The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-01-23 Minutes (2)MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 23, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 06-1915: Administrative Item Approved on Consent Agenda (CREEKSIDE PLAZA) Page 4 PPL 05-1641: Preliminary Plat Approved on Consent Agenda (MINER ACRES S/D, 279) Page 4 CUP 06-1877: (CHAMBERS, 485) Approved Page 5 ADM 06-1916: (PERSIMMON MSP AMENDMENT) Denied Page 17 CUP 06-1894: (WRMC, 211/212) Approved Page 23 LSD 06-1851: Large Scale Development Approved (WRMC 5TH FLOOR, 251) Page 25 RZN 06-1891: (SHEWMAKER, 365) Page 27 ANX 06-1895: (BROYLES, 245) Page 28 RZN 06-1896: (BROYLES, 245) Page 29 VAC 06-1897: (PETTUS, 484) Page 30 CUP 06-1892: (TEMPLE SHALOM OF NWA, 447) Page 32 Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Approved CUP 06-1893: (SMITH 2-WAY/LEVERETT, 405) Tabled Page 66 Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 2 MDP R-PZD 06-1881: Planned Zoning District (SKYVIEW HEIGHTS, 291) Page 67 MDP R-PZD 05-1636: Master Development Plan Residential Planned Zoning District (WELLSPRING, 400/401) Page 90 Tabled Tabled Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Sean Trumbo James Graves Christian Vaught Audi Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Brent O'Neal/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 4 Welcome to the January 23' 2006 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. If we could have the roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call Allen, Anthes, Clark, Graves, Myres, Lack, Trumbo , Ostner, and Vaught are present. Ostner: The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the January 9, 2006 meeting. Trumbo: I make a motion to approve. Lack: Second. Ostner: Is there any discussion. Allen: Is it supposed to be 2003? Ostner: I don't believe we are approving 2003 minutes. January 9, 2006. Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Ostner: Our consent agenda consists of two items: The first item is ADM 06- 1915: (CREEKSIDE PLAZA). The second item is PPL 05-1641: Preliminary Plat (MINER ACRES S/D, 279). If anyone in the audience or any of the Planning Commission would like an item pulled from the Planning Commission consent agenda, please speak now. Otherwise I will entertain a motion to approve. Allen: I move for approval of the consent agenda. Myres: Second. Roll Call: The consent agenda is approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Ostner: As a reminder now is a good time to turn off cell phones. Pate: Mr. Chair, if I could make an announcement. Later on in the agenda, we have two items that have been requested to be tabled. If anyone is here for those items, those items are tabled at that time. Item #7, RZN 06-1891: (SHEWMAKER, 365) on DEANE STREET. The applicant has requested this item be tabled indefinitely. Also, Item #12, CUP 06-1893: (SMITH 2-WAY/LEVERETT, 405) — the applicant has also requested this item be tabled to a date specific February 13, 2006 meeting. Just so the public knows that if they are hear for those items, applicants have requested those to be tabled. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 5 CUP 06-1877: (CHAMBERS, 485): Submitted by JULIE & MATTHEW CHAMBERS for property located at 347 N WILLOW AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is to allow a detached single family dwelling in the zoning district. Fulcher: This is for property located at 347 Willow Avenue, two lots south of Lafayette Street. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family 4 units/acre, however, a rezoning request to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, was forwarded by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2006 and will be heard at City Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use to construct a second dwelling unit on the second floor of the proposed garage. Just for clarification, the garage can be constructed subject to building permits, building setbacks, building area or another accessory structure. It is the fact that they want to have a second independent or detached dwelling unit on the second floor of this garage is what the conditional use request is for. The plans submitted for the garage and dwelling unit includes a two -car garage with storage/work area on the first floor and a studio apartment with kitchen, bathroom, laundry and sleeping area above. The existing garage on the property did not provide any usable parking spaces, whereas the proposed garage will provide two additional parking spaces, one of which will be used for the second dwelling unit. In general in this area, detached garages or detached buildings are quite common. If you look on page 26 — 28, the one -mile view map, it has some of the building structures located in the general vicinity. You can see a lot of the smaller accessory structures located on those lots. So as a detached structure, it is fairly compatible and common in the area, only a few of which have dwelling units located in them. Staff finds that the second dwelling unit will not result in adverse impact to surrounding and adjoining residential uses. As depicted in the attached building elevations found in your packet, the proposed structure will be similar in height and maintain the same type of roof line as the existing structure and will closely resemble the existing historic home on the property. The material and colors will match the existing home. The windows, gutter and trim are also proposed to match the existing home. The proposed structure has several windows on the south, east and west side of the building. There will be rear access on the rear of the structure as well as the two garage doors on the front. There will also be a covered deck on the southwest side of the second story. On the north side of the building you can see on the elevations there are no windows. We thought that that was appropriate — those windows would have looked out over the neighbor's property and vice versa. Based on fairly strict criteria placed on second detached dwelling units, we feel the applicant has complied with all the specific criteria. This second dwelling unit within the detached garage is generally compatible with adjacent properties; therefore, based on those findings, we are recommending Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 6 Ostner: M. Chambers: approval with six conditions: 1) the proposed second dwelling unit shall be constructed according to the building elevations on the plans that have been submitted to us that we find are compatible with the existing residence; 2) (which is fairly important) prior to issuance of the building permit, a deed restriction to run with the land shall be filed of record in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk which requires that one of the units on this site shall be occupied by the property owner of record at all times, meaning that if this property were ever to sell in the future, someone would not rent the house out and rent the apartment out; 3) the proposed structure shall meet all required building setbacks. If the requested RSF-8 zoning district is denied by City Council, it shall meet the requirements of the RSF-4 zoning district; 4) All appropriate permitting shall be submitted prior to any construction; 5) no more that one detached second dwelling unit shall be permitted on the subject property, limited by ordinance; 6) any proposed additions, reconstruction to the garage once it is constructed, should be reviewed by Planning Staff for location and architectural design. If there are any other questions, let me know. Is the applicant present? I am Matthew Chambers. I appreciate the time you have taken and allowed us to have here to explain our position. We have applied for a conditional use permit as the Planning Office stated. The plans were developed by a licensed architect in the State of Arkansas who does reside in the home and standing right next to me. We have spent the past two years at this historic Vol Walker House, bringing it back from condemnation. Virtually every second and every disposable penny we've had has gone towards it and we are very proud of the work. For that reason we would like to remove this garage structure — it is very much a shed. I have photos to submit to you all. It was constructed somewhere in the mid -1900s — we don't have the exact date, but it wasn't an original structure to this property. It is an eyesore, falling down and there is a photo here to show that the roof is collapsing. It is also currently on the property line in non -accordance with our current variance. We would like to remedy that as well. We have no parking off the street and parking on the street is a problem as you know. This structure will allow us to take two cars off of that street to improve that condition. We have many, many vehicles that have been hit including two of our own in the past twelve months alone on that street. Those are just some of the benefits. Our personal benefit to this, the reason we personally want to do this, is we have two usable rooms in our home for bedroom space. We have a new daughter in our family. My father is a retired physician at the VA here. He likes to come stay with us two nights every week. For that reason we would love for him to continue in this capacity, but we'd also like to have Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 7 Osmer: J. Chambers: a room for our daughter. We don't have the ability to continue that situation and we see that this is a wonderful opportunity to fix this eyesore in our neighborhood, add some usable space in the form of a studio apartment, bring two cars off the street, and improve the value of all of the neighbors' properties. We feel that we have demonstrated due course in the past two months with this historic property, and our neighbors, by and large have supported us in this fact. To illustrate that fact, we went around the neighborhood and of all persons who have visibility to our property, all of them agreed, two verbally and fourteen written to this plan after seeing the floor plans and elevations. I can submit these to you right now. This is a virtual rendering of the elevations. Please bring them up here. When we were talking to the neighbors nearby, there were three homes that the property owners that were not there, and there is one neighbor that I know has a problem. M. Chambers: Furthermore, we also did a personal audit of what we can see from the street, every property from College on the west side, Olive on the east, Dickson on the south and Prospect on the north. In that square, I counted two apartment complexes, sixteen duplexes or similar multi family unites and fourteen detached living. I know all of those probably aren't "legal" up to code, but we want to do this up to code. So this is not something that is unique to our situation, this is something very common in our neighborhood. With that , that is all I have. J. Chambers: Ostner: Wilson: I would just like say that we have tried with due diligence to do the right thing with the Neighborhood Association. When I was here before, I don't think that came to light. I contacted my neighbors first in early October and also the Neighborhood Association. I was going everything that I was instructed to do in that way. My neighbors at the time verbally had no objections, but only later in a public forum presented those objections. Thank you. We will get back with you. At this time I will call for any public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue, please step forward. My name is Carrie Wilson and I am the property owner whose back yard the garage will be up against. I live at 223 E. Lafayette and the back of my property butts up to hers, where the garage/apartment will be. This has been very upsetting for me. Very casually, to set the record straight, I had just met my neighbors and she had mentioned that she was talking about building a garage/apartment and all this kind of stuff, and it was Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 8 kind of pipe dreams, talking as a young couple would talk. I didn't get the idea that this was something that would happen as quickly as it did, nor did I want to say, "Hey, I'm against that" because I had just met her. I didn't really think it was an opportunity to voice any criticism or concern at that time. I did not see what you presented until yesterday. I have spent the last two weeks in Louisiana dealing with FEMA and historic properties. I came home and did not know that this was happening. I did not receive a notice of it. It was through the grapevine that I had received notice, but I receive very dated material and everything goes when I gone into a certain place, so I can look through it. I did not receive it. In dealing with FEMA and historic properties, that is my job. I live in one of the oldest historic houses in Fayetteville, maybe not much attention is paid to it because it is a two-story duplex. But I have worked very hard and it has been my desire to turn it back into a single family home. So the idea of having another apartment next door, I am not supporting it. It sickens me. If you see what the property line would be, it is a big fence and a great big building. And it is going to cover from the southwest all the way over and I will be looking at a big gray warehouse building. But not so much for me, let's say I move, and I think this is kind of a deal breaker for me. I've lived here for twenty-three years. Ostner: Ms. Wilson.... Wilson: I understand. Let me get to this very quickly. Ostner: I'm going to share something with you. This building can be built without a conditional use. It is simply the fact that it will house plumbing and house a separate living unit. So I just want to share that with you. It can be built. The building, the size, the shape, can be built tomorrow with a simple building permit. I just wanted to clarify that. Wilson: Let me talk about historic properties in particular. Washington -Willow is an historic district. I deal with historic properties every day and that is what is so frustrating for me. I can stop an entire highway project, which I have done, to save historic properties and mitigate the adverse effects. I can write agreement documents that can affect the whole State and region, so not to be able to apply those same concepts to my own house, is very frustrating for me. I talked to the historic preservation office in Little Rock today and I know them quite well, and they said, the things about cities — they recognize the fact of the historic structure, but they don't recognize or consider at times the integrity of the historic district. Part of that integrity is seven different aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workshop, feeling and association. The actual location of a historic property complimented by its setting is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. This building is an Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 9 antebellum house and at some point, I would like to see it turned into a museum as part of the walking tour. You are not affecting the building even though it is right close to the property line, but it would be like taking a building and building a two-story garage apartment in front of the Headquarters House. It doesn't affect the specific property, but does affect the visual integrity of it. The house has a certain amount of respect, as a lot of those properties in the Historic District. And if you set a precedent where anyone can build; maybe we have dragged our feet on having some sort of ordinance relating specifically to the integrity of the Historic District, but that is not in effect right now. But I do ask you to really consider the fact that this conditional use is setting a precedent. You can do it and say that it has been done before. That just sets the precedent and you are whittling away at the integrity the Historic District. Hunnicutt: My name is Claudette Hunnicutt and I live at 520 N. Washington Avenue and I am a part of the Washington -Willow Historic District. I was not aware of this situation until I was here at the last Planning Commission and saw it on the agenda and was floored by it. The occupant that have petitioned for this variance is correct, there are many apartments in the Historic District and they have been there many, many years. I served on the Historic Commission for the City of Fayetteville and that time we talked about the District. It was our wish and our hope that apartments that were there would be grandfathered in but as time went on and the homes were purchased, that they would turned back into single family residences. And that has happened. My home for example, was three apartments; it is now a beautiful one family residence. In my time on Washington Avenue, since 1978, there have been two, that I am aware of, issues similar that have come before you tonight. One is on 602 N. Willow. It happened to be a garage at the time and they started turning in into an apartment. The neighborhood turned them in and then they applied for a building permit. Their premise was that they had an elderly mother that they wanted to move into this space and they were building it for that purpose. Well, the wish was granted and they were allowed to have it. The woman died and never lived in the apartment, and it is now a rental. The other, 531 Washington Avenue which is across the street from my home. They applied for a permit to build a garage with an apailment above for a relative to live in. It was approved, the person that owns the house lives in the apartment and rents out her house. It was a way to get around it, but it is still a rental. When I was on the Historic Commission, -most of these houses were built before cars existed; the others were built when cars were small and they only needed a small garage. The City did not have the variances that we have now. It was our hope that by having conditional use in our neighborhood, that people would be able to build garages and not have to follow the 8' setbacks and whatever, so we could get cars off the street and make our neighborhood more beautiful. We Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 10 Ostner: Hunnicutt: Ostner: Hunnicutt: Reese: Ostner: Reese: never envisioned building a carport with an apartment on top of it. And if you allow that, then you are saying any occupant of a house on Washington street, if they have an available property, can build a rental unit on their property. And if you allow it once, you are going to have to allow it again. It will change the whole character of the Historic District. I would like to share that there really is no actual precedent. Each and every single one will be looked at individually and the neighborhood will be taken into account every single time. On the two instances that I know of since 1978, the premise was that a family member just like this one was going to live in it, but it never happened. It has always been a rental. I doubt very seriously if Candlewood came here and asked to build a carport with an apartment, you'd even consider it. This is the Historic District. I believe we would because we have to. I hope you wouldn't allow it and I think you'd have every neighbor in that neighborhood down here on you. I want you to consider that this is the Historic District. You have three in them Fayetteville. College Avenue used to be homes like there are on Washington Avenue. If you allow this and I don't know how you can allow one, and not another one. You are changing the Historic District over a period of time. My name is Karen Reese and I am the president of the Washington - Willow Neighborhood Association. The Association's policies on these matters on variances and rezoning requests and the Chambers came before you at the last meeting and asked for a rezoning of their property to RMF' - 8 so that they could build this apartment/garage building within five foot setbacks instead of the standard. It was actually RSF — single family — that's very important. Okay, RSF-8. In order to get the setbacks five feet instead of eight, they requested a rezoning and this Planning Commission approved that during the last meeting. And now they are coming before you and asking for the single family detached dwelling. The neighborhood's position on this that in spite of the fact that in every neighborhood association, individuals feel differently about proposed projects or changes and that is a given. There are those people who say we should be able to do what we want to in our back yard and there will be people who say no, this is not good for our neighborhood. In spite of that, our neighborhood policy is that it is up to the Planning Commission, City Council, Board of Adjustments, as long as all the neighbors whose property adjoins that property do not oppose the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 11 change. In this case, the property owner whose owner will be most affected by it does. I personally, Karen Reese, don't care, but as a representative of my neighborhood association and we have over 600 members, I think you should consider that we as an association oppose something like this, even though individuals in the neighborhood might not mind. We believe that you should not grant this request. I think Commissioner Clark mentioned the last time — what is the problem, because they are right across the street from a condominium complex, but that was an existing property, of course all the neighbors did not agree on what happened with that project, but that was an existing property. When you go in and buy a home and it