administrative Item (Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual): Submitted by Planning Staff to provide best management practices to guide development on the City's hillsides. ADM 05-1879: Administrative Item (Hillside Overlay District Map) Ostner: Next is Administrative Item 05-1841, 05-1842, and 05-1879, Administrative Item for the Unified Development Code Ordinance Amendments, the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual, and Hillside Overlay District Map. If we could have the staff report, please? Conklin: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Tim Conklin, Planning and Development management. I'd like to begin this evening by starting out, in 2002, going back in history with the City Council passing the resolution for the City of Fayetteville, planning staff, Planning Commission, to take a look at how we manage development within our hillsides, and with regard to that, there are some issues that came up over the last few years with regard to development practices and concerns about those development practices within those areas. And that includes mass grading, removal of vegetation, wholesale removal of vegetation from our hillsides, and other issues with regard to hillside development that resulted in City Council passing that resolution. With that said, they also adopted a vision and guiding principles for the city. Behind you, on the board -- number one talks about a naturally beautiful city, our mounds, our hills, our creeks, and our open green spaces, there's a priority for our City Council to look at how we manage growth. I know that it's getting. I'm going to briefly go through the ordinance amendments, then I'll have Leif Olson go through the best practices, and then staff is also making a recommended change, which you have in your packet this evening. With regard to the Hillside Ordinance amendments, staff looked at how to provide incentives in order to achieve the best practices within our hillsides, and that included looking at our zoning districts and reducing the lot width in RSF- 4, from 70 feet to 60 feet, to create more narrow lots, reducing the setbacks, and the RSF- 4, R -O, RMF -24, and RSF-4, a 5 -foot side setback: 15 -front, 15 -rear, which allows more of a flexible, build able area. In the R -O, a 15 -foot front, an 8 - side, and a 15 -foot rear setback. And RMF -24, 15, 8, and a 15 rear setback. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 109 So once again, flexibility, trying to provide incentives to be able to sight your structure within the lot, and try to preserve vegetation. Within the grading ordinance, allowing with approval of the City Engineer, a two to one slope for tie -backs when you're doing cutting and filling. Also, within our best management practices, new street standards within our hillsides. Typically, we'd have a 50 -foot right-of-way, that entire right-of-way would have to be graded the entire 50 feet out with sidewalks set back. Those standards have been revised, and you recently approved Falling Waters PZD, which utilized those setbacks, and I appreciate that engineering firm working with utility companies to help us develop those standards and reduced street standards, which helps also to preserve the hillsides. We looked at, in exchange, to providing incentives or more flexibility, tried to preserve more of the hillside by setting a larger percent tree canopy preservation requirement. Currently on single-family RSF- 4 lots, there is no tree preservation ordinance requirement. That was one of the loopholes at Design Workshop identified and the public identified, and the development community identified, as an issue. We have a developer that comes into town, develops a subdivision, has to preserve a certain percentage of trees, and then when the individual lot owner, there may be 85 individual lots in the subdivision, the trees get removed that were tried - - we tried to save as a city. So, in exchange for the reduced street right-of- way, the reduced setbacks, we're looking at tree preservation requirements on individual lots. Within the grading ordinance, there's a 60 percent undisturbed requirement for a subdivision development. What has been added in there, is large-scale development for 30 -percent tree preservation. That will tie back to the tree ordinance requirements of 30 -percent tree canopy, so the ordinances are working in tandem. Once again, with incentives and reduced setbacks, reduced street right-of-way, reduced utility right-of-way. With regard to parking lots, it talks within our ordinance with regard to 30 parking spaces per area being allowed. If your building is in front, you do have the reduced setback, if not, you have a 35 - foot undisturbed area in front of your parking lot for projects that require parking lots, and basically, that would be your RMF -24. The change that staff is recommending and this something that we've been evaluation since the last task force meeting, and that is the ridge top preservation zone. There's been a lot of discussion brought forward to staff with regard to our existing development patterns. And let me just step back, and go back in history, we're trying to look at what has worked with regard to development on our hillsides in Fayetteville historically in the past, and what hasn't. And the public outcry has, not necessarily, been the ridge top development, it has been developments that have been on the sides of the hills that have altered the actual terrain significantly of the hillsides; removal of all the vegetation on the sides of the hill, and it has not Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 110 necessarily been the ridge top. Our GIS division has printed maps out for staff to evaluate with regard to the existing development patterns on our ridge tops. If you look at south mound, or the Country Club area, South College, a lot of those homes on the east side fall within that ridge top preservation zone, that under our current ordinance would become nonconforming. If you look at Sherwood Drive, Skyline Drive, a lot of our street construction, historically, has been right on the ridge top. A lot of those homes -- just evaluating where they have been placed, have been closer to the street and not brought down the hillside. I know that's a departure from what Design Workshop has recommended, but looking at our existing development patterns, it hasn't really been an issue. What staff would like to propose in exchange for our ridge top preservation zone, is to set a maximum building height within that zone or within the entire -- just have one building height for the Hillside Overlay District. Design Workshop has recommended 60 feet in the R -O and the RMF -24, zoning districts. We were designing the workshop recommended 48 feet in the RSF-4 zoning district. I've not had an opportunity to actually measure some of the homes that you see on Skyline Drive, with the fall foliage down off the trees now, you can look up on the hill. There are some four- story structures up there that may be over 48 feet, that with tree canopy that's higher than that. Talking with the Urban Forester this afternoon, the oak/hickory-type forest that we have in the Ozark plateau here, typically can range from 50 to 80 feet, up to a hundred, depending on soil conditions, so we have a wide range of -- so with regard to, as we start getting out of our 55 or 60 feet, there's a potential that you would be able to see structures within that -- beyond the tree canopy. But once again, as we look at regulating and managing development within the City of Fayetteville, I think we should focus on what have been the major issues, and that is wholesale clearing of the trees off of individual lots. I saw some examples this afternoon driving around, that if we had any preservation requirement trying to save the tree canopy, trying to create undisturbed areas, that goes a long way to protecting and preserving our hillsides. There is an example of trees being saved with backhoes and parked underneath the trees, and materials underneath the trees, they might as well cut the trees down, because in five years those oak trees will probably be dead. So, once again, trying to minimize or -- minimize the amount of land disturbance, trying to create areas that are undisturbed within the individual lots, is the goal that we're trying to achieve. So, that is the one change staff is recommending. With that -- I know this is new information, you as a commission, if you would like to -- when you discuss this ordinance, and if you would like to forward the recommendations -- forward with a recommendation for staff to look further at whether or not we want to keep that preservation zone or recommended not to do that, but -- or look at a Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 111 building height. We're trying to find a way to allow what historically has been built by development pattern. I think the development community has made some good points with regard to what has been built, especially in Fayetteville, that has not been -- really caused any public outcry. The buildings that we received the complaints have been above 60 feet, or the tree canopy within Fayetteville, and so that's the one change we want to make. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if you want Mr. Olson to go over the best management practices. I quickly went through the ordinance amendments at this time. Ostner: Does anyone want Mr. Olson to share more with us? We've heard a little bit before. Vaught: Mr. Chair, only if there's changes. If you can highlight any changes made or -- Ostner: How about if we just -- Vaught: The best practices -- would this change -- the building height only -- how would that effect the best practices? Conklin: We would have to -- if you do take that recommendation, we would have to modify the best practices manual to reflect that change. I would like to note, that within the best practices manual, we had a lot of discussion at the subcommittee or task force level, with regard to engineered foundations. And within there it talks about the city strongly encourages homeowners or developers, when they build within the hillside preservation zone on Fayetteville's hillsides, that they consult a geotechnical engineer to evaluate what is needed to actually build within those areas. We've included a report that has been done on the Fayetteville quad with regard to the situation with the soils, and the movement of our soils within Fayetteville. It is known that there are areas that have high swelling and shrinkage clays, areas that are slipping, and that the idea to order your house out of a plan book, and build a slab foundation in some of these areas, is not recommended. It's strongly recommended that they engineered in these areas, however, the ordinances did not go as far as to require that, and so that was discussed at the committee. So at this time, if there's any questions with regard to that one recommended change, I would be more than happy to answers any questions that have. Vaught: Mr. Chair, is this the time for questions? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 112 Ostner: Well, we can keep them brief. We need to do public comment and then we will get back -- I mean, he is the developer, he is the applicant. Vaught: I just had a question on the building height. Was it for historic grade, including grading? Right? Conklin: That's correct. Including grading. Looking at some of the structures out there and I believe you'll hear from some of the public this evening, some of those houses are over 55 feet in height from the historic grade, and they still -- when you evaluate them or look at them from down below, they still are not towering above the tree canopy. I know it's hard to write an ordinance that addresses every single ridge top, and that trees -- or we're going to be at different heights and different areas of Fayetteville. But, once again, staff is not recommending at this time to create an ordinance that would basically make a lot of the existing homes that have been built, tri -level, step down the hillside, that are likely to be over 48 feet in height -- just evaluating and looking at that, creating a situation where they become nonconforming. That has not been the issue. The public debate that I've witnessed or experienced here, has been cell towers, water tanks, and some architectural structures that you can see that are possibly, 70, 80 feet tall, and some structures that are on the sides of hills, that are either painted white or reflect sunlight, and we have not addressed those issues, and we're not recommending that we address material, but those are the structures that, as staff, if you're talking about visibility or view shed, and I'm not going to name the -- I think everybody knows the two or three that I'm probably talking about that you can see in Fayetteville. They're not on the ridge top, they're on sides of the hills and it's more of a material issue, color issue, and we did not go into that, so -- I would strongly recommend that at this time, if you do go forward, not to adopt the ridge top preservation zone as it. If you feel like there needs to be additional regulation on that, Design Workshop has sent some e-mails to us with regard to that. But, once again -- or if you like, we can take a tour and we can look at south mound, we can look at Skyline Drive, Sherwood, Highland Park, Lovers Lane, and kind of evaluate that a little closer, because there are a lot of homes that are built within the 25 -- or built with the 25 -foot setback from the road, that are on the ridge line that really don't impact the view shed for Fayetteville. Thank you. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Conklin. Any quick comments before we get public comment? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 113 Clark: I just have a quick question for Tim. On the ridge top preservation zone, in the definitions, Tim; it's calling for 60 feet on both sides. Did you mention something about 48 -foot for RSF-4? Conklin: Yeah, within the RSF- 4 it talks about 48 feet maximum height. Clark: Is that going to be inserted into these definitions or -- I believe (inaudible) is different. Yeah, 60 horizontal width. Clark: That's the (inaudible)? 60 feet on either side of preservation line. Of the ridge line. What Tim was talking about was the 48 -foot height limit -- building height limit. Clark: Okay. You would strike that. Clark: It would be struck? Right. Ostner: It's one or the other. Conklin: We do have some graphics if we want to look in more detail of -- with regard to the -- Mr. Chairman, if I may, talk about -- a little about the map. Didn't really get the chance to explain that. The map was developed using our GIS system. Looked at a hundred by hundred pixels, with how much 15 percent slope occurred within each of those. It was not drawn by hand, it was based on the mathematical formula. You'll notice that on Mount Sequoyah, that since it doesn't completely enclose and it's more of a plateau as you move to the east. It does not contain a ridge top preservation zone. That was another issue that we looked at. Township, the ridge on Township -- since that does not actually enclose -- make a complete circle, it does not contain a ridge top preservation zone, so those are some of the challenges also we had with that zone. Was that based on Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 114 our methodology to try to create those zones, it did not fall on -- I would say what people would typically think as of ridge tops within Fayetteville. Basically, we did some during the task force -- John Goddard, with GIS, was there to test different sizes of parcels. We were trying to remove as many as possible that were small, for example, the -- Gregg Avenue, where it goes under the freeway, the ramps or whatever -- the elevated freeway were shown up as slope, so we try to remove those outliers, or those remnant pieces of hillside. Trying to really focus on the recognizable geographic features that -- a lot of them are named by USGS in Fayetteville, and a lot of people recognize as hills in Fayetteville. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Conklin. Any public comment? Please step forward and share your name and give us your comments. Alexander: Hi. Rick Alexander. I live at 231 Dickson Street. It may surprise you to know that there are quite a few in the development community that generally support the best practices portion of the Hillside Overlay District. One of the concerns, though, that developed during the task force, public charette meetings, that were held on this subject was the hillside -- or the ridge top preservation area. Listening to Tim, I support the idea that the Commission encourage planning staff to go back and look at that issue. One of the main concerns with that is, if there's 120 -foot setback from the middle or 60 feet on each side of the ridge line -- if you have a piece of property with a particularly large or tong ridge line, that can result in facing many, many, acres -- many thousand square feet. If you have, for instance, you may or may not know that there's a group of us that have purchased South Pass, it's 800 acres. It's where the community park is slated to go. A part of our plan is to give to the city, 200 -plus acres for community parks and trails, and then the remaining 800 acres will be developed as mixed use, and everywhere from RMF- whatever, to single family, as it goes up the hill. That project has potentially a mile, to a mile and a half, of ridge line. If there is a hundred and twenty feet of preservation area, that could be anywhere from 8 to 20 acres of property. When you start valuing that property at the what the park's commission is currently suggesting the value per acre is 40,000 acres, you get anywhere from $400,000.00 to $800,000.00 with of property that would basically taken out of circulation for development purposes, so the economic impact on the property owners could be significant. I agree with Tim, that there are many areas in town that has successfully developed the ridge tops. I think the development community was in favor, or certainly not adamantly opposed to height restrictions, with the respect to the development of ridge tops, I think that could be appropriate. I don't know. I guess I would ask the Commission when it's considering this, to consider maybe varying heights depending on Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 115 where or what the slope of the property is. In other words, you might have -- you might allow a higher height at the bottom of the hill, with a lesser degree of slope and a lesser height at the top of the hill with the steeper slope. Those would be some of the things that I would encourage the Commission to look at, but I think Tim's presentation tonight was representative of, at least the public input, as well as the task force discussion that I heard, with respect to preservation area on the ridge tops, and I think it would be appropriate that you relook at that. Certainly, there are good parts of the best practices act. Being a citizen of Fayetteville, one of our assets is and has always been our hillsides. It's what makes our city unique. I think that we've done in large measure, a good job of developing those hillsides. Certainly, we can always look at strengthening those efforts and trying to do abetter job. Sol supportwhat Tim is asking you to do. I think it's extremely reasonable and I think the development community supports that too, at least the people I've talked to, so with that said, I'll let somebody. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Nock: Hello. John Nock, 1501 Forest Heights. I know the night is already growing old and I know there's a lot of things to discuss, so I want to be real brief. First of all, I would like to put some gratitude toward the city staff that has really worked closely with the community, especially with the development community. Very many meetings and very many discussions, and we appreciate them listening. We appreciate you listening as well. One thing that I just wanted to point out, I really think it's important to keep consideration open for the PZD nature. Especially, as Mr. Alexander just mentioned, a project that might have 300, 500, 800, acres. You might have a series of hillsides, ridge lines, hills, valleys, and also some plateaus, as well as just some very open areas. And rather than use just best practices only, there should be the opportunity to design that whole area, particularly in a large-scale fashion, so that you're not just putting a broad brush over the whole city, but there is, again, some appropriateness and some context issues that can be dealt with. And so I really wanted to speak to the nature of the PZD option that has been pointed out in here. I think that's truly beneficial where one size may not fit all. Where there's a certain appropriateness in some parts of town to do density, others there's not. Other places where we might want to do hillside preservation to the fullest extent, others we might want to look at would be most appropriate. And so I'm a big advocate of the PZD process, because it gives the opportunity to really look at what's appropriate for that site, rather than just mail order plans and put what we want there, regardless what's best for Fayetteville. And so as you look through this whole process, again, my point would be the PZD as an option is very good, because then we could Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 116 look at the best practices. But then we could look more specifically at the best practices for a given site. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Nock. Merryship: Rob Merryship, a local developer here in town. I also live in Fayetteville on beautiful Mount Sequoyah. I also agree with what Tim is recommending to you tonight to focus on the ridge top issue. I think we're that close to everybody in agreement. I'm a little concerned about restricting height on ridge, just based on heights of trees. Like Mr. Alexander said, I don't think there is any two ridge line ridges in town that are alike. I think there -- it's something that should be taken home by home. The PZD element is a wonderful tool for a large-scale development, but as a single house, you know, there's a lot of foliage that aren't on trees different times of the year, and I think if you just base it on not seeing a particular height of a structure period, I don't that -- I think you ought to look at possibly, like Tim mentioned, maybe what the exterior of the house is at a certain level so it's not reflective, or what certain type of color, but I think you ought to really consider heights on single base per project or per house, per say, and not just above it. Anything that pops over a tree line -- trees change, it's not always just the top of it, and there's a number of months out of the year that you'll see the structure no matter what. So I think a certain height should look a certain way, and I appreciate your time. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Merryship. Terminelta: Good evening. Tom Terminella, Fayetteville, Arkansas; resident, developer, and citizen. This issue is extremely important to me. I have a piece of property out on the interstate that we bought some years back. We bought it with the intent to develop a community mixed-use development with residential RMFs, C-2, C-1, pretty much the whole gambit. And as this has come forward we have worked with Mr. Conklin and Mr. Olson, on numerous meetings throughout the last two months to come up with some level of understanding and compromise. And the only way that I know to approach this, is to deal with the order of which these fall, and then we're talking about the amendments to the ordinances that effect the way that we have historically developed our mountains here in Fayetteville. And I'll try to keep this short, but I'm going to go through these items because I think they're relevant. 156 Variances, the variance section basically deals with hilltop ridge line preservation zones and variances that may be applicable for those areas. If we take the staff's lead and taking out that area, which is the most offensive -- or one of the most offensive areas for me as a landowner. That becomes a nonissue. Going into zoning Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 117 districts, here again, I and zoning district, and height, becomes an issue. We talk about in those zoning districts RMF sites, the RMF sites we've heard tonight, Mr. House, Mr. Mansfield's project as some six stories, would go directly against the ordinances that are being recommended to be changed, so that's something that needs to be looked at. If we're going to be amending these ordinances, let's do them in a manner that cohabitates with what it is we're approving on a biweekly basis, please. The next issue for me becomes the ridge top preservation zone in the R -O district. The majority of that I can certainly understand, but here again, we're limiting height to three stories on the uphill side, four stories on the lower side. We just approved, if I'm not mistaken, an up -zoning on Joyce Street that will allow twelve to sixteen stories. There's no consistency in this aspect of the amendment to what we've been approving here tonight and throughout this ordeal. I'll just go ahead now and apologize if I come across tart or abrasive, I don't mean that in my mannerism or demeanor, but this issue is extremely important to me and the group of people that own the Mountain Ranch project. Because we feel like the rules have somewhat been altered or changed at halftime, and so please bear with me as I go through these. The other issue that becomes relevant is Chapter 167 Tree Preservation, Hillside Overlay District. Currently under our ordinances and the table, it's Table 1, minimum canopy requirements. The proposal now on all zoning Overlay Districts, all zoning designations on hillside is 30 percent of undisturbed canopy. In my world where I have some 80 to a hundred acres of C-2 and C-1 ground, let's just call it 80 acres, 30 percent of that is 24 acres. That is simply unpalatable for me and the group of people that have made the investment to develop this mixed-use project. The current ledger calls for anywhere from 10, 15, to 20 percent of undisturbed canopy, which we simply ask for that to be looked at, revised to be more compatible with what's already on our amendments. I can certainly go from 10 to 15, or 20, but don't go from 10 to 30 percent of undisturbed area in these areas. It creates serious impact financially on anybody that owns a piece of real estate that falls into that classification. Going on into some of the other areas that I can support, which is the revegetation, the street sections, the reforesting of disturbed areas, the things that create the fabric that holds our mountains up, those I can certainly support. And I can certainly concur with some 70 or 80 percent of these amendments, but the ones that I've spoke to tonight are simply ones that I cannot let lie. To go on through the additional things here, the erosion control, the ground cover, the revegetation, think I just spoke to, I think those are all reasonable and acceptable practices within the amendments. Parking lot design, you know, here again, we would be here all night if, I guess, I picked every word of this apart -- every word of the amendment apart, but the one thing that I have some interest in is the height as well. That issue become extremely Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 118 important. I believe in a structure that falls within a preservation zone with on the ranch. The property, it's a 56 -foot tall structure, some of you might know the house. Marilyn Kramer, city employee, built that property. It's a three-story tri -level home that's a western view on Mountain Ranch, and it would not fit these particular amendments. That's disconcerting to me. If - - and I concur with Tim. I assume, leave staff on extracting the preservation zone out of this, but if it was in here and there were height limitations, there would simply be no Sherwood Lane or no Mount Nord, or no Skyline Drive in come areas, no Hassell, no Sunset, Hall, Cleveland, Oliver, Gray Street, all those are areas that I'm familiar with and grew up with in this community. So, here again, height limitation, absolutely, there are a hand full of offensive structures around town that are nonconforming, that do no work in tandem with the surroundings, and I can certainly support a heigh limitation that would be maybe closer to 60 feet than 48. That's a reasonable height for any residential structure, tri -level, multi-level property, within this mountainous area. The -- and I hate to be so negative and speak negative, the other things are reasonable as far as the amendments that are in here. The things that most stick out in my mind is the height, the preservation zone, and the amount of undisturbed area within the commercial zones. I think those need to be looked and amended appropriately to allow the diverse nature of development to continue to go on within this community. And I guess I can speak to the BMP, the best management practice deal on the next item. I understand there's three items here, and then the understanding of the official zoning map that's being proposed and adopted. There's actually three issues here before you this evening, three different amendments? Ostner: That's right. We're hearing all three at once. Terminella: Yes, sir. Oh, all three at once. Well, I'll jump off into that. The BMP, the thing that strikes me, I guess, the most, and I won't read it all, I promise, is Page 3. It says, "views and hillsides," okay. "Views and hillsides, development of hillsides is a public issue due to the sense of ownership of the hillside area." First thing that comes to mind in my little processing center, is the perceived sense of ownership. If it's perceived and we want to create a national park in the middle of Fayetteville, then somebody needs to buy that perceived sense of ownership, because I have purchased it with the intent to develop it. So that becomes, I guess, a point of opinion. Next