doesn't have a suitable garage, you buy it knowing what you have there. I think that the burden of proof is on the people asking for the request, and if the adjoining neighbors feel like they are not going to be able to enjoy their property as they have, as they have bought it to enjoy. Believe me, in several cases in the Historic District, we have had these additions added on where these structures loom over little biddy backyards and it really does destroy the light and air. I could point out a few examples. I'm asking you not to grant this request based upon the policy of our neighborhood association and what many neighbors have expressed to me over this issue. Thank you. Clinger: My name is Tim Clinger and I live at 515 Rebecca which is just on the edge of the Historic District. I have lived there since 1976. We are members of the Washington -Willow Neighborhood Association and really the issue I would like to bring to the Commission is that by looking at this request individually or looking at them as unique requests each time, especially in an historic setting, simply allows for a gnawing away at the integrity, the setting, and the true feeling and historic character of an area. Each request might have some interest or support on its own, but when looked at the overall context of this place that we are all trying to preserve, that is where we get into trouble. This is an area that is really among the unique areas of Fayetteville; it is something I think that all our community recognizes as something very positive and gives our community a sense of place and character. In this particular setting, I would agree with Carrie Wilson's position that this is something that should not be supported and to the extent that this Commission has any control over whether a building like this is built or whether it is used for the purpose that they are seeking to use it. We would ask you to oppose the request. D. Hunnicutt: Don Hunnicutt and I live at 520 N. Washington. I just wonder if the owners of this house have considered instead of adding a detached family residence, to add onto the house within the setbacks of any single family residence in that neighborhood or any other neighborhood could be putting in, and put a garage on it. I can't see the reason for a detached. Just because fourteen others in the neighborhood have it; some of those were Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 12 put in the thirties, but the ones that have put in in the last four or five years since they could be approved, have not worked out the same way. I would like to see a house addition to that existing house go on it with a garage attached to it. Ostner: Are there any further comments. Gracian: My name is Millie Gracian. I live at 221 E. Lafayette next to Carrie Wilson and this house will also impact my view. I have never been notified of any of the meetings and have never been contacted to see whether I would approve of this. My backyard will also look into their backyard. I live in a historical house also, so I do not approve of this. Ostner: Are there any other public comments? Seeing none I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Anthes: I guess I struggled with this one a little bit because as a general idea, a second unit doesn't particular trouble me, in addition I think especially with the cost of real estate as it is today, sometimes having a second unit makes people who will really love and care for a structure be able to afford to live there, because they get some supplemental income. If they are living on the property, it is often a very behaved and low impact situation. But in this case I am looking of the form of this structure. In the Washington -Willow Historic Neighborhood there are a lot of ancillary structures, but set to the side behind houses, but they are mostly quite small, one story, one car garages or sheds, and they are definitely very secondary in size and form to the residence. In addition, a lot the houses in this neighborhood on other streets in the area, the primary residences are smaller than what this garage and apartment above it will be. So when the ancillary structure is larger than a lot of the homes in the adjoining area, to me that is a little bit of scale problem. This building is the same height as the existing structure. I am thinking that if the applicant is looking to install a new garage that was in keeping with the scale and character of the other ancillary buildings and structures in the neighborhood, I would want to support it, but in this case I just think it is out of scale and is objectionable to the adjoining property owners, as is some of the other newer projects - I can think of one on Maple Street and the adjoining property owners on Walnut — it is very detrimental to their property. Allen: Pate: I have a couple of questions to ask. About the notification to the neighbors, Jeremy, do you know if those folks were notified? Off the top of my head, I don't know. I know the applicant in this specific conditional use request is not required to notify. But as a rule of thumb, Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 13 Allen: the City offices do notify adjoining property owners and of course we do publish in the paper — it should have been there four times by now, because this is the second meeting. Also the sign has been up since ten days prior to the application two weeks ago. It has been out there. Without going back through and checking all the mailing notifications, it would be difficult to know if they were specifically notified. I also wondered about the neighborhood association — when we discussed this a couple of weeks ago, we talked about how sometimes problems can be ironed out if you sit down face-to-face, talk and see the renderings and maybe you can get problems resolved. I wondered if a meeting like that took place in the last two weeks. Chambers: Karen was nice enough to entertain our offer to do that and communicated that to Ms. Wilson and I believe she did so forthrightly. However, Ms. Wilson did not reply. The offer is still on the table. As far as we know, Ms. Wilson, nor any of the others who have spoken today have seen plans. J.Chambers: After not hearing from Ms. Wilson, I did go by her house yesterday to make sure she that she had seen plans and elevations. Ms. Gracian does not border our property so she may have not received the official mail notification. Allen: The diversity of a historic region is not troublesome to me. Actually I grew up in that historical region of what is now the IGA parking lot. When I go in to get my produce that's where my house was. Back then there were an awful lot of apartments and I think the fact that they own the house certainly does indicate that they would take a lot of personal interest in making certain that this property was maintained accordingly. I'm not absolutely certain about my vote here, but those are my comments at this time. Vaught: Just a question for Staff. The notifications typically go to the owners, not necessarily to the residents if it is a rented residence, correct? Pate: Correct. Vaught: I agree with Commissioner Allen. When I look at the renderings, I don't know if I necessarily agree with Commissioner Anthes. I think it does keep with the home, it compliments it well and looks very similar. I do believe we have the granny units as a conditional use for a reason, that we need to look at them and make sure those things are matched and they compliment the structures they are next to. Jeremy, remind me again, was there a letter or something that states that an owner would live in one of the two units, right? Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 14 Pate: It is actually a requirement by law of this conditional use request, so itis a condition of it. Vaught: Guaranteeing hopefully the main structure, but at least one of the two structures would have the owners occupying the structure. I think I'm in favor of it. It is something we see in this area of town and it is an area of town we would want to see it in I think granny units work well in areas that are walkable, that are closer to downtown. It happens to be a historic district and I don't necessarily think that this is going to destroy the integrity of the District as long as it is in keeping with the District. If you came in and tried to build something like a new house. On Wedington Drive back there, I think I would be opposed to it, but as it compliments the main structure, I think I could support this conditional use and I think Commissioner Ostner's comments at the beginning are a key to it as well. It is the use we are looking at, not the structure necessarily. They are able to build a structure similar to this tomorrow if they wanted to. What we are looking at is a use of it as a granny unit as we call it. Those are my comments. Ostner: I do have a question for the applicant. Have you looked into expanding the home to satisfy your needs? J. Chambers: We have looked into expanding the home and we feel that it being a historic structure, that separating this use perhaps preserves the integrity of the structure as it is instead of altering it again. Myres: If I am correct about the relative age of the structure, I know that carriage houses for horses and carriages were typically detached, mostly because of the smell, not necessarily anything else. That sets a historical precedent for detaching a structure to store transportation objects and I am of the opinion that if they do want to do a garage, that it makes more sense given the age of that neighborhood, to have it detached instead of attached. And again because the house is significantly important historically, I agree that tampering with the actual structure would be more detrimental than putting an ancillary structure in the backyard. Unlike some of the residences in the Historic District, I also do not object to change that is thoughtful and respectful. One of the problems when you are dealing with preservation in general is deciding exactly if you are going to preserve something, how far back in its history do you preserve it, where do you do the cutoff? Do you take it all the way back to the era in which the house was built, was it more important twenty years further forward than that. In terms of precedent, there is a history of precedent in this neighborhood. And I personally think from a design standpoint that the structure that they have designed is visually in keeping with the house itself. I agree with Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 15 Commissioner Anthes that it is a little bit out of scale for a particular period within that neighborhood but it also sits way back from the street. At least from the view of someone walking through that neighborhood that many of us like to do, it is not going to impinge upon the pleasures of walking those streets at all. I can certainly, always being able to see both sides of a question, sympathize with both the applicant and the neighbors who are concerned about the integrity of their historic neighbor, but I do have to support their application of conditional use and will do so. Graves: 1 will move for approval of CUP 06-1877 with the stated conditions of approval. Vaught: Second. Ostner: Any further discussion. Allen: I would like to state for the record that I am certainly a neighborhood advocate and I think that this is an important part of our community and the special places that we set aside and designate as special. We need to take a lot of caution and I want to assure that we will look at each one of these very carefully and do whatever we can to make sure your neighborhood remains a special place in Fayetteville. Ostner: I am unopposed to an additional unit being built in this area. There are a lot of secondary units; however, I am not sure whether the economics would add up if that secondary unit would have to integrate into the home. A lot of people have expanded their homes and built secondary bathrooms, kitchenette. They have integrated a lot of these features into the home for the exact same reason, to bring in a parent or a child or any other family member. It is financially less expensive to build a free standing building than it is to add on. It is a difficult issue for me. I guess what I am trying to get at is I'm not sure without the additional living unit, if this would be financially feasible to build a building of this size that would be purely garage is what I am driving at. I don't think I will be supporting this conditional use since the conditional use is, in this case, tied to a development proposal that this drawing, this layout, this design will be built along with the proposal. I know we are discussing a second unit, but we are discussing a little bit more than that. I wish that there were other ways to measure this than just our judgment. There are historic districts where rules are in place that this doesn't come to this point where a bunch of people have to decide whether this is a good idea or not. I would encourage the neighborhood to look into other ways that historic districts have put general guidelines on how this can be done and how it can't be done, that they would allow, because this is a part of life. People like to have things like this in their yard, the secondary unit integrated into the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 16 garage. I'm not sure I will be in favor of this tonight. Those are my comments. Are there any further comments? Please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion for CUP 06-1877 carries by a vote of 6-3-0. (Anthes, Clark, Ostner voted no) Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 17 ADM 06-1916: (PERSIMMON MSP AMENDMENT): Submitted by Jorgensen and Associates for a Master Street Plan Amendment for Persimmon St. Pate: This is a proposal to amend the Master Street Plan that is currently adopted by the City Council for Persimmon Street between Legacy Pointe S/D Phase IV and Broyles Avenue in West Fayetteville, as recommended by the Fayetteville Street Committee. The reason for this request is due to the current alignment of streets in this area, specifically Persimmon Street which is a collector. Concerns voiced by neighbors about creating cut - through, high-speed traffic if Persimmon is continued in a long, straight stretch from I-540 or Shiloh to Double Springs Road. That is currently in the drawings you have, the section to the top represents approximately 2.8 miles which is relatively straight with the exception of realignment of Legacy Pointe currently. This proposal would realign Persimmon south of where it is currently constructed through Devonshire Subdivision which is not constructed at this point and also south of the existing Persimmon Street. This would offset the collectors, both from the east and west of Broyles Avenue. Both east and west collectors would tie into the north/south Broyles Avenue collector street, thereby creating a discontinuous collector in this area. Just directly south of this site is the Wastewater Treatment Plant area and then south of that is Farmington. The request, as I mentioned, is to realign the planned Persimmon Street collector to south of its current location, as indicated in the attached maps. This is relatively flat terrain and is all owned or potentially owned by the applicant currently and this item was heard January 12`h at the Street Committee. The Street Committee is composed of four members of the City Council and those members did recommend that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Ostners: Is the applicant present? Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett. I'm with Jorgensen and Associates and I'm here representing Charlie Sloan on this matter. As Jeremy mentioned, Persimmon is shown on the Master Street Plan and is currently almost three miles long from Double Springs to Shiloh. The fear that Mr. Sloan (Mr. Sloan actually lives along Persimmon Street) has is that that street would not actually be a collector if it was built that way, it was functioning as an arterial, because it is such a long stretch. He is worried about the speeds on it and hopefully by this realignment, that might actually slow down some of the traffic. It would still function as a collector from the residential subdivision. The distance where it is discontinuous now will dump into a collector Broyles Street, so it is not dumping from a collector to a residential to collector, it is going into a collector and come back out. With that, I would answer any questions you might have. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 18 Ostner: At this point I am going to call for any public comment. If anyone would like to speak to this issue, please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: We approved a subdivision on the far west side of this that included that curb. I assume that would have to come back through? Brackett: Mr. Sloan purchased that property so it will be a different developer and that will be presented as Legacy Pointe Phase V in the coming months, after this is decided. Clark: I have a question for whoever wants to answer it. Being map challenged — what we are doing is moving Persimmon to the south to intersect in the middle of Broyles and then you have to jog back up to north to go back over to Persimmon? Ostner: Yes. Clark: Explain to me why that makes sense. Pate: As mentioned, this will function as an arterial as adopted by the City Council with the function of a local street. The purpose of this is so it is not in a straight line intersection. One of the purposes is to not provide for a high speed type of traffic. Again, connections between arterials should be indirect and discourage use by traffic from outside the neighborhood. That is reading from our MSP adopted by the City Council. So in accordance with that, in situations like this there are benefits to discontinuing those straight-line sections. It is not always the best situation, but we have seen a situation again — The Planning Commission recently recommended to the City Council and the Street Committee is looking at it right now, St. James Subdivision which is a collector that needed to change its current location for similar reasons. That one is more of an intersection in an area which would not be a safe intersection. Yes, you are correct that it would be discontinuous; it would not provide for a straight through intersection at this time. Additionally, another benefit of realigning this is that with development of this property, only a portion of the collector street could be improved. With this proposal, the entire right- of-way and street could be constructed to City standards as opposed to just one side of that. And also it would not disrupt existing single family homes which are north of Persimmon Street currently. Something else we are looking at right now is what to do specifically with Sunshine Road because at the intersection right now of 54th, Sunshine and Persimmon is a principal arterial in those locations, and a collector street intersecting it at Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 19 odd angles. There is already a small "S" curve that would not meet our requirements for distance between those two intersections. This would easily meet our requirements for distance between intersections. It would also miss another bridge connection potentially and that is why I believe the Street Committee forwarded this to the City Council. Anthes: I guess I'm looking way down the line when this whole part of town is built up and people are trying to move from one place to another and it seems to me that having this jog the way it is, this "T" into one street and then bringing them up to a different intersection would actually have the possibility of compounding future traffic problems in the area, not just having the effect of traffic calming which I think this is how this is being sold to us. The issue of whether or not this street is high speed or not is not because it is straight or not, but how it is designed, what the road design is — the width, whether there is signalization, how often the signalization occurs. Functionally we are actually impeding the function and possibly creating a lot of bottlenecking which would force traffic to other roads which is what these neighbors say they don't want time and time again, by inserting this strange jog into plan. I would prefer leaving it in place and leaving a more direct connection and taking very careful care with the design of the road, the width of the road and how that road is signalized to control the speed. Vaught: I have a question for Staff. What would become of the current stretch of Persimmon Street that there are currently several fronting. What would happen when that got paved and was a straight shot through? Pate: A couple of different options I believe the applicant is looking into are either discontinuing that portion to create a potential signalization there. There is a turn lane proposed at Persimmon and Broyles that will be constructed soon, if it is not already. Connecting back to the south, to the collector there, which would be realigned, is another opportunity as well. So obviously access would have to be maintained to those homes to provide access and connectivity between those neighborhoods. It would have to be looked at so that it doesn't become a straight shot through. Vaught: Because we still have a straight shot through eventually. Where I struggle with it is the "T" and the severity of it. If the road would meander and curve down through, I think I would look at it a little differently, but I am having