thing it says, development planning practices, that they gone on and create the opportunity for development to be flexible, diversity of product type. Well, with these amendments I don't we're creating that aspect of this particular language in this ordinance. It goes on to say, "new or revised ordinances should not be clear and not oververtising." Okay, well, this Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 119 incrementally taken the property rights out of real estate across this community. I don't know it couldn't be over burdensome. Hilltop may need separate design criteria to be effective. Absolutely, there needs to be things taken into consideration as far as street sections, the disturbance of the hillside setbacks, to have that flexibility to work in tandem with the natural topography of what you have to deal with, so I can certainly support that. The question also becomes and talks to geological studies, conditions, and things of that nature. Geotechnical reports should be prepared for each lot located within the Hillside Overlay District. Engineering foundations should be required in Hillside Overlay District. Trees should be recognized as their function of storm water filtration and absorption. My question simply becomes this, who's going to administrate site analysis, erosion control, tree preservation, site analysis reports, engineered footings, engineered foundations, and who independently, citizen or builder, and or homeowner, is going to pay for all these different layers of services conducted by a civil company that's qualified to answer them and report that to the city staff? That part I'm wondering about, that's thousands and thousands of dollars worth of additional permitting that we're putting on the people that are willing and trying to build within this community. Fayetteville is a city of seven hills, if nobody realized, it's a mountainous region. We have done a reasonable job for the last hundred years developing it and I certainly don't want to see ordinances created that incrementally, inversely, take the value of the real estate out of it after one has purchased it. My simply question -- or answer, or acknowledgment, or whatever I'm trying to say; is who's going to pay for and administrate all of these things that are being proposed? Last, but not least, and I said I would be brief, I've waited months to articulate and visit with this. My only regret is that city staff, myself, collectively, come of the citizens, the development community could not work these issues out before we got to this forum. I'm taking the time tonight, as you see, because it's extremely important to me and the cause of what we're trying to do in that part of the world. But here is the most tangible example of Millsap Mountain, which is the 475 acres of which I own and I'm developing currently today, and this map represents the Hillside Overlay and the preservation zone, and the red dot is equivalent to my home that lies within the proposed zone and hilltop area. And for me, it effects literally, 88 acres of ground and some 300 residential home sites at somewhere in the tune of a hundred to $150,000.00. Okay. So we have 300 home sites, call it a hundred thousand dollars, call it 30 million dollars worth of inverse taking, and or, condemnation of the real estate, and so I'll show this only as an example. In the bottom would be facing north. The red dot is on the western side of the mountain and it is a -- basically to scale of what my existing tri -level home is that's next door to it. The purple delineated line that runs around Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 120 this contiguous ridge and as you can see it's narrow in some areas, and wide in others. If were to put a road to the most logical spot engineering wise, civilly, you would want to get yield off both sides of the road -- a dwelling on both sides of the street. In this case, the most valuable part of this particular mountain in this area is being delineated and basically carved out, and identified as the proposed preservation zone, and can't simply sit here and not speak to this issue. It effects not only my piece of property, but it effects every mountainous piece of property within the city. It goes on the speak to variances and things of that nature. I don't think I personally need to be in front of this body asking for 300 variances to develop my mountain, not in the manner of which was proposed on the front end. So I will concur with staff's comments. I would highly recommend that the preservation zone be extracted. I would also highly recommend that a more palatable height be acceptable, which is in the tune of some 60 feet in my opinion, to allow what has currently been developed to continue to be developed, and I would respectfully ask in the commercial areas, or the RMF areas, that the undisturbed area be brought back to a palatable number of 10 or 15 percent, which is reasonable for me. And the other disturbing evolution through all of this has been the understanding of a pixel. Mr. Ostner, help me out, I struggle with math, you know that, but 100's and 50's, and 150's, when we delineate areas and mountains of the city that have the same topography fall go from 1250 to a thousand, you know, Mount Sequoyah, which on the official -- this is the official map and I have one, Mount Sequoyah is considered something different than the other surrounding mountains. And if Mount Sequoyah or the country club mountain, or any of the other mountains, aren't similar in their fabric and their makeup as Millsap Mountain, then I need some mental evaluation. Because there are the same topography, they're the same slope, they're the same grade, but based on the mapping person and his understanding of pixels and things of that nature, some appear to be within the zone, some appear to be outside the zone, and I just think it's real important to take extreme care and caution, because I do feel like Fayetteville has been developed responsibly. I could live anywhere in these counties, I choose Fayetteville as my home. It's extremely important to me the nature and the fabric of bow the city continues to get developed, but I can certainly -- as you understand, can't support things that inversely take the value of the property and the density, and the usage, out of it. So I'll shift into neutral and if you have any questions for me, great, if you don't, I will have said what I needed to say for this evening. Ostner: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Terminella. Is there further public comment? Please, step forward, sir, and if you would just give us your name, and share your comment with us. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 121 Sweetser: My name is Jerry Sweetser. My voice is not very good, so bear with me. And my take on this is a little bit different than people that have been here before. Today, to my surprise, I drove by a piece of property that I own and I found a sign from the city turned upside down about 20 feet back on my property, and I thought, some vandal has picked this up and threw it on it, but when I turned it over, the first I even knew about it was when I found this on the -- on the sign. No one from the city or anywhere had notified me that they was going to downgrade my property and I think that's a -- I don't know whether that's legal or not, because you've cut the value of my property considerably when you do this. I brought this property 25 years ago and I've been holding it until the time is right, and now I come down here and it's about ready, the city decides to downgrade it to where I can't hardly use it for what I want it to do. I think that in consideration of the people that own the property, that you should give them fair notice that you're going to do this, and no one sent me a letter, no one -- anything. And did anyone receive a letter? Did you all mail out letters and notices that you were going to downgrade their property? Ostner: This effects thousands of people, tens of thousands of pieces of property. It has been put in the paper and it has strictly followed our public notification guidelines. It is -- it is not -- the rules don't require, nor is it possible to mail a letter to every effected person. Sweetser: How do you feel about that law? Ostner: I know to read the paper very carefully, constantly. Sweetser: I think there may be a law like that and I don't doubt it at all, I'm sure you did this, but it's sneaky to come in and take someone's property -- the value of someone's property without notifying them. So that's about the only thing I have to say about it, because I don't know enough to talk about the mechanism of the thing. But hearing from my colleague back here, they certainly have studied it well and they're not very happy with it, and probably I wouldn't be either, but maybe you all know best. Maybe you deserve to take our property for some reason and downgrade it to where it loses it's value. Thank you very much for your time. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Sweetser: I know Mr. Trumbo -- it's been so long since I've been here, that's the only guy I know. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 122 Vaught: Can we ask questions? Ostner: Sure. Vaught: Mr. Sweetser? Ostner: Mr. Sweetser, sir, we're going to dialogue with you. Vaught: A quick question for you. Sweetser: Okay. Vaught: Is there a particular portion of the ordinance you feel is most detrimental? Sweetser: I don't know, because I didn't get just until about 5 o'clock. Vaught: I didn't know if from talking to the others if there is a particular piece -- Sweetser: From the others, there's a lot of things in it that makes sense. I don't have any -- I mean, I can see that, but my -- really, my big gripe is that no one told me. I didn't know it. I don't live here all the time, so this may be going on when I didn't live here. So I would think that someone in my family or someone, should know that -- what was going on with this, and that's my big gripe. Not the ordinance because I don't know that much about the ordinance. Vaught: Okay. I didn't know if there was one particular part of it that you felt was detrimental to you. Sweetser: The part that cheapens my property, that's the part I don't like. Vaught: I understand. Okay. Ostner: Thank you, sir. Sweetser: Thank you. Ostner: And further public comment from citizens or developers, or any ex - commissioners? All right. I'm going to close the public comment section. Myres: Can I ask Mr. Chair, a procedural question? Ostner: Absolutely. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 123 Myres: If there is -- and I guess, Tim, you're the one to answer this. If we're proposing to change what actually is in this administrative item, do we need to table it, vote it down, vote it up? Conklin: You would need to amend the ordinance to remove what staff recommended if you wanted to change that particular section. That would be my recommendation, is to move to amend it. Mr. Chair, may I make one more comment? Ostner: Of course. Conklin: With regard to the ordinance and how it's designed to achieve hillside preservation, and -- a few weeks ago or a month ago or two, you approved Falling Waters, I may have mentioned that earlier. 257 lots, 160 acres, they utilized most of the items within the hillside preservation ordinance. In August, when we came up with many of these ideas, I had two or three developers and the planning division, all wanting to use these standards. Falling Waters was the largest development we've approved residential that I can remember. It was not a concept PZD, it was an actual full-blown engineered development that went to City Council with approval on all three readings in one night. I just bring that up because to have all three readings in one night at City Council doesn't happen all the time either and so there are incentives built in. It's not just about trying to save trees on an individual lots, it's about trying to provide the flexibility, but at the same time trying to provide undisturbed area and tree canopy to be preserved or left in the lot. What they do not have in Falling Waters was the ridge top preservation. That's probably the only significant change from what this ordinance has in it. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Conklin. Myres: Well, I have another comment or two, if you don't mind. If -- having been on the Hillside Ordinance task force, we've worked an awful long time, awfully hard, to get to this point. If we're going to make what I consider to be a significant change in the document that we all decided on, I don't want to do it without a lot of discussion and I'm not sure I'm prepared to discuss it tonight. This is -- this is a surprise to me that these changes have been proposed and I would be much more comfortable, although, I know you don't want to see this happen, to table this item until we have a chance to find out what this alternate proposal means in the overall scheme of this ordinance. That's just my opinion, so I just -- we'll leave it up to the commission. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 124 Ostner: Thank you. Allen: Mr. Chair. Ostner: I've a got a quick question for staff. A while back the proposal, the working ordinance, did not have a ridge top preservation zone as I recall it. Am I recalling that? Conklin: In the -- Ostner: We sort of melded into that. Conklin: Yeah. One of the public comments -- excuse me. Ostner: I was just getting to it. As I recall, and I share your concerns, as I recall, before we melded into that yellow area here, it used to be blanketing over the hillside, calling the entire hillside a hillside. This seems similar to me, the working ordinance we were talking about before we melded into that hilltop preservation zone. Does that sound like an accurate appraisal? Conklin: That's correct. Ostner: Okay. That's -- Conklin: We were getting very close to what we had to -- Ostner: To start with. Conklin: -- a couple years ago -- Ostner: Six months ago. Conklin: A year or so ago, yes. Ostner: Yeah. I was appointed to that task force in May of `03, by the way. Myres: You win. Ostner: I win -- I lose. So that is the only thing I'm thinking about that lets me be a little less scared that to go with staff's recommendation, which I'm very inclined to do. Forget the yellow areas, the hill is a hill, and we apply the rule evenly, and -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 125 Myres: I don't think that's (inaudible). Ostner: They're 98 -- 99 percent of the rest of this is very important compared to that. Which is not really a big, hot, topic suddenly tonight, so that's the -- Myres: I was under the impression -- I'm sorry. Ostner: --way I recall. Yes? Myres: I was somehow under the impression, and again, I could have been totally asleep at everyone of those meetings, that we have hillsides and we have hilltops, and that we're regulating both of those. That what we then added to it was the ridge line, which is part of the hillside and part of the hilltop, to protect the view from the ground of the ridge. Ostner: Yeah. I don't recall it that way. Conklin: That -- that is -- Ostner: We melded into that. We found ourselves confused and we started to define the top, and started to define the edges, and we moved away from -- I recall it being a 55 -foot height limit, to be quite honest, and it's more generous tonight at the 60 -foot limit, so -- Conklin: We also -- we also had some public discussion with regard to, "well, I possibly want to build a 10 or 11 -story building on top of the hilltop and within the ridge top preservation setback line, there was an incentive." Keep in mind, every time we proposed a regulation to manage the development, we also proposed an incentive to allow more density or intensity, or build able area, and so that talked about increasing your building heights with -- Myres: As it moved back. Conklin: As it moved back. So that would go away. We would take the building height thing -- what I've heard or least what I think I've heard this evening, is that there's a lot of development that's occurred in -- on Skyline Drive and on Sound Mound on College, and Sherwood, and Sunset, and Highland Park, and that that development on the ridge line is not necessarily impacting the communities' character. I've heard that over the last few weeks. I've been out, I've tried to evaluate where are these homes placed, GIS has platted out maps with building footprints. There are a lot of structures that fall within that ridge top zone, that when your on City Lake Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 126 Road, for example, you cannot see them, even in the wintertime. If you're looking up at Mount Sequoyah from Fifteenth Street, what I see is development on the sides of the hills, I really don't see it -- it doesn't seem like it has been a big issue at the ridge line or ridge top. With that, I would hate to pass an ordinance to address an issue that I have a hard time visualizing as an issue in this community which would cause numerous structures to now become nonconforming where you couldn't build within that area, that is why and it is a surprise. I apologize to staff to bring that forward, but we've been trying to evaluate these concerns and look at them. And after trying to look at what is the real issue what we're trying to do here is to minimize the complete clearing of lots, which I witnessed today in some areas -- or the lots will be cleared, and in two to three -- five years when the trees all die and the structures that you see because of that land disturbance, 80 -- 100 percent, I think that's the biggest issue that we're facing in this community. It goes back to whatever -- a year ago where we talked about how do we achieve the goals of the city to preserve our hillsides and a questions was raised about who's going to manage it. Well, we looked at our existing ordinances and the existing staff that we have and what they're currently doing. We have an Urban Forester that reviews tree preservation plans. A single-family home owner in a preservation zone is going to have to do a site analysis and a tree preservation plan. Yes, that's going to be more work for that individual, but it's also going to preserve trees within individual lots. We have an engineering division that looks at grading and drainage, already, on anything that has a 15 -percent slope, they have to have a grading plan, and so that's already built in into the system for their review. And so, instead of coming up with a brand new ordinance independent of our Unified Development Code, we went in and modified those standards. So I just wanted to bring that up too, as that -- that's what we're trying to do here, is to look at the tools we have, just like a year ago, and modify them and to achieve the overall objective or goal of this whole site preservation ordinance. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I have a few, I guess, questions or comments. I think removing the ridge top overlay or setback zone, is a positive step on this. I think that it starts to get into even more contentious debate about defining ridge tops and where they run, and are we close to it, and becomes harder to administer, and quite frankly, becomes more burdensome. I think the maximum building height is a reasonable -- a reasonable step and a positive step, in correlation with everything else in the ordinance. I think the one thing Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 127 that's -- when Commissioner Ostner brought this up and we started this years ago, predating most people on this commission, that the original map had holes in the middle of the green areas, and I think that you would need to define if you wanted all that color green. Do an overlay district that encompass those closed areas, or if you wanted those holes in the middle for the mountain tops. Second of all, I would love -- and I don't know, and this is what I was going to ask, is there a provision through the PZD process that would allow someone to come in and through the PZD process, set up variances to this ordinance, because I do think there are things that could be done that are in this ordinance that are creative and positive, and I don't want to necessarily just put a box on it, but allow for that. But I think the PZD would be a proper mechanism for that, so we can see it and visualize it before they turned dirt, before they start grading. So I would -- my question is, is that allowed or is there a mechanism for that will we could allow it? Conklin: We do discuss allowing planned zoning districts for clustering development within our best management practices, so just as we've utilized PZDs all over the city, it seems to be the preferred choice for development these days. That is something -- my statement to the development community has been a PZD, and I think Mr. Pate would agree with me here, is that the utilization of a PZD is to achieve greater compliance with the intent of the ordinance. So when we're talking about land disturbance, that you would have less land disturbance using a PZD and clustering your development, and moving your open space or green space, to an undisturbed area to larger areas. So that's what staff would be looking for. Vaught: Which would allow greater building heights and other types of -- Conklin: To potentially to modify, yes. Vaught: And I guess my next question -- in the building heights, to me, I mean, a 60 -foot building is a 60 -foot building, no matter if it's RMF -4 or RMF -- or RSF-4 or R -O, why would we just put a 60 -foot across the board, why do we step it down for single-family? I would think -- a building is a building, so if you allow some at 60, why not all at 60? Conklin: And that's something that we've discussed actually earlier this evening with regard to -- if you're going to have a building height for different land uses on a hillside and they're 60, Design Workshop, their graphic shows 60 foot building height with the trees on Page 17 in the BMP, and that staff would feel comfortable with that. Just keep in mind, at the same time not all trees are going to be 60 feet all over Fayetteville, however, we have Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 128 structures around Fayetteville up on Skyline Drive, I think they would meet that ordinance, and that's something I can verify. If it goes forward this evening, that's something we can verify before we go to ordinance review or City Council on that. Vaught: I would wonder if they met the requirement ground to peak, ground to eave I would understand, because most of the time don't we measure ground to eave, or do we always measure ground to peak? Pate: It depends. Vaught: Just depends. Okay. Conklin: With regard some of the structures, some have very low -hip type roof structures -- 60 feet, that would be -- what, 5, 12 -foot stories. Potentially, if you have a 3 or 4 -foot story home, it all depends on design. Vaught: It depends on where the slope -- Conklin: And the slope that you're dealing with. Vaught: To me, I would think -- and I would think just a uniform height would be adequate, especially, since it's ground to peak. You know, a number of today's homes have 12-12 pitch roofs on them, so you're going to have a 20 or 30 -foot high roof, which definitely it's as offensive as, you know, the side of a building with windows and whatnots. So, I don't know, I would be more for the 60 -foot across the board, and I would be fine tabling it, even though I would absolutely hate to do it. I would rather forward it, but I think the one issue I want to hash out exactly, is how it relates to PZDs for the development community to understand that, and also, what are we doing with the areas in the middle, the bubbles, that we're creating? Are we going to overlay it all green now, all the Hillside Overlay District, and make a more of a full overlay? Conklin: That would be staff's recommendation. Vaught: Okay. Conklin: It could be fill in the yellow areas as green. Vaught: So it would be a hillside/hilltop ordinance? Conklin: It would be -- yes, a hill -- yeah, that's correct. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 129 Vaught: A hillside slash hilltop. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Trumbo. Trumbo: To address a few issues. Being on the task force, I don't remember any examples, of in Fayetteville, that anybody brought forward with any problems with ridge line development. All issues were grading. There were some structures that were offensive to some in the height requirements. I don't -- being a task force member, it seems to me that there was no discussion of a ridge line protection area that I could recall, and it came back to us, and it was presented to us from the consultants. I do remember the consulting going up at their last meeting and drawing a -- some kind of a drawing as showing how a house could be developed on a ridge line and the downhill trees need to be preserved, and went through all that, and he in fact did say that there's -- it's not necessary to have the preservation area. So just to inform my other commissioners, the ridge line protection area was not, to me, a huge issue. I don't know how you felt about that, but I think what we have brought forward addresses the main concerns of the task force. Ostner: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Williams. Williams: Since it was mentioned by some of the public comment about taking some property and things like that, the ridge top preservation zone was a big issue to me. I looked at that and it did concern me a lot. It's basically taking 120 feet, a swath of land, that the owner very well might not be able to use. I mean, supposedly a variance could come in and maybe they would be granted, but it would be no guarantee for that. And looking at the law, you know, it certainly says the general rule is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, as regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. And one of the things -- one of the tests were taking to the Supreme Court has come up with, is that the economic impact of a regulation on the claimant, which would be the developer, the owner, in the this particular case, and particularly the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed expectations. So if someone has purchased a large area of land that has a big ridge line, we've had two different developers talk about that tonight, expecting to be able to build homes there, if we then took 120 -foot swath of land, arguably, some of the most develop able desirable land, and say you can't build on it, then I would be concerned that maybe we could be successfully sued over Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 130 that. So I would I recommend that you follow staff s suggestion that this ridge top preservation zone not be included in the ordinance. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I'm going to let Commissioner Myres -- I will get back to -- Myres: Yes, I just need some clarification from Mr. Conklin. If we remove the ridge line preservation zone, you are proposing that we substitute a height limit requirement for that? Conklin: I would recommend that you utilize the height requirement that was recommended by Design Workshop, modify the RSF-4 to 60, and have a uniform height for all the zones within that hillside preservation zone. Myres: We have discussed this long enough that I'm now comfortable with it. Clark: You are (inaudible). Myres: I are, I are -- and I think all the points that everybody has made makes sense. My only reluctance was that if I didn't -- I hadn't had time to really think about this, and I don't think that it waters down the intent of this ordinance at all, and so I am in favor and I hope Mr. Trumbo is going to make a motion. Ostner: Mr. Trumbo. Motion: Trumbo: Well, just to clarify to Mr. Williams. I too, am worried that this is not legal, but not being a lawyer, I would certainly refer to you on that. I have no problem with removing this from -- and I want to make sure I was clear on that, with Mr. Williams said he didn't think it was a problem. I too, think it's a problem, and would make a motion to remove that portion -- remove the ridge line preservation area from this document. I'll make a motion to do that at this time. Ostner: Does your motion also address the hilltop standards being different from the hillside standards? Trumbo: Well, we haven't had any discussion -- or much discussion on that, so -- Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 131 Vaught: I believe the discussion was that they would be included in the Overlay District, the hilltops would be as well as the hillsides. Ostner: Well, I mean, -- there's a motion to go ahead and remove the Hillside preservation zone. Vaught: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of the -- Williams: Is there a second? Myres: Well -- Ostner: Will anyone second? I'll second it. Vaught: I want to clarify his motion real quick. Ostner: Point of order. Vaught: Would you insert building heights -- or they're building heights laid out of 60 feet in each zone already, and 48 in RMF -4, laid out in regulation. Am I correct in saying that? So we really don't need to add anything? Myres: No. Olson: You would need to amend the RSF-4, and change it from 48 feet to 60. Vaught: Would you be -- is that part of your motion? Trumbo: Yes, I would do that. Ostner: Okay. Myres: I think I would just (inaudible). Trumbo: Move to a 60 -foot -- cross the board. Ostner: So -- so motion is to eliminate the ridge top preservation zone -- Trumbo: Yes. Ostner: -- and to change the written staff report we have for the RSF-4 height limit to be 60 feet, instead of 48 feet. Trumbo: That's correct. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 132 Ostner: All right. Myres: Is there anything we need to add now? Ostner: We have a -- and I will second that. Is there -- Vaught: This just a motion to amend the ordinance, not it voting it through. Ostner: Just -- Trumbo: All we've talked about. Ostner: Just messing with it right now, we're not forwarding anything. Trumbo: Right. Ostner: Any further discussion on that issue? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to amend ADM 05-1841 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Ostner: Okay. Progressive. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Vaught. Vaught: Can I -- I guess I would like to -- since Mr. Terminella is one of the people that has a large stake here, I'd like to ask his opinion of the changes made to get feedback, as I would rather forward this to the City Council knowing that this process is not over, but allowing a little bit of public comment on the changes made to see how we felt. Ostner: Before we do that, Mr. Lack has not spoken at all yet, and many of us have spoken two or three times. Please go ahead. Lack: I would like to address this, and that it is near and dear to me, the ordinance is very important to the city of Fayetteville, I believe. And I think that there are many things in the best management principles that are vital, that we need to get to the ordinance books as expeditiously as we can, and with that, I'm in favor of this ordinance and will vote for this ordinance. Although I have some definite dislike for a couple of items, one that I've mentioned before is the lack of suggestion in best management principles for a larger lot to a be a first solution, in that, I feel that that is the first and Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 133 most likely solution to prevent the disturbance of the hillside. And the other is the perceived ownership of this hillsides, and the lengths that we go to to not see structures on the hillsides. I happen to think that many of those structures are very attractive and while they should not displace nature, can be as attractive as nature. If I understand the suggestion of some of the structures that were disliked for their height or for their appearance, I think that we have some widely recognized nationally acclaimed, visible structure that gets us a lot of positive press, and I think that with this, as I said, I do plan to support this ordinance. I have in the past and will continue to, but I will also continue to lobby for the ordinance to be restricted to the functional characteristics that are critical to the hillsides -- the erosion prevention, and that's where we see the critical nature of the trees and we see the critical nature of the vegetation, and grading, and how we build on our hillsides. I think those items are very important, but when we start to even apply the Overlay District to the top of the hillside, which are not so subject to that -- to those characteristics, because of a perceived ownership by a general public, then I have stress over those issues and I will continue to lobby over that. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Lack. Vaught: Mr. Chair, can I ask Commissioner Lack a question? Ostner: Of course. Vaught: Then would you strike the hillside -- the hilltops from this ordinance and just have it pertain to the hillsides? Lack: I would. Vaught: I think that's something we need to talk about, because, I mean, there's probably other people that might agree with you or might not, so I mean, if that's the way you feel, and you can always make a motion to have that they way it's set out in the ordinance we forward, so -- Motion: Lack: Well, I think that's a good suggestion and will make that motion at this time, to detract the Hilltop District, which in the plan that we have laid out right now is the yellow portions, which I understand to be the portions below 15 -percent slope, and I will make the motion that we strike those from the ordinance and from the regulation. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 134 Ostner: Do you -- thank you. Do you want to -- you mentioned a large -lot solution, would that have anything to do -- would you want to propose anything? Lack: That would certainly be a separate issue that I think I would handle separately. Ostner: Okay. Vaught: I will second the motion. I think large -lot issue might be a -- is a best practices type issue that can be handled administratively, I believe, it's not necessarily something we need to vote on and approve amendments to the best management practices, is it? Ostner: Well, we're voting on the entire document. Vaught: Yeah, that's my question on that. Ostner: It is easier to amend that administratively as I understand. Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Mr. Chairman. I just want to make one comment with regard to removing the yellow areas, and that is that driving around and photographing, and looking at GIS, I guess, it comes down to a policy issue. We do not have a height regulation in RSF- 4, so theoretically, you could have 80 or a hundred -foot structure right on the ridge top, and as staff, we were comfortable with having the height, including the yellow area, because that helps -- and I understand your concerns with regard to the perceived ownership and I've heard that this evening from the public. So it's a policy issue, but just keep in mind you may have very -- potentially. It hasn't happened that often in Fayetteville, but potentially, you could have very tall structures right under your ridge lines. Williams: Of course, the other option would be is that you could have a height limitation for RSF- 4 city wide, and with -- but I think if you did something like that you would need to have a variance, so that on an individual basis you could approve a structure larger than that. But, you know, that would be another option you could look at. Most zones actually have height limitations, RSF- 4 is one of the few that do not. Conklin: That's something that at staff we discussed earlier this evening, too, with regard to having a height limitation for RSF- 4. Structures are getting larger in Fayetteville, and taller. I know this past year -- or past two or three years, I've seen an increase in residential areas with larger and taller structures beyond what the historic development pattern has been. When I Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 135 say historic, you know, things that were built in the `70s or `80s, or `90s even. Things are changing and I've had to go out into neighborhoods recently, or a neighborhood, and talk about why a structure is a certain size, and just wanted to share that with you because it has caused issues in the past, so I just wanted to bring that up. But you do have a motion on the floor and I will let you decide that. Ostner: Thank you. The motion was from Mr. Lack and a second was from Mr. Vaught. I believe, the phasing is to simply remove the hilltops as delineated in yellow from the consideration in the ordinance tonight. Am I rephrasing that? Lack: Yes. Ostner: Well -- Vaught: Mr. Chair. I want to explain. I guess my opinion on it is, even from listening to staff tonight, most of the problems issues we have in Fayetteville are hillside developments, not the hilltops. I feel pretty responsible as a city and, although, there is no height regulation in RSF- 4, I don't perceive that as a great danger, I think that would be the exception rather than the norm, but I do agree with them, most of the problems with development are on hillsides, and frankly, most of them deal with grading and tree removal, and issues like that -- and building height would be a secondary issue, but I think that's the main reason why I'm in support of it. Because, like I said, I believe that there should be some flexibility -- and I believe in making all our laws as -- not minimal as possible, but especially when we're talking about property rights and putting restrictions on people's property, that's a very sensitive issue, and I believe we need to be responsible as a city and achieve our purposes, but not over achieve our purposes. Ostner: Thank you. Myres: Mr. Chair, may I make one quick comment before we vote? Ostner: Okay. We're not going to vote because I'm comment next. I'm going to vote against this amendment. Being on the hillside task force, which several of you all haven't sat through these endless meetings, we've been down this road. The reason I am convinced the tops of the hills are as important as the sides, is not about visibility at all, has nothing to do with it. This massive book we're looking at, three pages is visibility, tree canopy is preserved more, the fact that all this preservation we kill Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 136 ourselves for in this room, homeowners on the tops would be able to mow it all down. That carries through with the Hillside Best Management Practices, the individual lot owners must also adhere to tree preservation. There, again, on the tops it's not about aesthetics, it's about runoff, it's about erosion. The soils below are effected when the soils above are changed when the runoff and the moisture content is changed, and the grading. This hillside management before us addressed grading, it's right here and it's a good thing. It's a curbing in, no pun intended, of the grading in our developments. And the facts that the tops would be ignored, I think would be a big mistake, because the grading of the top effects everything down below. I am in favor of getting rid of the 48 -foot height limitation, but I can easily see these flat tops -- people coming down here and petitioning for RMF -24. There's some good flat areas, some of it is pretty open. Vaught: Which has height restrictions. Ostner: Okay. But it has our regular grading, and our regular erosion control, and our regular tree preservation. This is better. I think this is worthy of blanketing the entire hillside, so that's where I stand on the current issue. Yes, Commissioner Myres. Myres: Well, I was going to say almost exactly the say thing. Ostner: Great. Myres: I definitely will vote against this, because I don't want to see those hilltops treated differently. The other thing to remember, is that when we look at a topo map like this that's been color coded, you get to the top of the ridge and all of a sudden it's another color and you think, "well, that's flat," well, it's not, it just means that the slope is less than 15 percent. So those same issues as far as grading, and runoff, and tree preservation, are all just as valid on those tops as they are on the sides, so I'm going to have to vote against this suggestion or amendment to the amendment. Ostner: And other discussion on this motion before us? Okay. Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to amend ADM 05-1841 fails with a vote of 4-0-0, with Commissioners Myres, Clark, Ostner and Allen voting no. Commissioner Anthes was absent. Williams: Four to four, the amendment doesn't pass. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 137 Ostner: Okay. So -- Williams: May I suggest something? Ostner: Please, Mr. Williams. Williams: We want it to go right on to the City Council as quickly as you can, but 1 think maybe it would be better to table this and let the changes that were approved to be done, and further consideration of any other changes you might want to have be done at not 11:15. Ostner: In the p.m. Clark: May I follow-up and agree with that strongly, and hope this comes back as new business, so citizens as well as developers, can -- Old business. Clark: As old business, excuse me. So citizens can join us in commenting, because I know a lot of them follow the hillside ordinance, and having not served on the hillside ordinance committee, this is a little overwhelming to me, the changes that we're making, the back and forth stuff, so I would welcome tabling it, and I'll make the motion that we do. Myres: And I'll second it. Ostner: A motion to table -- Clark: Table until all the amendments have been brought up to speed. Ostner: Motion to table by Commissioner Clark. Is there a length of time? Maybe the next meeting? Clark: Maybe until staff is ready to bring it forward. Williams: Why don't we do it to the next meeting, let's keep it going. Clark: Okay. Ostner: Let's keep ahead of steam. Clark: Okay. Time limits, we're all about them. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 138 Ostner: Wait, wait, wait, we have a motion by Commissioner Clark, a second by Commissioner Myres. Okay. Yes, comment? Allen: I haven't commented about anything yet, so one little tiny comment, that I - - I'm hoping that we can get this going, so I would definitely would like to see it by next meeting. This has been -- we're starting into different centuries almost on this hillside thing, and even if we just take a bare -bone something to the Council, I'm ready for us to move something forward. So I'm hoping very much that that can happen next time. Also I wanted to comment that I think that this really applies to very few and unfortunately, because we're only -- most of the developers that we see have an investment in this community that goes beyond their property and they care about what happens in Fayetteville, too, and -- but I would like to see this move ahead, it's been too long in sitting here. Graves: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Yes, Mr. Graves. Graves: I, too, would like to see this move forward and I'm opposed to tabling it right now. I think that most of the cleaning up that the staff requested has already been done through the motions that have been made, and there's maybe one other thing about this perceived ownership that's in the best practices manual that we can address, but I don't think that there's very much more to do other than voting these up or down, and forwarding them to the City Council. We've already talked out most of the major issues and I would rather actually see it move forward, and not show up on our agenda again. Ostner: I would agree, Mr. Graves. Several -- several elected officials attended our meetings, two of them were on the committee, others voiced their opinions. As a straw poll, most of them were very interested in the tops of these mountains, I'll just say that, it is my recollection. Now, that's neither here nor there, but I think we -- I'd be prepared to vote. I think staff has done a great job with this packet. I think we're talking about things, frankly, that the City Council might just change all around anyway. This is a legislative thing and they're giving us the privilege of playing a big part in it. Allen: Well, if we were to table, would there be other things that the motioner and the seconder -- I don't know that that's a word -- want to see other than the things we've already organized? Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 139 Clark: Well, as I said, I would like to see the opportunity for citizens to comment on what we're changing. If that's not important to everybody, I'll be happy to withdraw my motion and we can vote on it tonight. Ostner: Well, if it's citizen comment you're -- Clark: That's one thing, and the other thing is that I'm not on the task force. Some of the changes that we're talking about, giving time to understand them better, I might be more comfortable voting for them. I do want to see this -- I think it's come remarkably forward, and we're ready just about to send it on, but if you all want -- if you don't want to table it tonight, I'll be happy to lose the motion or withdraw it. Graves: My concern is that I know that this is the last meeting of the year as well, and we're going to probably have a substantial agenda at the first meeting of next year. We've done most of the cleaning up, I think, of these three items and I'm not -- you know, I would just rather see us move forward and get in the City Council's hands and let them do with it what they will. Clark: There is a great temptation to buy into that by a thought, so having said that, I will withdraw my motion. Myres: And I'll withdraw my second. Clark: Let's vote on it. Myres: With the request -- that somebody tell me when the next Planning Commission meeting is. Pate: January 9th. Ostner: January 3rd -- 9th. Myres: 9th -- so it's less than a month. Allen: Gosh, we all have to let it go to Betty Ford to withdraw it from the Planning Commission. Motion: Ostner: Well, since there is no -- I'm going to make a motion that we approve all three of these tonight. Myres: As amended. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 140 Ostner: As amended, as we have discussed Administrative Item with the UDC Ordinance Amendments, the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual, and the Hillside Overlay District Map. Graves: Point of information. Ostner: Mr. Graves. Graves: On the best practices -- or best management practices manual, I think a number of the commissioners and the public, they have expressed some concern about the quote, unquote, perceived ownership language that's in there, and so I guess I'm asking the motioner, are you suggesting in your motion or would you suggest that that language be removed. Myres: Just part of (inaudible). Olson: I'd like to address that just for a second. Ostner: Sure Olson: That language is in the intro to this best management practices, and where that comes from, it comes from concerns expressed during public input sessions. If you look at the page before, it says, "Summary of concerns with development on hillsides expressed by the public," and it walks through densities, storm water, tree preservation, and views of hillsides. So those are comments that came from the public, that's not a recommendation from staff or the consultant, that's just some summary of what was said at those meetings. Williams: I would suggest that they be stricken. Ostner: I would agree, as the motioner -- Williams: From a legal point of view -- Ostner: As the motioner, I believe it needs to either be rephrased or stricken, or phrased in a way people who came to these meetings -- I'm not sure. Graves: We've got an e-mail in here too, that we're -- I mean, it's more than just Mr. Terminella, it's several of the commissioner have talked about it, and there's an e-mail in our packet that talks about it, and it seems easier to me to just take it out of there. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 141 Ostner: Sure. If -- if hometown pride -- Graves: And if that's the motion, I'll second it. Ostner: How about hometown pride, or some sort of generic substitution, or strike it; is that fair? Graves: That's fine, and I second your motion to forward these three items. Ostner: Great. Vaught: Mr. Chair. Ostner: Mr. Vaught. Vaught: I would, if no one objects, like to -- since we do have one of -- a member of the public here that is -- has disagreed with parts of this, just gather his quick opinion on some of the changes we've made and see if it's step in the positive direction, if he can, briefly address the changes we've talked about. Ostner: Well, it's -- Vaught: Briefly. Ostner: It's pretty unusual. I'm inclined to not hear anymore. We've got a motion, and we've had a lot of discussion -- Myres: I really appreciate everybody's comments, the development community as well as the public, but I'm ready to vote. Vaught: All right. Then I would just state that, know that City Council is going to hear all this and you'll have ample opportunity to contact your ward members, and also the whole Council to voice additional concerns. I hope -- I feel it's definitely a step in the positive direction tonight to vote. Ostner: Yes, this is a subcommittee recommendation, so they are the actual creator of the law, so -- will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to forward ADM 05-1841, ADM 05-1842, and ADM 05- 1879 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Anthes was absent. Ostner: All right. Planning Commission December 12, 2005 Page 142 Conklin: Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. I would like to celebrate. Are there any other announcements for the end of the agenda? Pate: As I mentioned, the next meeting is January 9th. There is a Subdivision Committee meeting during the Christmas holidays between Christmas and New Year's, so please contact Jan Gambill in our office, if that trio of Subdivision Committee members cannot make that meeting. Myres: Do you remember which group it is? Clark: Yes, it's Anthes, Lack, and Vaught. Myres: Okay. Ostner: On December 29th, a very unpopular day. Any other announcements? We're adjourned. Thank you. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.