a hard time with the sharp "T" intersection it creates. And Broyles — this is a straight shot through. Eventually it will be a very big road. I don't know if the best way to control the traffic is having these "T" intersections. I wish there was some other option in front of us — possibly curving the road a few times through here to bring it to where it is or something similar to that. I think as these become busier roads, there is Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 20 Clark: going to be signalization any way, hopefully, so that might help. I'm not opposed to bringing the road south, just how we are getting south. I don't understand. It seems like if you are using traffic calming as a justification to "T" it in to Broyles, you are just throwing more potential traffic to go north on Broyles to make it a straight access road or you are causing people to "T" into Broyles, turn left and then turn back right to get to Persimmon in a fairly quick fashion. That doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't know if you looked at a configuration to have it meander, go south and meander back up to the old Persimmon before you get to that intersection. Brackett: The problem that we are running in to, the current stretch of Persimmon, the eastern portion of this realignment, is very substandard and to be able to build Persimmon Street up to standards, especially as a collector, for one thing you are probably going to have to put a bridge across the creek right there and to be able to do that would just develop it on the south side of it is not feasible. That is one of the reasons that it is proposed is the fact that you can't bring that road up to standards with just developing on one side of it, you have to do it on both sides of the road. Not to mention the street — Charlie Sloan has spoken with neighbors that live along Persimmon — to bring that road up to standard, right now it is a country road and that's what it always was and it has trees on both sides and you are going to have to remove all the trees. It is going to be very, very expensive. Clark: But we are trying to avoid a bridge. Brackett: Yes. Graves: I feel pretty confident first of all as I'm looking at this proposal that it wouldn't calm any traffic. It is still pretty long and straight, we've moved it just farther south is all we've done. It still is pretty long and straight. There is not any kind of meandering to it that would tend to calm traffic. It has a little bit of curve to it, so it would end up sort of like Gregg Street which still has people traveling fifty miles an hour in a thirty-five. I'm not sure that the lack of wanting to build that bridge is really the best justification for setting policy on where the street goes. If we were going to head south like this, I would rather see it start midway through that large parcel it goes through. It is hard to describe it to you, but there is a long straight stretch before it gets to Broyles. I'd rather curve midway through that, see it begin to head back north. Of course you would have to build that bridge, but connect it back up where they've got Persimmon continuing on the other side of Broyles. I don't think that it is a good solution to have it hit Broyles and have people turn out onto Broyles and Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 21 then turn back to the right again to get back on Persimmon, if that is where they are trying to go. Again, the idea that we are trying to eliminate the straight stretch doesn't prevent a raceway type situation. This doesn't do it. The map I have in front of me doesn't do that. I wouldn't see any reason to amend the MSP as it stands right now for this map. Maybe another proposal, but not this one. Vaught: I'd also like to say that knowing that the bridge is expensive, I know that the City has approved a cost share of another portion of Persimmon further down with the developer who is developing on one side of the road and that is definitely an avenue the developers can take. It might be a good option for you guys, if you have to build a bridge at some point in time. I am reserved on approving this. I am curious to know what the Street Committee has seen on this, Jeremy. Do we have any comments from them or any feedback from those meetings at all? Brackett: I was at the meeting. I believe they understood the unfeasibility of building the road where it was currently and the fact that it is three miles long. That is our main point, is picking up the traffic from Double Springs and it is going all the way to Shiloh on a straight stretch. It isn't going to function as a collector, it is going to function as an arterial. The bridge is a major concern, but that is also a concern with the developer. Vaught: To me we are shifting the bridge building from Persimmon to Broyles. Brackett: Broyles is designed and under contract to be built. Vaught: Is there going to be a bridge at the location. Brackett: I believe there is....well, I don't know. Allen: It seems to me that this doesn't solve the problem, consequently I'm going to move to denial of ADM 06-1916: (Persimmon St, MSP Amendment) Anthes: Second. My comment is that we have a City Plan 20/25 starting, there is a traffic engineer, very qualified, working on the process, perhaps they can look at this and provide an alternative that might be more suitable to members of this Commission. Ostner: If we are talking about traffic calming, "T" intersections work well with very low volume streets. Residential neighborhoods are calmed well with "T" intersections. I don't believe this will be a low flow street; it is going to be high flow. People are going to head east, they are going to "T", they are going to wait at Broyles, turn left and they might not be able to. People might be backed up at Broyles at that intersection. I envision that Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 22 it will be signalized in the near future. Four-way intersections work best with high flow. The things that slow down traffic in high flow areas are "eyes" on the street. Are houses facing the street or are board fences? I'm hoping City Plan 20/25 can look at that as we go down Township between 265 and Old Wire, those stretches that no houses face the street, everybody speeds up. It is human nature. The parts of Old Wire, conversely, that everybody faces the street, people tend to slow down. People are out there. So that is where I stand on it. I would like to find some relief for you guys; I just don't think this is it. Are there any further comments? Will you call the roll please. Voting yes means to deny. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the ADM 06-1916 motion is denied by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 23 CUP 06-1894: (WRMC, 211/212): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 N. NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is for expansions to the hospital facility, including additional buildings and associated parking. Morgan: This property is located south of Futrall Road on North Hills Blvd. It contains 52 acres and is developed for Washington Regional Medical Center. The applicant has requested a conditional use for several proposed additions and expansions to the existing hospital facility. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, in which this use for a hospital requires a conditional use. When the initial development of this hospital was initiated, the applicant was granted a conditional use permit. The applicant requests expansion of the existing hospital to add a fifth floor which is LSD 06-1851 which is on your agenda this evening. In review of this request, Staff allowed the applicant the opportunity to request a conditional use for the other proposed development and expansions as were told to us that they intend to bring forward in the next few months. We have a list on page three of your Staff report of those expansions which would total approximately 202,000 square feet of medical office area and 646 parking spaces. All told all of the expansion and existing buildings would only occupy approximately 37% of the total area of the property. Staff finds that this use is compatible with the surrounding medical and residential uses and that the expansion is appropriate. We have recommended approval for this conditional use with ten conditions of approval. Those conditions include Planning Commission determination of compatibility with adjacent uses. Again, Staff does find that this expansion is appropriate and compatible. The conditional use before you is only for those items listed on page three of your packet. If the large scale development has not been approved within the next year, the applicant will have to come back for a new conditional use approval. That is listed in condition three of your report. If I may, I would like to briefly go over the large scale development that is requested. This is just for a fifth floor expansion which will include 60 bedrooms, approximately 23,000 square feet of medical office space. Staff is recommending approval of this proposed large scale development with sixteen conditions of approval which include Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. The proposed elevations are included in your packet, they will match the existing building materials, etc. Additionally, Planning Commission determination of street improvements - at this time, Staff is not recommending any street improvements for this one -floor expansion; however, the impact of this addition will be taken into account with future developments. We have requested a traffic study and the applicant is currently working on getting that. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 24 Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present. Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Holloway: Good evening, my name is Jerry Holloway and this is Josh Bean, another engineer with USI -Arkansas. We thank you for allowing us to be here. We are asking that the conditional use permit be applied to the hospital. There are several things that the hospital wants to include in that: the bed tower, which is the fifth floor, that has been alluded to already; we will have 60 patient room; and we are also going to have an Administrative Services Building, hopefully in the near future built here; and also a three- story parking garage is also going to be an addition to the Emergency Services area, so that we can get more emergency vehicles in that area and also park more in that area; three parking areas will be added to the campus in the near future; and also a Senior Center. We understand that this is in an R -O zone, so we are asking that this be used in the R -O zone. Also, as alluded to, we area asking for the LSD which is 06-1851, which is the fifth floor addition. There will be other LSDs that will be coming in the near future. This is the first one — 60 patient rooms, approximately 23,000 square feet, associated nursing stations and hallways, and so on. We are asking for the fifth floor of course for the health and safety of the residents of Washington County and Fayetteville. The same building materials will be used as in the current hospital. We agree to all of the written conditions that the Planning area has suggested to us and have been submitted. We would be glad to answer any questions. Ostner: At this point, I will call for public comment If anyone would like to speak to these requests, we are discussing together, but will vote on them independently. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Anthes: Question for Staff- is it my understanding that there are multiple conditional uses on this property? Or that there will be future multiple requests for conditional uses? Pate: The request is to approve the conditional use for the multiple large scale developments that you will see. This is the first one which is the fifth floor. On the conditional use drawing that you have, the shaded buildings there are the buildings indicated: administrative services building which is the southwest of the hospital; the parking garage to the north; and the Senior Center to the far east. Anthes: So this one conditional use is not just the one LSD in front of us; it is for all of those. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 25 Pate: That is the request. The compatibility I don't think is necessarily an issue in this case. We review for large scale developments standards, commercial design standards, all of those items with a large scale development for the hospital. We are recommending approval of the conditional use as opposed to processing a separate one for every single project. Anthes: I guess my question is, why don't they look to rezone this property? Pate: Anthes: Allen: Ostner: That is an option. Of course, this use though is typically only found in a C-2 portion, although I really don't see the function of the site changing a lot. Most of the properties around are residential office, so it would be a change in use. That still does remain an option and we discussed that with the applicant as well. It used to be zoned C-2 and residential agricultural actually and then R -O. At some point in 2002-03, I believe, it was all changed to R -O just to have one cohesive zoning so the setbacks were all the same and there were no questions. But that is an option. Obviously we have C-2 and C-1 adjoining it. I am going to move that we approve CUP 06-1894 subject to all conditions as stated. Second. Is there further discuss on this conditional use request? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the CUP 06-1894 motion is approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 26 LSD 06-1851: Large Scale Development (WRMC 5TH FLOOR, 251): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 N. NORTHHILLS BOULEVARD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is to add a 5th floor to the existing hospital building. Ostner: I believe we have heard the Staff report. Does the applicant have anything further to add? I will call for any more public comment on this development request. I am going to close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: I'll move to approve LSD 06-1851 subject to all conditions as stated. Allen: Second. Ostner: Is there further discuss on this conditional use request? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the LSD 06-1851 motion is approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 27 RZN 06-1891: (SHEWMAKER, 365): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at 1631 DEANE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RT -12, Residential Two and Three Family Ostner: I believe the applicant has requested that we table this indefinitely. Pate: Applicant has requested it indefinitely. Allen: I move to table RZN 06-1891 indefinitely. Myres: Second. Ostner: I am going to ask for any public comment before we table. This item was publicized. Pate: Just briefly, the applicant will be looking at a Planned Zoning District application as recommended with the same request in 2003, as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission at that time. We will be working with the applicant to provide something to the neighbors. Ostner: Any public comment. Any further discussion by the Planning Commissioners? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the RZN 06-1891 motion is tabled by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 28 ANX 06-1895: (BROYLES, 245): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at WEIR RD., WEST OF SALEM RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.06 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Morgan: This request is to annex approximately three acres into the City of Fayetteville. This parcel is delineated by the City limits to the east and to the south, on which a preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission with a stub out to the north to this property with the anticipation of development of this property. This property was actually approved for development of three lots several months ago. The owner would like to annex this property and rezone it RSF-4 to continue that street to be developed to the property to the south through this property, to create approximately eight lots on the subject property. Staff finds that the incorporation of this property is acceptable and it would create an acceptable City boundary. There are currently services to this property or the adjacent property to be developed at this time, with Fire Department servicing a nearby subdivision as well as the Police Department. Additionally, with regard to the zoning of the property, Staff finds that it would be compatible with the area adjacent to the east and to the south and other neighborhoods that are developed or that are developing in this portion of the City. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the annexation as well as the rezoning. Osmer: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hearn: My name is Kip Hearn with H2 Engineering. Again, I just want to reiterate that this is a continuation of a project that was approved here just a couple of months ago. It is an extension of the road north; and we are going to gain ten new lots. There is actually a small property line adjustment that we will be proposing as well, in process. Ostner: I will call for public comment at this time. Would anyone like to speak to this annexation or rezoning request? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: t motion that we forward ANX 06-1895 to City Council. Myres: Second. Ostner: Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the ANX 06-1895 motion is forwarded by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 29 RZN 06-1896: (BROYLES, 245): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at WEIR RD., WEST OF SALEM RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.06 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: We have heard the Staff report, does the applicant wish to add anything? Hearn: No. Ostner: I will call for public comment at this time. Would anyone like to speak to this annexation or rezoning request? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion Trumbo: I feel the zoning is compatible with what is going on in this area. I motion that we forward RZN 06-1896 to City Council. Graves: Second. Ostner: Any discussion? Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the RZN 06-1896 motion is forwarded by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 30 VAC 06-1897: (PETTUS, 484): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located SOUTH OF DICKSON, BETWEEN BLOCK & CHURCH. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.38 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of an alley on the subject property. Garner: This property is an existing alley that is located immediately south of Dickson Street between Church and Block Streets in downtown Fayetteville. This alley is currently used for some of the property owners as the only means of vehicular access into their properties. The alley is approximately ten feet wide in places and the width varies. The applicant requests to vacate a portion of the alley right-of-way to develop property on either side of the alley. The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the City utility depaitments and has not received any objections. Staff has this discussed this project with two surrounding property owners, mainly concerned with how they will access their property once this portion of the alley is vacated and how public service providers, such as trash and emergency service providers will access their properties when this alley is vacated. In response to these concerns, the applicant has met with these property owners and in order to address these access issues, is proposing a new right-of-way alley to Church Street. A depiction of this access is included in your reports on page 14 of 20. Staff finds that vacating an alley right- of-way without a provision of continued access could potentially limit vehicular access to some of these parcels; however, the applicant's proposal to provide another access and dedicated right-of-way alley through their property would provide adequate access and would also alleviate a potentially adverse traffic concern with the existing alley way exiting on Dickson Street, very near a traffic signal at Dickson and St. Charles. The utility companies have approved alley vacation with conditions. Staff is recommending approval of vacation with those conditions. Condition #1: a new public alley linking the existing alley to Church Avenue shall be provided and dedicated through the applicant's property; condition #2, should any existing water or sewer lines be identified in the subject alley, these must be tied at the developer's expense to mains such that they do not cost the service owner for the tie- in; condition #3, adequate easements to meet Arkansas Western Gas approval shall be dedicated; condition #4, any relocation of existing utilities in the alley shall be at the owner/developer's expense. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hennelly: Tom Hennelly, H2 Engineering. We don't have any problems with any of the conditions of approval. We would like to clarify on the dedication of Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 31 the new alley way. We would like to just be responsible for dedicating that right-of-way at this time, not actually paving it, making sure it has ingress and egress. If we were to pave it right now, throughout the course of construction on this property, once a LSD does come through, that new asphalt could potentially be torn up. But we would like to guaranty the ability to ingress and egress through the entire length of the alley just as if it were open, but leave out that final pavement layer. Ostner: I am going to call for any public comment on this. Seeing none I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. I have a question for Staff. Does this request seem amenable — to hold off paving? Should we rephrase it as a condition? Pate: I don't believe we will need to rephrase anything. The condition #1 does speak to having a public alley linking to Church Avenue as provided and dedicated. We anticipate that the last sentence there, "The existing alley shall not be vacated or obstructed until the new access is in place and accepted by the City of Fayetteville", as with any construction project, when a project is presented on this site, we anticipate that there will be some street closings, not only the alley, but also other places as well. We will have to work through that as part of the construction process, but to maintain access. The alley does go further south and connects one block south as well. There will be adequate access, but this is really to ensure that there will be an open line of vehicular and pedestrian access through there. I think everything is in order. I don't think there will need to be any changes in the conditions. Osmer: Thank you. Does this meet your expectations? Anthes: I am probably the biggest friend of alley ways on the Commission, I am glad to see that we are still going to provide connectivity, but I would agree in this case that the outlet at the intersection of Dickson Street near St. Charles is quite problematic and therefore I will move to forward VAC 06-1897. Clark: Second. Ostner: Any discussion? Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the VAC 06-1897 motion is forwarded by a vote of 9-0-0. BREAK Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 32 CUP 06-1892: (TEMPLE SHALOM OF NWA, 447): Submitted by JOSEPH RATNER for property located at 1100 ROCKWOOD TRAIL. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to allow a synagogue (Use Unit 4) in the existing zoning district. Garner: This property is located at 1100 Rockwood Trail. It is the Butterfly House, designed by Fay Jones. The site is approximately 1.5 acres and contains a 4,100 square foot single family house, with a large driveway in the front. The eastern portion of the property is a bare landscaped lawn with a chain-link fence with a dog run and storage shed. The north, east and west portions of the site are entirely shielded by thick stands of tress and brush. The site is entirely surrounded by residential uses in RSF-4 zoning district. The applicant proposes to use the existing single family structure as a permanent home for Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas. This Jewish Temple was founded in 1981 and is Fayetteville's only Jewish congregation. In order to use this house for a Jewish temple, they would have to have some minor changes done to the outside of the home. Those changes are noted there and listed in your Staff Report, numbers 1-7. The applicant requests a conditional use permit because the property is zoned RSF-4 residential single family, four units per acre, and Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities are allowable only by conditional use permit. Staff has received a large volume of public comment; and we have a large number of people here for this item. We have had a number of phone calls and e-mails and your Staff Report has included all the e- mails we had received prior to publication of this Staff Report. We continue to receive a large volume of e-mails and we also received a signed petition this afternoon which we made copies of and passed out to you before this meeting. The majority of the comments are opposed to the project. There is a fair amount that is for the project and in favor it. The main opposition to the project is that people don't feel it is compatible with the neighborhood and the main issue has been traffic and visibility. There are a lot of comments on lighting and what this would look like and how it would change the character of the neighbor. Those that have supported the projected have stated they feel that the landscaping and the proposed improvements to the site would really improve the appearance of the neighborhood and a neighborhood temple would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff has made the required findings of fact regarding this project and Staff does find that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Some of the main justifications for these findings include: The description of the project which includes — it is going to use the existing single family house. The appearance of the house and the structure will remain as a single family dwelling unit. The gatherings and activities that are proposed and described by the applicant for this permit are small and appear to be unobtrusive. In general, the scale of activities — approximately half a dozen to a dozen vehicles would be at the house for Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 33 Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, usually weekend and evening -type services, and they would have occasional social events and annual holiday services that might have around twenty to twenty-five vehicles at the site. One of the improvements to the site that I wanted to call out is the parking for the site: They are proposing to use a grass -paved lot to accommodate additional parking on the site. The driveway in front of the house, they feel is large enough to accommodate their parking almost all of the time and they would install grass -paved parking area to accommodate approximately sixteen to twenty cars when they would have some of their larger events. Some of the other issues that Staff looked at when making the findings, were the ascetic impacts which, as mentioned, the house would remain looking as a single family residence. The applicant would propose a new driveway along the eastern property line and it would have the appearance of a residential driveway. Traffic issues: Staff looked at the traffic and the access in and out of this site and we do find that this house is on the crest of the hill of Rockwood Trail and the entrance into this site we feel is okay turning into the driveway. Exiting that driveway we find there is limited sight distance and we are recommending that that be a right -out only exit from that driveway, and the driveway on the far eastern side is appropriate for turning movements in either direction. There are photos in your packet and supplemental information that show that sight distance, if you want to look at those. Those are some of the main issues. In order to recommend approval, we did include a large number of conditions to ensure that this is compatible with the neighborhood. Condition #1 — Planning Commission determination of compatibility with adjacent properties and those within the same zoning district. That is Planning Commission's determination on whether you find that this proposed conditional use permit is compatible. To call your attention again — the modifications to allow a grass -paved parking area, landscaping in extending the decorative retaining wall, shall be compatible with the existing structure and appearance of the property as a single family structure. Any improvements to the site would have to look like a residential structure. Condition #2 — talks about how the description of the project as proposed here, the type of parking, what it would look like. If the site is substantially different than what is described in the information provided by the applicant, the conditional use permit may be revoked. So that is ensuring that what we are seeing before us is tonight is what is permitted. If at some point we get complaints or something like that, the conditional use permit can be revoked. Condition #3 — the building permit plan must be submitted for City review. That talks about that we will require more detailed information on exactly what some of these improvements will look like. They will have to go through our typical building permit process. Condition #4 — references that any improvements to the property are required to conform to the RSF-4 zoning requirements and required setbacks. Condition #5 — discusses the access, driveways in Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 34 and out of the site. As mentioned, Staff recommends an exit only from the main existing driveway entrance to make sure that traffic movements turning in and out of this property are safe. Condition #6 — the sidewalk requirement money in lieu of sidewalk improvements required is at a rate of $3 per square foot for the four -foot wide sidewalk along this property. There are no existing sidewalks in this area, so that is where the money in lieu would be paid and be able to go toward other sidewalk improvements in the neighborhood or area. Condition #7 — requires all lighting be limited to pedestrian scale lighting (bollards, wall -mounted, etc.) and shall be unobtrusive to the neighborhood. Condition #8 — requires that all trash receptacles would be required to be internal to the site. They won't be able to have dumpster pads or dumpsters outside the site. Condition #9 — reiterating the appearance of the single family structure and any improvements to the site are required to look like a residence compatible with the neighborhood. Condition #10 — references the parking lot and calling out specifically that it has to be grass -paved, so it won't be pavement; it will be a grass surface that will essentially look like a lawn. Condition #11 — the new curb cut on the eastern side of the property is required to have the appearance of a residential driveway, and this is required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Condition #12 — requires landscaping for the site. This is requiring trees and shrubs. The applicant in their packet proposes to install the landscaping plan, the original landscaping plan that Fay Jones intended for this site. We find that that would be compatible with this neighborhood and would be an improvement to the landscaping in the area. Condition #13 — pertains to the signage that would be allowed on the site. There are some minimal amounts of signs that would be allowed in the RSF-4 zoning district with this conditional use permit. Staff also recommends to further limit that signage and call out specifically what signs would be allowed with this permit. We are recommending a wall sign on the existing structure be allowed, some directional signs — two directional signs for the curb cuts going in to and out of the site, specifically making sure that the one turning movement is an exit only out of the main driveway. One additional informational sign with the Temple name not exceeding four square feet would be allowed on the front decorative wall or mailbox area. As with any conditional use, the Planning Commission must make the decision based on the findings and facts and whether you agree or disagree with Staff's findings in your Staff Report. We will be happy to answer any questions you have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Ratner: Good evening. I am Joe Ratner, President of Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas. I appreciate the chance to address you this evening. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 35 While there have been Jews in Fayetteville much longer, Temple Shalom has been Fayetteville's only Jewish congregation since it was founded in 1981. Over the years we shared facilities of the Hillel, the Jewish Student Association at the University of Arkansas or used rented facilities. We have a very good long-term relationship with the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, but worshiping in someone else's space is very different from having a building dedicated to your own worship of God. As we begin our 256 year as a part of Fayetteville, we finally have the opportunity to have a home of our own as we have always dreamed. But not just any home. Beyond our dreams we have an opportunity for a beautiful landmark by Fayetteville's and Arkansas' most famous architect. I'd like to thank the City's Planning Department for its thorough review of our proposal and the positive recommendation. While many area residents have expressed their support for Temple Shalom, I know there are those who object as well. And while some may just not want a synagogue in their neighborhood, I would like to address the neighbor's specific concerns individually. Just as the Planning Depaitment did to arrive at their conclusion that our use would be compatible with the surrounding properties. If I heard a church wanted to locate in my neighborhood, I would have concerns myself. Though Fayetteville is the most diverse and tolerant city in Northwest Arkansas, as the only Jewish Congregation and being very small, we've always had a low profile in the community, so it is understandable, that when most residents hear about us, they picture the Baptist, Catholic, Methodist or other Christian church that they are familiar with. As explained in my proposal, we operate quite differently from the typical Christian church. First, while guests are welcome, only Jews can join the congregation. And while conversion to Judaism is possible, it is a long and difficult process and we don't encourage or seek out converts. Second, because traditional Jewish law prohibits handling money on the Sabbath, we get our income from annual dues and not a collection plate. Because of these factors, we don't use large religious symbols, signage or advertising to recruit membership or attendance by the public. And our future growth is limited to the Jewish population of the Fayetteville area. In 1985 as the only Jewish congregation in all of Northwest Arkansas, we had thirty-five member families. A little over a year ago some of our families founded a new congregation in Benton County and with most of the growth of the Jewish community having been related to Wal-Mart and it's vendors, Bentonville's congregation has swelled in little over one year from an initial twelve families to over forty- five. After twenty years our current membership is still only about fifty families, few of which could be considered young. And unfortunately most of our children leave Arkansas as adults. We don't expect more than one or two new Jewish families to join our Fayetteville congregation each year, while others leave or grow less active as they age. And so unfortunately we do not expect to outgrow the Butterfly House in the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 36 foreseeable future. As for concerns about the UA Hillel Student Organization, they own a building two blocks from campus, so they will continue their events in their facility. Temple Shalom has always been in the heart of Fayetteville, centered around the University. U of A professors still make up a large part of our membership, so we require a location in close proximately to the campus. We when began to look for a building, we started from campus and worked our way outward, investigating all the possible locations we could find. When real estate listings were unable to provide a suitable home, I drove every street within a two-mile radius of the University of Arkansas campus, and that was how I came upon the Butterfly House. I was immediately struck by its beauty and it looked like a synagogue and not a private residence. I didn't have high hopes of a private residence providing a suitable meeting space for our worship services, and I was pleased and surprised to find the Butterfly House has a central space with over 700 square feet under a cathedral ceiling and with a rear wall of glass looking out on undisturbed woods. Like most of the people who have visited this space, I was immediately struck by the spiritual and connected -to -nature feeling that is evoked by Fay Jones' best work, such as the Thorncrown and Cooper Chapels. When we met with Gus Jones, Fay's widow, she said, "I know that Fay would have been very pleased to have Temple Shalom rescue one of his architectural children and give it new life and loving care." Then she amazed me by telling us that just before returning to Fayetteville and designing Butterfly House, she and Fay had been in Houston and Fay had toured that city's synagogues. With an adjacent lot also for sale, so that we could have adequate off street parking and a stand of trees on either end between it's and property and the neighbors, the Butterfly House seemed to be tailor made for our congregation, and we feel it will be safe from anti-Semitism and vandalism in this beautiful neighborhood. My next step was to contact the surrounding neighborhood associations to arrange a meeting on August 31s` of last year to which all the members of the associations were invited. About twenty-one neighbors attended the meeting, and while various concerns were raised, we were encouraged to proceed by the large percentage who expressed support for our idea. Over the next few months, we developed plans that added greatly to our expected expense, but addressed the concerns that the neighbors had expressed to us at that meeting. This month we held two more meetings with neighbors to show them our plans and to address their concerns. At the first of these meetings, eight nearby residences were represented out of the over forty to whom I mailed information and invitations. Everyone in the area neighborhood associations was invited to the second January meeting and twelve attended. A number of very positive comments were made at the first meeting this month and I also received mail and e-mail from a number of various supportive neighbors who were unable to attend, including Patricia Collier of 1344 Rockwood and Donald Wilson who Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 37 owns the property opposite the empty lot where our parking will are will be located, and who wrote welcome, absolutely no problem. The final meeting had a few undecided attendees but most there were the few who were actively trying to keep us out of the neighborhood. As presented in the Planning Department's report, we designed our parking area to include more than the minimum number of spaces as per City code without relying on any on -street parking. And we have designed it to be unobtrusive and to look as residential as we could. Our plan includes a parking surface that will be below street grade, screened by landscaping based on Fay Jones' original plan for the house, and at much greater expense than conventional methods. We will utilize grass -pavers that will allow lawn to grow in the parking area. Lighting will be pedestrian scale and we hope to remove the large utility company light from the pole next to the driveway. The entrance will be through the existing driveway, and egress from the lot will not require backing onto the street and will also be as far from Crest off Rockwood as possible, maximizing visibility. Changes to the Butterfly House itself will be minimized and will include new landscaping based on Fay Jones' original plans. Upgrading the powder room to allow handicap access, a railing around the terrace wall and the conversion of some doors to be outwardly swinging for safe egress will be included. A small play area would also be designated in the back yard for a handful of young children to attend our religious school. All the changes will be overseen by Davis and McKee of the firm with which Fay was affiliated and the doors and railing will be custom designed and custom built so as to maintain the home's esthetic qualities. No changes will preclude returning the building to residential use if we should outgrow it and move on. Our plans respect Fay Jones' legacy and the integrity the Butterfly House is designed with minimal changes, which would likely not be the case with a family in residence. As for traffic, as per our proposal, our use would sporadic, largely on Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday mornings and not at peak traffic times. I have a chart outlining the use. As you can see, our total annual car trips would be little more than the standard estimate for a single family home and much less than a home with a couple of teenagers, or if the vacant lot was sold separately and a second home was constructed on the property; the number of car trips would be much higher. The number of cars parked when we do have events would rarely be more than ten or fifteen and the peak time for exiting the lot would be after 9 p.m. on Friday. Yesterday Temple Shalom held a congregational meeting for a final vote from our membership on their approval to proceed with this project. At this meeting which was the most important meeting and most important vote in the history of our congregation, there were twenty cars, thirteen parked in the driveway and seven on the vacant lot. It would be unusual that the number of cars would even be as much as for this very important meeting. As for the issue of precedent, nonresidential use and incompatibility with the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 38 neighborhood, we plan for the Butterfly House to be a House of God and home for Fayetteville's small Jewish community, a religious, not commercial use. The City Planning Department concluded that our use would be compatible with the neighborhood, and Fayetteville's zoning ordinances as well as the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 both allow for religious assembling under this area's residential zoning. I would like to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our proposal. Temple Shalom looks forward to the Butterfly House providing a center for Fayetteville's few Jewish residents and we all look forward to being a part of the wonderful Mt. Sequoyah area and getting to know our new neighbors. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Ratner. Before we proceed to public comment, I am going to ask everyone to avoid repetition. We want to hear everyone's comments tonight. If you want to come up and introduce yourself and if it has already been said, you can say I agree with him. We are going to avoid all personal comments; we are talk about the issue and if you would please try to organize your thoughts and keep them brief and to the point, we'd like to hear everyone of you. So, I'm going to open the floor for public discussion. Blair: My name is Jim Blair. I have lived in Fayetteville for a little over 70 years. I've lived on the north slope of Mt. Sequoyah for a little over 30 years. I have been the owner of the property to the west of this proposed Temple, to the east of this proposed Temple and to the north of this proposed Temple. I have traversed Rockwood Trail as best as I can calculate approximately 36,000 times. I think I know a little bit about the situation. I know you asked that there not be any personal comments, but I have to say I would rather have a tooth pulled, I would rather have a root canal, I would rather have all my teeth pulled than to oppose anything Jewish. I am intimidated by that because my late wife, the love of my life for over twenty years, was Jewish, her mother was born in a Jewish family in Poland, my oldest daughter is married to a fine young Jewish man, Aaron (I forget his name) Levi, this summer in Staten Island, NY. I gave away my goddaughter in a Jewish wedding to many a very fine Jewish man named Ivan Cohen. I make trips to Israel to see my extremely close and precious friend, Sol Katzen and his wife, Gaia. Sol, is a retired from the Israeli Army, Gaia who was in a Kabbutz in Israel. I understand why they use gently and subtly the word anti-Semitism and they should not be subject to any of that and I love the Jewish people and I'm happy to intermarry with them, I'm happy to socialize with them, I'm happy to share anything I have with them. I'm not here for that reason. I am here because I think this is very bad idea and I would be here if it is Buddhist, Islamic or a Baptist, or Episcopalian, Catholic, Pentecostal project. I do think that if you allow this, you cannot keep out future controversial Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 39 groups. I think a lawyer even as good as Kit Williams could not keep an Islamic Temple from going on Rockwood Trail if you allow this. This issue is that Rockwood Trail is an extremely narrow street without any shoulders and it comes up an extremely steep hill, and it undulates as it approaches its apex and it has a lot of blind drives and the people who pull off the street like Crest risk their lives to some extent every time they pull on Rockwood Trail. Rockwood Trail drains the entire north slope of Mt. Sequoyah. The is the only way off the mountain unless you go through a long, winding sequence of streets like down Tanglebriar where I live, across Applebury, down to Columbus, across Columbus to Eastwood and then it serpentines and on any day you may or may not be able to turn out on Mission Avenue. My step -daughter totaled her car on Rockwood Trail. It is not a safe street. There was a car that drove into the house we are talking about. It is not a safe street. But the neighborhood is very peaceful and quiet and gentle and loving we - all get along except when somebody tries to increase the traffic on Rockwood Trail. Then three times, as some of this Commission knows, we have fought like tigers when there is been an effort to increase the traffic on Rockwood Trail. There have been three major things in thirty years and fortunately all of them have been stopped. Now, the people who I think support this project who live on Mt. Sequoyah are people who don't in general, drive Rockwood Trail. There might be a few exceptions. There are people who did not voice objections because they were visited by advocates of this group, Howard Baird is an example. Two gentlemen came to see him, told him there would only be six or eight cars across the street, there would be only be six to eight families. He comes back from Florida today to find that is not exactly the case. There are other representations that were muddied to a lot of people, that if a neighborhood opposed it, they would not proceed with this project. And yet I think in the face of neighborhood opposition, they have done so. I know some woman named Nancy Williams, not the Nancy Williams I just married, says she represents the Southern Mt. Sequoyah Neighborhood Association and she is for this project. Well, they don't use Rockwood Trail. I can understand why she would be for it. She would be for it because she wouldn't want it using Rogers or Spring or Dickson that they could use to get off the mountain.. I think the people I sold my land to are building a multi hundred thousand dollar house right next door. I think their property instantly becomes worthless. The person that succeeded me in my past job has a house right across the street, he paid $450,000 for the house. I think it immediately becomes worth less. I think it diminishes the property values, it diminishes the peace and quiet, it creates a hazard. I think there are a lot of other places in Fayetteville for this wonderful group of people who I dearly love and would support in other way so they can find a place for a Temple. It is not a neighborhood Temple, it is a Temple for the entire City of Fayetteville, the entire County of Washington. And Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 40 as Bentonville's group has grown, I will think they grow and prosper and I hope they do. And I love them and I wish it wasn't here. Thank you for listening to me. Merry -Ship: I am Kathy Merry -Ship. I am a homeowner, wife, mother and live in the neighborhood on Trust Street just south of Sequoyah Drive and I agree with everything Jim Blair said. I also wanted to say that every day I take a left on Rockwood Trail and it is very dangerous. I stop, I look, I start to go out and all of a sudden a car is coming over the hill. So I am opposed to the project because of traffic. Thank you. Ostner: If I could ask any future comments to please sign in at the podium, it would help us. Vallage: My name is Les Vallage. My wife, Nina and I own the home across from the Butterfly House on Rockwood Trail that Jim Blair just priced for you. We are not sure but we think we may be the family most impacted by this proposal. We have owned our home for seven years and our architect, Hanna McNeil recently completed plans to enlarge the house, add a kitchen and bedrooms for our growing eight year old twins. We like our home and we like our neighborhood and we have three specific thoughts we would like to convey this evening. First, we believe that the proposed conditional use is inconsistent with our home and the neighborhood. The proposed use is for a house of worship on Saturdays and holidays. It is also for a school which according to the Temple website is held every weekend. It is also a facility to support the University of Arkansas students, because Temple Shalom has a close partnership as we would hope and expect with Jewish students attending our University. For example, they currently offer Friday evening movies, the last one was Betty Boop and the next one is the Frisco Kid. This would also be a special events center for weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs and lectures on Israel, etc. About two weeks ago Joe Ratner wrote us a letter describing the Temple's plans. In his letter he spoke of how holidays and other celebrations saying "this year we had one service attended by 120, one with 90 and the other services were attended by about 60". He also said that this year they had three bar -bat mitzvahs, "anywhere from 40 to 100 plus may attend depending upon how many relatives come to town and how many invitations are sent". We believe that these planned uses disagree with the Planning Staff findings and we believe they are not consistent with a residential neighborhood. The Planning Staff found that we would occasionally have events that would generate twenty vehicles. That is not 100 or even 60 people that Joe Ratner talked about. In fact we don't think any kind of special event center is appropriate for our residential neighborhood. We would ask you to note, and we think this is very, very important, there is nothing in the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 41 proposed conditions which limit the number of events, the attendance or the vehicles that park at this home. Common sense tells you that once Temple Shalom spends over a million dollars to acquire and develop this property and it becomes their home, they will want to use it as much as possible. Our second point is we believe the Temple use will grow. Temple Shalom membership doubled during the past few years, the congregation shrank after a new temple was opened in Benton County. We don't expect that to happen again. In addition, let me quote to you what the Temple Shalom website says about growth, "can Temple Shalom survive without the Butterfly House? Yes, can it thrive and grow? Perhaps not." This is an active, healthy Temple as evidenced by the effective and professional way they have approached this project. It is clear to me that they will thrive and grow wherever they locate and we, like Jim Blair, wish them well. We love the diversity that Fayetteville has and we think that Temple Shalom adds to that and we think it is a wonderful thing. We just don't want it in our neighborhood. Our final point is that this use involves a twenty-five car parking lot with lighting immediately across from our home. The Staff findings say that the parking will be "totally screened". We disagree with that. It won't be screened from our house, it won't be screened from anyone driving down Rockwood, and in fact the Temple held a meeting at the house yesterday. The website called it a congregational meeting and that is a photograph from our house of the twenty or so cars attending that meeting. Would any of you want this use across the street from your home? That is the driveway that Staff is recommending for egress. It is directly across from the bedroom in our home so at 9:00 every Friday night when those cars leave, we will have to put up with that. Here is the real point for us. We bought a home in a residential neighborhood. If this use is approved, we will be across the street from a significant non-residential use. Our children's bedrooms will look out on the twenty-five car parking lot. This Temple, like everything else in Northwest Arkansas, will grow and the glare from car lights, the parking lot lights, and the visits to the Temple will adversely affect our neighborhood, our home and our family. We ask that you deny the requested use. Freund: My name is Joe Freund and I am happy to be Vice President of Temple Shalom. I would like to respond to several points. He did mention that we have Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs and High Holiday services that generate significant number of people, maybe 100. We have for many years.... Ostner: Mr. Freund, excuse me. We are going to take comments just for now that are not associated with the application and then we would like to hear from you all. If you don't mind We are just going to reserve this for people who are not associated with Temple and then we will come to you. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 42 Roth: Hello Commissioners. My name is Paul Roth. I live at 416 Sequoyah Drive, one house away from the proposed project. Lots of bedrooms are surrounding this property and who wants bedrooms looking out on sights, smells and sounds of a parking lot? I don't. Secondly, I have an 87 year old father that I am responsible for. One of the things that keep him alive is walking up and clown Sequoyah Drive and they have already said they are not going to put any more sidewalks up there, so where does this man have to walk except on the street. You put twenty-five to fifty cars up there in the afternoons and weekends, what if it snows? You're not going to go down Rockwood, you are going to come out on Sequoyah so its added traffic. I feel that my father will be in danger by any added traffic added to the mountain. That's about it. Thank you. Ostner: I would like a show of hands of how many neighbors are here tonight. I'm guessing twenty-five to thirty. Lusby: My name is Lonnie E. Lusby — I live in Mt. Sequoyah, Sequoyah Drive. I rise in opposition to the Butterfly House being anything else but a residence for all the reasons stated by my neighbors. Thank you. Condren: I am Sherry Condren and I live on Sequoyah Drive. I've been up there since 1980 and have seen a lot of changes. One thing I think the Planning Commission needs to think about is back in the early 80s, some young people missed a curve on Ruth and hit the gas pump station and it blew. We had to evacuate the entire area and it was a Friday night and just this past year a man ran into the house at Mission and was killed — coming off of Rockwood Trail. It is a dangerous street. How much tax would be losing for our schools? That is a concern for our schools. I don't want my tax increased. Arentsen: My name is Bruce Arentsen and I live at 1802 Applebury Place and for a lot of the reasons that have been given previously, I am against the proposed change in use. I might also note for safety is that Rockwood Trail is primarily straight, but right at that house is a jog in the road, which has an abrupt veer to the left and abrupt veer to the right. I don't think that has been mentioned. It is at an apex at the street so there is limited sight. I do believe in the future that this could grow and have additional members and like in a lot of places, there is parking difficulties and people end up parking on the streets in some neighborhoods. I think that would be a consideration. Garner: I am Rebecca Garner and I live 1061 Pembroke Road. I travel Rockwood back and forth every day. I agree with all the things they have talked about I have to admit, my heart was broken when I drove by it. I have Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 43 forgotten, and quite frankly I thought without a use permit they couldn't do that, but there were all those cars there and it surprised me. I didn't expect it. I thought nothing would happen until after this. I happen to be on the Architectural Committee of our Southampton Subdivision which is just beyond this area, but still on the top of Mt. Sequoyah. We had a gentleman there who had a lot next door to his home. He used to hold church services there and I think he taught some church things and sold books. We weren't really sure. But he was working with the Planning Commission and your Staff and he had given us something that appeared that the Staff had approved what he was going to do on Pembroke Road. I don't think it had gotten to you. And it went to the point when he showed us what he was doing — it was a 7,000 square foot home on a small lot. He tells us it is for his brother, long story short. We wound up hiring an attorney and they had one — it was friendly and when we started talking about how it didn't fit into the neighborhood. It was a great idea for him, but it just didn't fit. It didn't look like the neighborhood, it didn't did have the same use. After he finally admitted it wasn't a home. He said he was very sorry and maybe this wasn't a good idea. He sold his home and found a better place. I hope these people can do the same thing. Ozment: My name is Vicky Ozment and I live at 804 Crest, which is on the northeast corner of Rockwood Trail and Crest and for five months out of the year, I have a view of what would be the parking lot. So I am that close. I bet you don't want know all of the Jewish friends I've had in my life, so I won't go there. When I spoke with Mr. Garner several times, he said that this had the most conditions on a permit that he and Staff had possibly seen and that raised a red flag for me and I hope it does for you as well. That means that they had to condition it to pieces to get it to be neighborhood friendly, to be compatible with the neighborhood. I am sure Gus Jones would be thrilled to have anyone move in and restore the home. I would enjoy anyone here restoring my husband's '47 Hudson, but doing on your own lawn, would not be appropriate and that is sort of how about this. There will be someone who comes in there and fixes this house and restores it to Gus Jones' desires as well. It doesn't have to be this. When I looked through the conditions, I was a little surprised actually. The very first condition says at the very last of the paragraph, "The Temple activities at this site shall be limited in scope to be small and unobtrusive meetings, gatherings, as described in concept and the materials provided by the applicant". So small and unobtrusive — those sound like somewhat vague words and somewhat open to interpretation. What that would be to me would not be to the next person, so that is going to have to mean we have to come to some terms of what exactly we are talking about, because if you pass this tonight and Planning has put their conditions on that, and the Temple agrees to that, we are all agreeing as particularly in the neighborhood to very set expectations. And small and obtrusive might not Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 44 quite get it at that point. If we decide what that means, we go to their proposal and you have that as well and I think President Ratner also presented you with the list of the existing activities and schedule that they keep now. That schedule is also part of their not owning their own building. They are using this in conjunction with other organizations where they rent their space; therefore, they haven't had the history of owning their own building so therefore they really don't know what kind of participation this might generate. If their congregation is expected to help fundraise or contribute in any way to making this Temple exist, then usually, if I put my money into something, I show up a whole lot more. I want to see what I am getting. I would predict that that is a more realistic view. I think their numbers are a best case scenario for what they experienced at the time. But owning your own building is a different story. We have a history of that in Fayetteville. We built the Walton Arts and everyone said, who is going to buy a ticket and take their kids to Dickson Street, and we know how successful that is. We built a beautiful library and three times as many people show up to use it in the first year. Not predicted. This is an unknown. How much use this is going to get is an unknown to them. They should prosper and grow, everyone agrees with that, but this location does not allow it because they have cited that they will have no off-street parking. Who is going to be able to guaranty that? And if you try off-street parking — we've measured all the streets around there — all the streets available for parking, none of which would be allowed because you cannot get an emergency vehicle down them, in addition to parking. So that is not going to be a place for them to go. When I asked about their growth — I said, what if you under estimate the number of people that want to come an event, you can't predict that, no one can. Well, we will tell them we have twenty-five parking spaces. Is that a realistic solution to a public building? They say that they are a group of fifty families and that they are very slow growing. Their usage and participation levels will jump once they will have their own building, as it should. It doesn't belong in a neighborhood. Also, they said that the students have their own place, and that is true. I have been to all three neighborhood meetings, and I digress for a moment, and I would not characterize them nearly as friendly as President Ratner did. People did not come out and absolutely oppose it when they were asking questions. They were trying to get a feel for all of the information. You have before you a petition that has only been three days in the making and those people are saying no, so that is a substantial "no" that they did not want to have a resounding voice to in a meeting with the people that were giving us our information. The twenty-five students when we were talking about that on the January 8th meeting for the immediate neighbors, they said that they would not bold their events in the Temple, but that they were always welcome to come to their Temple events, because this is their home away from home. Also, the public is invited to any of their events. How are Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 45 they going to control the parking, if they can't predict these numbers? That would be a problem. How will they control the limited use that this condition #1 has put on them? We have to go back to their proposal and the very short events they will have and only twelve people show up out of fifty families. They are trying to tell us that we are going to have to guaranty low participation, or they will already fill this building up without any growth. They already meet capacity if they up the participation of the people who already belong there. I do oppose this. You are probably going to hear a lot more about parking so I won't go on about that. I thank you for your time. Jumper: I am Allison Jumper. I on the southwest corner of Rockwood and Crest. The only different thing that I wanted to bring up was something that was proposed in their drawings in the neighborhood meetings, was a sub service parking level. I want to speak to the point that that is something that I would not see that could easily be reverted back to a single family function. There has to be significant excavation - I don't even know if it can be built that way, actually. If anyone has built anything up there, it is not easy to get through the rock. I wanted to bring that up — it was what was shown to us at the meetings and no one has spoken to that point. Dykman: My name is Tom Dykman and I live at 1822 Rockwood Trail. I've lived there since 1993. I went to several of the meetings at the invitation of the applicants and at the last meeting I asked them how big the parking lot was going to be. I was told it was going to be hidden so you wouldn't see this. They told me they didn't know. Tonight Mr. Gamer tells us that they'd have to comply with City code to build the parking lot. I went to look at the City code to see what the size of the parking lot would be, and according to Chapter One, 72, a parking lot that will hold twenty cars, ten on one side, ten on the other, would exit out down the middle to what they propose to be 90' x 62' feet by City code. You are not going to hide a parking lot that big with any landscaping. If you look at the lot, it is totally clear. It is totally flat, no trees, no shrubs. I just don't believe that size lot is going to be unobtrusive when you have twenty cars parked on it. The other thing I would like to add that has not been brought up, is the volume of volume up and down Rockwood Trail. They proposed that the volume will be comparable to a single family house, but in fact that is not true, because everybody will come and leave at the same time. The times that they propose to use the site are on Friday evening when people on Rockwood Trail are coming home from work and going out for the evening; Saturday morning when they are going downtown to do errands of some sort or another and on Sunday when people are going to and from church. These are times when Mission is very busy and it is going to be difficult for cars to get out on Mission Avenue at the bottom of Rockwood Trail. If they have twenty, twenty-five cars parked up there which is Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 46 within the limit of the permit, you could easily have ten or fifteen cars backed up on the bottom of Rockwood Trail at those peak times. I just don't think the neighbors should have to come down the hill and have to wait for ten to fifteen cars to disappear to be able to get out of your neighborhood. I oppose this permit. Colverson: I am Heddy Colverson and I live on the alternative route to Mission which is Sequoyah Drive and it runs right into the Butterfly home. I agree with Dr. Dykman on what he was saying about the huge amount of traffic that would hit at once. I just know from experience, I actually live on Trust now, we lived on Sequoyah for six and a half years, and we have to go on to Sequoyah to get any where. I know that its understandable to me that people want to cut through Sequoyah Drive to get to Mission because it is almost impossible to turn left at the bottom of Rockwood Trail onto Mission. So if you cut through Sequoyah Drive back to Maple so you can hit the four-way stop. So I just see a huge increase in traffic on our street which is a very narrow street. We have dogs, kids, joggers, walkers all the time and there is hardly any place to get off the road. We have enough traffic, I wish we didn't, but it's understandable. I wanted to comment on the proposed parking lot, the grass -pavers as opposed to the concrete. I guess it would maybe look better to some people, but to me it would like cars parked all over the lawn and I don't think we like to see that anywhere. Sada: My name is Mike Sada. I live at 609 Crest Drive, approximately a quarter of a mile from the proposed project and I am opposed to this otherwise very worthy project. Frankly I am a bit astounded that the Staff would recommend this as a compatible use. In addition to all the other issues you have heard about, it is important to understand that traffic routinely traverses this stretch of Rockwood at two to three times the posted speed limit. The street itself is extremely narrow; it is frequently overgrown with brush and I would agree with Mr. Blair, that anyone turning off of Crest is basically taking their life into their own hands already. D. Dykman: I am Dana Dykman and I live at 1822 Rockwood Trail. I have lived in the neighborhood since 1993. I have a couple of concerns and things I want to bring to the Planning Commission's attention. First of all, visual works for me, and one of the things that you all may know the measurement of this room, but first of all, to envision what a 90' x 62' parking lot would be, I'm guess this is about 60' long and 40' wide, so it would be about double this room for a parking lot in a residential neighbor. Residential neighborhoods are not meant to have parking lots that large. Period. That is one of my biggest concerns. As my husband said, it is almost impossible to hide that, especially when it is full of cars. I know that the cars may not be there all the time, but given the fact that there is the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 47 propensity for growth, there will be cars there filling that parking lot regularly in the near future. I was one of the ones that went around and did a petition, mainly because when I was passing out flyers to notify neighbors about the conditional use permit, I got a lot of hesitancy, but negative comments from neighbors and I was concerned that message might not get out to you, so we went around very quickly and tried to catch people at home, which is very difficult to do, and collected several signatures from households. Sometimes both people in the household did sign, sometimes just one. But the numbers were overwhelming opposed to this project. For the petition there were sixty-four homeowners. One page of that mentions Fayetteville residents, because there have been some people who have heard about this concerned about their neighborhoods, that if a twenty -car parking lot can be put in something next door to them. I also checked on the letters, which you have a number of them, comments I know you have them in your packet. I don't know if you were able to get to look at them. The best I counted from those letters or e-mails that you received there were 43 opposed and eight in favor. That was prior to January 19`s. Since then there have been at least twelve opposed and one in favor. The numbers are overwhelmingly against this. Because I'm visual, I enlarged the map that it is your packet of information regarding the home and I marked in orange the homes that were opposed to this, the nearby homes that will be most impacted. I marked in green the ones that have come out and written you in favor of the project, and there are two. This is a home under construction. This did not have the addresses — you can verify those. My second concern is that I was at the Planning Commission today with several other conversations I have had with Andrew, it is hard to pin down some of the conditions that are delineated in your packet and the findings — things like conditions that they will have small and unobtrusive numbers. I feel like that is a very loose term. How do we enforce that? I asked them if the neighbors found, not through any fault of the Temple Shalom, that there were more people that come and they are late for services and they get there and they find the parking lot is full, they pull over to the side of the road, and park on the side of the road which blocks our traffic for all the neighbors, what are our options? Of course they say we can report that and it can possibly be grounds for revocation of the permit. I think that this is important, not only for our neighbors to know, exactly how we could complain about this. I went to ask the Planning Commission today, because I couldn't find it when I was looking in the ordinances myself, if they could show me anywhere where it is written how you, as neighbors, proceed on reporting and getting some sort of action from the Planning Commission or the City in regards to them not following the conditions of the conditional use permit. The only place there is mention of it is under home occupation. Well I wish this project was falling under home occupation, because then there would be no extra parking spaces allowed. That is my biggest concern here. I think Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 48 there are a lot of issues with the different conditions, on just how we could actually control those. I appreciate your time. Seward: Good evening, my name is Jim Seward and I live at 1825 Tanglebriar. Several of my neighbors are here tonight. We live on a street that appears to be one of the easy routes off of Rockwood Trail. A lot of people come down our street, as it is a long downhill approach, we have a lot of traffic speeds on our road, with children and dogs and a lot of people walking in our neighborhood. I have concerns with the excess traffic feeding off of Rockwood Trail coming down our streets. And I agree with all the comments tonight and thank you for your time. Grisham: My name is Lowell Grisham. I am the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. I am not a resident of the affected neighborhood and so I don't have in interest directly in the concerns that we have heard. I look forward to hearing the representatives of the Temple and their responses and hope they can adequately address the serious issues of traffic and parking. I just wanted to say as a religious leader, how important it is to a religious community to have sacred space and to have a place for a congregation to be able to say it's prayers and for it to be able to do so in it's own tradition. That is a good value for the whole community and one to be held in consideration with all the other values we have mentioned tonight. I've also lived in communities where we didn't have a living and active Jewish congregation and that is something that is a great blessing to our whole community. I hope that we can work something out. My own limited knowledge of the congregation is that their events of prayer are very small for the most part. I hope there would be a way for this to work out. We need a strong a Temple; we need a strong Jewish community. It is good for all of Fayetteville. Condren: My name is Sue Condren. I live on Anson Street. I agree with what Rev. Grisham just said about needing a strong Jewish community for the health of Fayetteville. We aren't saying that we don't need a strong Jewish community. We are just saying that it doesn't need to be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood. When this first came up, I drove around with this in my mind, so I became more aware the local churches, and we have so many of them. They are located on Township, Old Wire Road, Crossover, Mission, Lafayette, they are on edges of neighborhoods, the are on thoroughfare streets. They are streets that the pubic uses to go to the post office, to go out to eat, to go to the store. They are not located in a street that goes up a hill and eventually dead ends. Rockwood is not a thoroughfare street. I just think that a church like this would be better situated on a thoroughfare street, the way the other churches are. I have been playing with the cliche that "if you build it, they will come", which is humorous but it is a proven tenant of growth. Many people have Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 49 touched on it. If a was a Jewish woman wanting to be married. I would love to come to this Temple in a Fay Jones' home. If I was in a Jewish family that lived between the Bentonville community and Fayetteville, and I was attending the Bentonville community because they now have a Temple, but the Fayetteville community has a Fay Jones' home in the middle of a quiet neighborhood, I would come to the Fayetteville home. I think that they are under estimating the amount of growth that is going to happen when they move into something like this. I don't deny that they want to be in a sacred place, in a beautiful home. It just doesn't need to be in the middle of a residential neighborhood, because it is non-residential use. I went to several of the meetings as well, and from what I can understand, there is going to be two handicapped spaces required on the driveway and there will the blue handicapped signs, signage for the driveway entry only and signage for the driveway exit only. There is signage on the wall of the Temple and near the mailbox. That right there tells you that this has a commercial slant to it. I don't have signs on my home. None of my neighbors have signs on their homes. This is not going to look residential, it is going to look more business oriented. My husband couldn't be here, so he wanted me to convey one of his thoughts. When this came about in the late summer, early fall after we went to a meeting, we called Tim Conklin to ask him about the nature of the conditional use permit and basically said, Tim, what is the crux or criteria, what is the thing that a conditional use permit teeters on. Tim said, basically, Terry, do the neighbors want it. He said if the neighbors don't want it, it is not going to pass. In reading the Staff proposal where they deal with traffic and esthetics, and noise, there was nowhere in there, do the neighbors want it. I'm thinking that you are realizing that the majority of the neighbors for very good, practical reasons regarding traffic and a parking lot, lights and all of the things we have brought up, the neighbors don't want it, and I think you need to really take that into consideration. Welch: I am Michelle Welch and I live at 707 Crest Drive. I live one house down from Rockwood. My husband could not be here, he is out of state. He has written some e-mails and he is also opposed to this. All the public issues I think have been very well said: traffic safety, issues about the trail. I am one of the people who has to get out on Crest and look ten times before I go. From a personal point of view, because of the lay of the land, sometimes, if you were there at the house where the parking lot is going to be, you would not realize how many of us are impacted because you don't see our house or our land. Because of the lay of the land and the way my house is built on a hill, from my kitchen window, my deck, and front glass doors in my living area, I look straight down on the lot that would be a parking lot and the home. So as I do this and I've been moving around the last few weeks, I want you know how much that will impact my lifestyle and neighbors close to me. When I come home on a Friday evening and Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 50 Webb: want to sit and have a nice quiet evening on my deck, am I going to have to listen to seventy-five car doors. It doesn't take very many cars to have all that type of noise, the lighting. I did want to mention that Mr. Ratner did mention that Mr. Wilson was totally for this project. I have lived there for over eleven years and Mr. Wilson does not come up the mountain, he doesn't live there. We need to consider who actually lives there. Please keep this a residential neighborhood. My name is Jennifer Webb and I live about a half a mile from this site. I would like to let you know that I support the proposal. I think the number of conditional uses that have been placed on the proposal by the Planning office is indicative of the care and the thought that has gone into this kind of conditional use. I also think that the agreement of the Temple to meet those conditional uses is reflective of their desire to be a good neighbor. I think very few of us, when we have a home on our own street that is sold or changes hands, we can predict what kind of neighbor is going to move in there. They may have a garage band, they may have big parties many times a year as my husband and I do. There is no prediction of what you are going to get. With the conditional use for the Temple Shalom, we are guaranteed that they are going to be fairly quiet and respectful. We can't anticipate that they are going to have a garage band, we can't anticipate that their recycle is going to be full of beer bottles. I think that their agreement to these very rigid conditional uses is not a red flag, but it is instead a commitment to that neighborhood and I think we should think of that very carefully. Vaungartner: I am Drew Vaungartner, 612 Sequoyah Drive. Don't know what else I could add to this. My neighbors have done a very good job of telling you what our views are and for my wife and I, I would like to concur with all the objections that have been laid out before you. Ruth: I am Brad Ruth and live at 805 Crest Drive which is the adjoining property to the east. A couple of things: In Andrew's initial comments he said the site was completely shielded from all sides. Not completely true. Six months out of the year, the view from just about every room in my house is the parking area and the Butterfly House. Just wanted to agree with everything that has been said and ask that you deny the request. Ozment: My name is John Ozment and I live at 804 Crest. I have lived there approximately twenty years and I haven't made 36,000 trips up and down Rockwood Trail, but a fair number. Again, I agree with everything that has been said to oppose this. No personal feelings on this except that the character of the neighborhood, what it is. There is still a lot of undeveloped property on Mt. Sequoyah - people will be building as Jim Blair sold a lot to a couple that is going to build a beautiful home there. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 51 There are other undeveloped lots. I think we have enough traffic problems as it is. Save the rest of the traffic problems for those who want to live up there, rather than a "business". Thank you. Chalfant: I am Debra Chalfant and my husband and I are building a house next door to the Butterfly House. I just want to ditto everything. We just want the neighborhood to stay residential. Ostner: Is there any further public comment before we turn the floor over to the applicant. I am going to close the public comment section. I am going to bring this back to the Commission for any questions or discussion items before the applicant responds. Allen: Pate: I have quite a few comments I would like to make, but before I make them, I wondered if Jeremy would be willing to explain to everyone here exactly what a conditional use is? The reason being is I think there is some misunderstanding about zonings and conditional uses and thought it might be helpful to start with that. Sure I think we have explained it several times over that past couple of weeks to interested parties who are here tonight and others. I think there was an initial misunderstanding that the property was requested to be rezoned, which it is not. A conditional use is a use that is permitted, only conditionally within a zoning district. In every zoning district in the City of Fayetteville there are permitted uses which are permitted by right. It doesn't take a special approval by the Planning Commission. Conditional uses, I have the definition in front of me, but essentially what they are, they are uses that could potentially be compatible, but also could be potentially objectionable; therefore, there are a number of findings on which you have to base your decision for each and every one. Each and every one is separate. We do not base it on prior projects, prior approvals, just like a variance request for instance is not based on any precedence that is set; it is based on each and every review as it comes before you. Findings are made by Staff. If the Planning Commission agrees with all those findings, they recommend for approval; if they disagree with those findings, they recommend for denial. But essentially those are the findings that we are required, and the Planning Commission is required to make for each and every conditional use. Based on those findings, we then generate these conditions. With this project, for instance, we have thirteen conditions that we felt were appropriate in order to ensure that this use, which is non-residential in nature, retains a compatible nature with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Allen: Thank you. I thought I would start by saying that I've never tabulated my times up and down Rockwood Trail, but they are considerable. My Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 52 parents lived off of Rockwood Trail and some of my friends who are out here in the audience live off of Rockwood Trail and I've come to visit them. I feel like I am practically an historical district up here on the Planning Commission since I've been on the longest. And I have a lot of commitment to neighborhoods and wonder if after tonight, I will have any friends except the Planning Commission because a number of them live in the Mt. Sequoyah and also the Washington -Willow area. I don't see this church as having a high impact on this neighborhood. I don't feel like your property will be diminished. As a neighborhood advocate, I think churches and synagogues, and schools are parts of neighborhoods and are what make them rich and interesting and diverse places to live. I don't think the risks on Rockwood will be any greater as a result of having this church there. I think the conditions that have been put on the church will minimize that; that this synagogue will be a good neighbor to you. For those reasons, even though I am making myself very unpopular, I feel that it is proper location for a synagogue. Anthes: I have some questions for Staff. The Staff report here says that the landscape plan that was conceived by Fay Jones will be installed by this applicant, but I don't really have much to describe that, so therefore I can't evaluate the type of screening afforded the neighbors. Can you describe that? Jeremy: For the most part, the drawing that is included is a little hard to read. We would obviously get permit drawings when we are looking at this application, but I believe the condition #12 states that landscaping on site will be planted as proposed in the presented site plan to include trees and shrubs to be compatible with residential use and to provide screening of parking area. As indicated on these plans of course, it includes the addition thirteen potentially large to medium large species trees along the frontage as well as in this one, shrubs planted behind the proposed free standing wall along Rockwood Trail, which I believe is part of the original plan. There is also a retaining wall to further screen the uses. It is indicated best on the section on the following page where the screening is indicated. You can see the small retaining wall as well as the free standing wall. I believe what is meant is not a completely underground parking area, but sub grade. As you see in the photographs the grade does fall from Rockwood Trail here and they would utilize that slope to help screen the vehicles in that location. Anthes: I'm going to state this as I think I see it. If Mr. McKee or Mr. Jennings listen and make sure that I have this right. There is a two to three-foot high brick wall that will be built on Rockwood Trail that was part of the original design. It looks to me like the elevation of that is from 99 to 105 feet, following the curvature of the property. Then the site slopes Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 53 downward and then there would be a retaining wall that the top of the wall is at 99 feet and the bottom is at 97 feet. And that is behind which the cars would be parked. It looks like in the rendering there are two rows of hedge material between Rockwood Trail behind the planned free standing wall and then again another row in front of the retaining wall of the parking lot? There are at least six trees to be planted in that space as well. My next question of Staff is that the site alterations as shown on these drawings, I believe if I read the conditional approval right, they say that any site alterations other than those described and shown in the plans and approved, which would be additional parking areas or pavement areas or whatever, would compromise the conditional use, correct? Pate: Correct. It would have to return as a new conditional use request if any other further expansion is requested. Anthes: Can you , Jeremy, describe for the neighbors, what avenue of recourse there is to them if there are complaints. Pate: If there are conditions that are not met or applications on this site that do not meet what the intent and what the proposal is before you (I have a couple of notes to hopefully clarify that), a neighbor, citizen, or non - citizen, anyone affected by the action could contact the Planning Division Office, file a formal complaint in our Hansen system. We would do a code violation request and a service request and would investigate that potential violation just like we do on any violation of the City Code. If those conditions were not being met, we would then contact the owner; if it was not remedied within a reasonable amount of time — I believe most of the ordinances give you seven days or fifteen days, depending on the violation — to remedy that situation. If it is not remedied, then that would come before the Planning Commission for further action. The Planning Commission could then revoke that action and can go as far as the City Prosecutor's Office and the Court. Anthes: Is Staff available at times other than 9-5 Monday through Friday to observe those complaints if they occur? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Have you evaluated the traffic numbers as submitted to us and concur with the number of car trips per day being at or below what you most often calculate for two residences? Pate: For two residences? A typical number is around 9.6 — 10 trips per day is what we realize for residential subdivision single family homes, so for two homes on this site, it would approximate 20 vehicle trips per day. This is Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 54 larger home than most sites, so it might be more given the size of the family that could occupy it. That is a national average that we realize in our trip generation rate. Anthes: Can you speak to Conditional use #6 and describe why we would not be wanting sidewalks in this area? Pate: The reason for that recommendation (and our walk administrator did visit this site) and one of his criteria that he is required to do by ordinance, is to look at the possibility of connecting sidewalks and unfortunately in this area, the potential is so low at this point in time, it would have to be a major City undertaking to do the entire Rockwood Trail, widening and creating sidewalks and I don't believe that is in our future plans at any time. The recommendation at this point would be to utilize that $3 per square foot for the linear amount of a four foot sidewalk along this site for sidewalks in this area. So that would be improving existing sidewalks, creating new sidewalks where they do make connections. Anthes: I am not sure if you, Mr. Pate or Mr. O'Neal would like to address this one, because this subject has come up before, has the City looked at other means to control traffic or the speed of traffic on Rockwood Trail - like stop signs and that sort of thing? Pate: We do have in place a system by which a neighborhood can petition for traffic calming measures and that is available online and something that the public has been aware of We have looked at various neighborhoods — I don't believe that Rockwood Trail has looked at those measures because it is one of the only means of access for most of these neighborhoods. It has functioned as a small collector street for a number of these neighborhoods. I think one citizen mentioned it is sort of the drainage for the traffic of this area, because there are no other means of access over the mountain with the exception of the other two that are mentioned. I don't believe we have done any comprehensive evaluation of that. Anthes: Thank you. That is all for now. Vaught: I have some comments. This is a tough one, because typically I would support this type of use in the middle of a neighborhood. I believe it is compatible and it would enhance the neighborhood. My problem this time is the location and I believe that is why we have the conditional uses and it is not by right in a residential neighborhood. We have a structure — honestly, these streets in the Rockwood and Mt. Sequoyah area are substandard. They are narrow, steep and are probably are never going to be improved. With the lack of further development in these areas, especially with no streets connecting over Mt. Sequoyah, it is difficult to Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 55 get funding for improving these streets to a standard that could handle the traffic they currently have. Typically there are no curbs, gutters, there are ditches on either side of the road, there is no room for on street parking, dictating the need for this large parking lot with lighting. I would see this more compatible if we were closer to a major road, if we weren't up such steep grades on narrow roads, or off-site parking available at this location. There is not. I do believe that churches can be great neighbors in neighborhoods. I don't think that this is the right location for it. My concern is not what it is, but what it could be ... In a year or two, we could have twice that much. We are looking at the situation I think. This conditional use runs with the property. If the Temple outgrows it and wants to move to a new location, they could sell this piece of property and obtain the conditional use, and we will have less control over really what it will be. If we do approve this, I would like to see further definition, especially on condition #1. As stated, I am against this conditional use, for the safety concerns, street concerns, for off-site improvement which we couldn't ask this applicant to bear. Another concern of mine is the parking lot lighting. Any kind of lighting in that parking lot in this hilly area is going to affect neighbors. I don't see how it could not; it is a hilly area, on a plateau above other homes off the back side. You might be able to screen the cars, but I don't think you can screen all the lighting. I think that would be a radical change from what we currently have and for those reasons, I cannot support it as written. Graves: I would concur with what Commissioner Vaught just said. In general I disagree with most of the public comment on where a church is appropriate. A church is appropriate in a neighborhood, just like a school is or a grocery store or maybe a small professional office here and there, maybe the corner gas station. It is appropriate in many residential settings. The issue I have with this proposal has nothing to do with what the proposed use is, but the type of traffic and type of parking situation that is involved in that particular location. If it was on a flat stretch of street that was wider, that had sidewalks and more protection for people pulling in and out, and people that were walking, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. When you look at this site, I am very familiar with it — I lived on Applebury Drive for a number of years. Professor Freund lived right behind me and Mr. Blair lived down the street from me and I am very familiar with the area. I've run that stretch of Rockwood a lot of times. That picture doesn't even do it justice, how narrow Rockwood Trail is and there is no where for the large number of pedestrians to go whenever cars do top the hill. This particular location is on a plateau. It dips down to the east and to the west of this particular site and it goes back up as you go east and goes down again. It is very difficult to see traffic as you are coming off Crest or coming out of the driveway for this particular location that is right next to Crest. The screening that has been discussed, Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 56 I'm not sure it adequately addresses some of the homes. We have comments from some of the residents on Crest, because a lot of those trees that are natural trees that are back behind that aren't going to be planted, especially a screening. There is a lot of canopy there, but the type of canopy that is there drop their leaves for half the year and there is a clear site line through there. Some of those homes are a level above of where this home is located and they will be able to see down into that parking lot and probably be affected by some of the lighting as well. When I take all these things together, it is not that I have a problem with what the use is, other that what the use brings - that particular type of use brings in this particular location. Having been the victim of the Planning Commission before with my other Methodist Church on Dickson who wanted to build parking on Lafayette, I am particularly sensitive of having been denied by the Planning Commission on things that a church wants to do with its property and not being able to do it. I've really thought about this one a lot and struggled with it personally on what is appropriate here, but I cannot get past where this particular piece of property is located and there is no way to make it safe, especially if there are 10, 15, 20 cars all trying to get out at the same time at the end of the service. And that is assuming that the numbers that we have been provided hold and there is no guaranty that that would be the case, even if there is slow growth. Even the number of cars that is being discussed right now is probably too much for that location. If there is growth, the parking lot isn't going to contain it and my suspicion is that people would begin to park along Crest and Sequoyah Drive. They can't park on Rockwood, but they would start parking along some of those side streets. I just cannot support that impact at that piece of property and I'll be voting against it. Anthes: Couple more questions for Staff. I think there is some confusion about how this proposed parking lot is proposed to be lighted. It looks like condition approval #7, all lighting shall be limited to pedestrian scale lighting (bollards, wall -mounted, etc. and shall be unobtrusive to the neighborhood). What does that translate into. There is going to be no pole lighting? How will that parking lot be lighted? Pate: In as much as it would provide pedestrian safety and that is essential — we did not anticipate and we would be happy to add to that condition to say specifically no pole lighting, that's why we included bollards or wall - mounted, something more pedestrian scale and does not provide an office and/or commercial type of lighting. Anthes: And from ingress and egress — the Staff report states that the Staff felt the site lines were adequate for safe ingress and egress from the new driveway. Mr. O'Neal, would you substantiate that. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 57 O'Neal: Anthes: Pate: Yes, we did visit the site and did find that the drive as far to the east as possible would be the best location for another exit point. Then I have a question about the size of events. I believe I read in here, but can't seem to locate it, that the Temple still plans to hold larger at the Unitarian Fellowship Building where they currently have events. Is that true and can someone speak to that. Just a quick thing and maybe the applicant can speak to where the larger events would be held. Our recommendation is based upon this being a small event -type of facility for this conditional use permit. There have been allusions to larger events that once a year — bar and bat mitzvahs would produce a hundred plus people, that is not an event that we would anticipate would be held here. And to further quantify that, conditional approval #10 is intended to help out with the questions regarding unobtrusive and small meetings. By limiting the parking spaces, that is ultimately the impact. You could probably put four or five people per car, however, these would also likely be inside and by limiting the size the parking area to the driveway and to the grass -paved area only, we felt that was the appropriate way to limit the activity on the site, so there would be whatever could fit in the driveway and in the parking area. Again, to further clarify that, it was our intent that parking would not be permitted on Rockwood Trail or any other public street in conjunction with this conditional use permit. That can be added as a condition or can be further clarified in condition #10, because that was certainly the intent. Anthes: Would be alright for me to ask the applicant about the large events? Freund: My name is Joel Freund. We have for many years used the Unitarian Universalist for High Holiday services which are like Easter services — lots of Jewish people come once a year. Those occur in the fall. We plan still to do that, and when we have bar—bat mitzvahs and those are very sporadic, many years we have none. This past year we had three and it will be a number of years before we have any more. Those also would be held where we can accommodate them at the Unitarian and we plan to continue an arrangement with them for those services. At our typical Friday night services, we get fifteen, maybe twenty people. When we have a children's service, which of course is a draw for the parents, we may get twenty, twenty-five people. Anthes: Thank you very much. I'd also like to state that the Unitarian Fellowship Hall is located in the center of a neighborhood and on a steep and narrow street. I look at how we build our community and what kind of uses we permit regularly in residential neighborhoods. Time and time gain, this Staff and this Commission has recommended and found compatibility for Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 58 churches in neighborhoods, some of them are on hills, some of them aren't. Most have much more concrete, much more lighting; all have their individual potential conflicts and traffic problems and issues. I can think of a few on the west of town that were particularly challenged with traffic right now. I keep coming back to the basic argument that neighborhoods are perfect places for places of worship and that just like neighborhood schools, people want to live and be able to walk to where they worship and to their school, and it is a similar situation here. I believe that Temple Shalom would be a good neighbor and excellent caretakers of this important piece of architecture in our community which has been vacant for some time. Personally, I would love to see the landscaping installed because I think that is something that has always been missing from that property. For all those reasons, I am going to vote in support of this project. Trumbo: A question for Mr. O'Neal. He mentioned a line of sight from the eastern most ingress/egress and you are saying that is acceptable. What speed did you estimate that at? Not the posted speed, but the current speed. O'Neal: With the posted speed which is 25 MPH. Trumbo: My issue is safety. My biggest issue right here. Everyone who has ever lived Fayetteville or up there knows that nobody hits the crest of that hill at 25. These are hard decisions to make. I am going to vote against it based on safety. I don't believe that looking three or four years down the road that we are going be at twenty or twenty-five, cars park all over side streets and nothing happens. There are no tickets. I think we are going to be back here in a few years if we allow this because of the growth of the area. Ostner: I have a comment first. This is a question for Staff. There is another church, maybe a mile west of here near the intersection of Old Wire and Mission, just a little west up that hill, I think it is a Presbyterian Church. They do have a larger parking lot, but it is a big church. Does staff receives lots of complaints from that mixture. That is sort of a purely residential area. Pate: We have not. Ostner: That's sort of where I'm wanting to go. That good City planning is not homogenous. We struggle constantly, we hire outside consultants to tell us that this thing called mixed use, and in the really interesting towns that we can't seem to build any more, but that use to exist, things are all jumbled up. We didn't have large expanses of residential subdivisions. I think this use could work here. The traffic on that street is too fast. I am Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 59 not convinced that the connection is cause and fact. I am not convinced that this establishment with as many cars as they predict or double the amount of cars they predict, would make that street be worse. If fact, a lot of streets, the more cars they get, people slow down. I'm not sure what will happen with Rockwood Trail. It needs help. But I don't think stopping this is going to help it one bit. Another home could easily be built on the eastern section. Just because it is a house, doesn't mean people don't go to and from it frequently. People do speed along there. I wish something could be done, and something should be done. The methods that are in place right now with the traffic calming do not seem to be adequate. There are a lot of streets like this in residential areas, that traffic is way too fast. It is absolutely wrong. I will probably vote for this tonight, because I think it is a good use, I think the impact is minimal, the number of conditions the applicant has agreed to is impressive. If the Staff had told me I would need to submit to this many conditions for something that is pretty simple, I'm not sure I would not have withdrawn right there I think these are good tools to help the neighborhood and the applicant get along. I do want to address a comment a person mentioned that she talked to Tim Conklin and his response was, "if the neighbors don't want it, it probably won't happen". I'm sure Mr. Conklin is much more aware of conditional uses than that and I believe that person misunderstood him. Mr. Conklin is well aware that conditional uses are at this body's decision. Period. The fact that the neighbors are heavily listened to is part of this community's benefit. We listen to the neighbors a lot. It does not mean that you all get together and vote against it and that is the answer. I wanted to mention that. I think that the right -only exit is very important with this parking lot, which is one of the most beautiful parking lots I've ever seen drawn. It is very nice. Vaught: I would agree with everything that Commissioner Anthes was saying about the placement of churches, but believe that we shouldn't approve every church that comes before us. There are conditions we need to look at; one of them is safety and the conditions of the streets and also the potential for what that condition does and also the potential for improvements. A number of the churches on the areas on the west side of town are slated for improvements. We are seeing growth and we are seeing improvements around them. The church she referenced we saw a PZD at the end of one of their streets about a month ago. We heavily discussed traffic and how adding seven houses wouldn't affect it because of the church traffic. I think the church she references doesn't cast a good light on this. It does produce heavy traffic along the street at certain times. Another concern, like I said, I'd like to hear from those who support this, address condition #1 more specifically. I think that is very important. I think that if we do approve it, the comments Jeremy made about no parking from this should be allowed on public streets and even Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 60 side streets is very important. St. Joseph's is a perfect example of a church that outgrew the neighborhood. We had constant complaints and constant driveways being blocked on all the side streets through Washington -Willow neighborhood, which I lived in. It was one way on most of those streets on Sunday mornings, because the size of the structure would certainly handle that kind of volume of people. Like I said, a conditional use runs with the land. We are granting this for this piece of property. If the Temple outgrows in two or three years because they are having more than twenty cars a Sunday, they could sell to somebody else and there is no guaranty they are going to stick by those conditions. Granted we can hear. I'd hate to have the Temple and agree to this strict set of standards and outgrow it and be back here in a year or two and have us revoke or modify the conditional use. This is something we are making a promise to and they are investing heavily in this property. I don't want to put them in a situation where they are set up to fail. To me, having such a strict set of guidelines almost does that. That is why I have such a hard time with this and the condition of Rockwood. I love churches in the neighborhoods, it is better than a church in a commercial area. It is where the area, where people go for help, where people go for rest. It is a great idea, and I definitely endorse, if this was down by Root School, fronting on Mission, this would be a different story. That is an idea of a neighborhood school — it is a great location that people can walk to. We are not talking about that kind of accessibility; we are talking about very limited access to the site. The church referenced I would have the same issues; I would probably have the same issues if it came before us today and they wanted to build a church of that size in that neighborhood. Like I said, we discussed that very site about a month ago and had negative comments about the impact of it. Ostner: I would like to clarify that my comment was not that traffic doesn't matter. That church is five, eight, ten times as big as this facility. My comment was the mixture of the church in a neighborhood isn't always bad. The traffic can be figured out sometimes. Graves: That particular church that was referenced also impacts and affects a lot fewer residences and that doesn't make it any less important to the people that live there, but Rockwood Trail is a way off that mountain for an awful lot of people and having traffic pulling out of a blind driveway, which it will be, and I appreciate and understand what engineering has said and what Staff says, but it will be a blind pull out and a blind sight line for people coming over that hill and for people that are pulling out of there. Aside from that, even at 25 MPH, Staff felt it needed to be moved as far east as they could get it and right turn only and that is indication of the safety concerns out there in this particular location. I'm not aware of the church referenced by Commissioner Anthes and its particular location. I Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 61 don't know if I would have voted for those churches in those locations or not. All I have in front of me is this one, and what I know about the area. I would also reference back and say that we take each conditional use permit on its own, that's understood, but this Commission saw just a few months ago a proposed business on the corner of Poplar and Green Acres Rd. that was going to have three or four cars and some of the same folks were supporting this particular conditional use were opposed to some of the same concerns that we have tonight, that it is was encroaching and impactful on that neighborhood. This is even more impactful. It is more cars, more traffic, on a much narrower street with many more safety issues involved, also in residential area. I will reiterate that I have struggled with this one, that I understand and appreciate that a church needs a home and how important that is to people of faith and this is in no way a reflection of any kind on the fact that this is going to be a church. I would have the same concerns if it was going to be a dentist office or another denomination or a gas station or whatever it is, that there are uses that fit within residences and churches without question do. I just don't think that this number of cars even at the limits discussed, fit at this site. That is my concern. Ostner: I would like to mention that the issue on Green Acres and Poplar was a rezoning and it is those exact issues that we did not have control on how things would look or function. Graves: Did we not have a conditional use out there too? Pate: Yes. Graves: And we turned it down for some of these reasons. Lack: I think that the underlying concern that I would have is that it is critical to the health of neighborhoods to house the places of worship within the neighborhood. It is critical to the development of a sense of neighborhood to embrace that idea and it is critical for the places of worship to be a celebrated part of the sense of community. I understand that there are traffic concerns in this location and I understand that is why we have thirteen conditions of approval that require a small scope. I've been involved with many churches in a growth process. Any growth does require an additional conditional use application. With that application, if the Temple has not been a good neighbor and has not held up to their end of the bargain and the community appeals, then that begins ammunition at that point. I think that for this to be a functioning part of this community would be wonderful for this neighborhood. With that I plan to support this. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 62 Clark: I have struggled with this as well and it seems like since I've joined the Planning Commission, I have seen a lot of these very neighbors from Rockwood Trail. I think I see them every other week. We talk about growth over the mountain, we talk about connectivity over the mountain, we talk about a variety of issues that have all been denied by this Planning Commission. We have supported no thoroughfare over the mountain, we have listened intently to your suggested connectivity, new subdivisions, growth, etc. and heard a lot of the same arguments and they are good and compelling arguments. Rockwood Trail is one of the most dangerous streets in the City. I will compare it to one I travel on a daily basis which is Wyman Road, so undeveloped, also non-standard — very narrow and the thoroughfare to, I believe, every individual in northwest Arkansas getting into Fayetteville when I'm on the corner. Having said that, also on my corner is Buckner Baptist Church. There are great neighbors. They have a lot folks that come to that Baptist Church. They generate a lot of traffic on Wednesday and Sunday — they are there all the time. We vote in one of their buildings — it is a community center as well. It does not negatively impact my neighborhood. That is part of what I have to reflect on because my street comes over the curve, it is dangerous intersection. We can go through almost the exact list of issues that we have talked about tonight. It does not make them a bad neighbor. That is my frame of reference when I am talking about your particular situation. I think this house is gorgeous, on a beautiful piece of property. I think it has been neglected for lot of years. I think the Temple could be a good neighbor, I think they would take good care of this property, take good stewardship of it. This is a conditional use, it is one of most restrictive conditional uses I have ever seen. That gives the neighborhood a clear cut sense of criteria that this individual entity has to follow. If it doesn't follow it, it comes back to us, we can revise it, we can overturn it or amend it. I would like to see the language that prohibits parking on any side street and Rockwood Trail because that just does not need to happen. But I look at the renderings of the parking lot and it is going to be a stark difference of what I see in this picture, which is a very compelling picture, I might add. If this landscaping put in according to the drawing I'm seeing, which is something the Planning office has approved and makes them follow, that is going to be screened and it is going to be an asset. Would parking exceed this? Then it is time for Temple Shalom to look for another home. Now I'm a lifelong resident of Fayetteville and I haven't seen that much growth in Temple Shalom and I'm getting really old I might add, since I was in high school and met some of my first Jewish friends. They were going to Ft. Smith at the time, and now have a home here and I'm very proud of that. I don't expect the growth to be expediential to the growth of the area. I think it will be very controlled growth in terms of membership for a variety of reasons. But should it grow, and it may it grow, then we come back here and look at the conditional use and start all Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 63 over again. The neighbors have a lot of safety built into this conditional use, which makes me less concerned about voting for this conditional use. After hearing all the discussion and seeing I think my surrogate neighborhood again tonight, I have to disagree and hope that everyone can put differences aside and work together as neighbors. If not, you have the criteria to call Planning and complain, come back and we will take a look at it again. That's the beauty of a conditional use. We are not rezoning this for, it is not forever. It is a conditional use and you can complain, monitor and follow and hopefully a few months from now, you'll figure out it's much to do about nothing. This time I am going to disagree with my surrogate neighborhood and going to vote for the conditional use. I am sure we will see you all again. Myres: After everyone else has talked, I don't have a whole lot to add, since we are not supposed to be redundant. The thing that disturbs me the most about this entire discussion is that it seems when the neighbors and the neighborhoods have looked at this proposal, all they can see is what is potentially harmful or bad about it. And that is all you are focused on. Obviously that is important to you and I agree that there are things about adding traffic to an already over traveled road that are certainly of concern. I guess if we restrict parking on the side streets, I guess the next time I go to a big party up there, we are going to have to have people drive us up and drop us off so that we don't park on side streets. But I have to support this even though there are arguments that are intellectually compelling, not to do so, I agree with some of my fellow commissioners, that it is an appropriate use for this property. I think they will be wonderful stewards of this terrific house. I'm not sure it would be cared for and built to its original intent without their assistance. For simply that reason, I would like to see the plan completed. I heartily support this conditional use. Anthes: Rather than taking the stance that we are setting up Temple Shalom to fail, I would like to offer them the opportunity to succeed, and therefore I will move to approve the CUP 06-1892 with the following conditions of approval: one through six as stated with the addition with the addition of condition #7 that no pole lighting will be allowed on the site and with an addition to condition #10 that says no parking will be allowed on Rockwood Trail or any other public street but shall be contained in the existing driveway or the grass -paved lot only. Lack: Second. Vaught: I would like Staff or the motioner help the neighbors understand condition #1, the small and unobtrusive portion of that. I think that is very important to them and very important to the Temple, too, to know exactly what that Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 64 Pate: means as it is subjective and even as Planning Staff turns over, that could change. I think that is something important to clarify for everyone. The point of clarification really comes with condition #10 in that it limits the actual vehicles on the property to what is located within the driveway and the parking area that is provided, which is a maximum of twenty vehicles in the parking area. So the driveway, I'm not sure what that contains, but obviously there will be traffic movement plus the proposed parking area. So that in itself will limit the amount of activity that can occur within the home and the site. Obviously, as you mention, occupancy of 100 —200 based on just the size of the property. If they get that many people in there, they are going to have to walk. It is simply not going to accommodate that type of use and that is not what is indicated in the application to us. As noted on record and there will be a file in the record of minutes, the applicant has indicated those larger events are not anticipated to be held on this property. They are anticipated to be held off site likely in the location that they are holding them at this time. Vaught: Once again, for the neighbors, if they do have complaints, I guess one of my concerns is when we go to investigate, we don't get the calls on Friday night at 9:00 or Saturday night at 9:00. Obviously they are going to call on Monday morning and say, there are forty cars out there that are parked on the street. What are avenues — you have to have proof. I know that as much as we want to believe them, we don't want to hold someone guilty unless proven guilty. So what are the avenues for investigation? Pate: We very often take photographs and neighborhoods take photographs of potential code violators and that is something that we submit and investigate as well. So that it something that is very important that we use all the time in investigation, just a photograph is pretty easy to see if it is in violation. Vaught: It is not the Temple Shalom for me, I think they will be an excellent neighbors. No matter where they are, their investment in this property and what they want to do is proof of that. It is an overall concern of safety. The limits on this and the particular size of the building, to me they don't line up. It is a condition I don't want to put the Temple Shalom here a year from now or two years from now, after spending well over a million dollars on this property defending why they had too many cars they had in the parking lot. I think it is a great concept and a great idea. If we could improve Rockwood, I believe I'd feel differently, but we can't and there are no plans to. And that is one of my main concerns. As we continue to put more and more traffic on Rockwood as the other little areas develop out on Rockwood and the streets around it. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 65 Trumbo: For myself, Mr. O'Neal , if we rated this when we looked at the traffic situation at 50 MPH or 45 MPH which is more realistic, coming over this blind hill, right where this house is, is it a safe condition for the record. O'Neal: For which entrance? Trumbo: Either. O'Neal: I would say for neither. Trumbo: For neither? O'Neal: Neither one of them. No. Trumbo: That is the only reason I am going to vote against this. Any other place in this neighborhood, I agree with all my fellow commissioners. That's the only reason. Freund: I have lived on the hill probably as long as or longer than anyone up in there — thirty-three years, on Rockwood. And from what Mr. Trumbo said, my driveways are not safe, and it's not. If we were to grow at any rate that we would outgrow the building, our plans would be to leave. We would hope that we would outgrow it, but I've been here that long, it has not happened in the time I've been here. I don't expect that it will for many reasons that are beyond trying to go into in a short time. I understand that it is not a safe street, but we would, making the second entrance as the exit as the current driveway just has ingress, would solve some of that. Ostner: Are there further comments before I call for the vote? Please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the CUP 06-1892 motion is approved by a vote of 6-3-0. (Graves, Vaught, Trumbo voted no) Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 66 CUP 06-1893: (SMITH 2-WAY/LEVERETT, 405): Submitted by SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO for property located at 1250 N LEVERETT AVENUE. The property is zoned I- 1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is for a cellular tower on the subject property. Ostner: This applicant has requested that this be tabled. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this issue. Anthes: I motion that we table CUP 06-1893 until the February 13th meeting. Clark: Second. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the CUP 06-1893 motion is approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 67 MDP R-PZD 06-1881: Planned Zoning District (SKYVIEW HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at E OF COLLEGE AVE., N OF EMERALD AVE. AND SHERWOOD LN. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 12.85 acres. The request is for zoning and land use approval only for the Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 25 single family lots. Lack: Garner: Mr. Chairman, I will have to recuse from this item. This property is located east of College Avenue, north of Emerald Avenue and Sherwood Lane. It contains just under 13 acres. It accesses directly off of a private street known as Golden Eagle Drive. This property is a largely undeveloped hillside and Golden Eagle Drive was originally built to accommodate development and built to City standards. But upon completion it was not accepted by the City as a public street. The site is surrounded by a mix of zonings: residential single family zoning is located to the north, south and east; to the south there is also residential office zoning; and to the west is Zone C-2 long the College Avenue commercial corridor. The site itself is a mixture of zoning of residential office, thoroughfare commercial and residential single family, four units per acre zoning. The applicant requests rezoning approval for a residential subdivision within a unique R-PZD zoning district. The applicant proposes 25 single family lots with this zoning, density of approximately 1.95 units per acre. The lots would range from approximately 12,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet per lot. The main reasons for this PZD proposal is because the site is located on a hillside and there is steep topography; the street standards would be a little bit different in some of the areas; some of the front setbacks would be closer to the front to allow minimum impact from utilities in grading into the hillside; additionally, this site would be accessed off of private streets which isn't allowed under our standard zoning regulations but is allowed under the PZD ordinance. We have received some objectionable public comment, mainly from phone calls. A lot of the comment has centered around the thought that some of this subdivision or this parceled land is located within another subdivision and is subject to the covenants of the subdivision to the east. We have also received comments that this proposed site is too dense and the nature of the development is not compatible with the surrounding development. We also received several comments about water pressure and how some of the subdivisions in the area don't have adequate water pressure. Staff does find that this rezoning is a more appropriate use of this site than the existing commercial residential office and residential single family four units per acre zoning. This would be a zoning that would be compatible with the residential uses to the east, north and south, Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 68 Hearn: would make a better use of the site and be more compatible with development of this hillside. In response to this PZD request, our public service providers have responded stating that there would be adequate public services to this site with this rezoning and the Fire Department responded with a four -minute response time. The Police Department also responded favorably. Based on these recommendations, Staff is recommending forwarding this R-PZD 06-1881 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with conditions. Condition #2 — Planning Commission determination of a waiver for a length dead end street of over 500' in length. There are two proposed cul-de-sacs of this proposed layout that are over 500' in length and Staff recommends in favor of this waiver, given the hilly terrain and make a looping, connecting street system unpractical, and given the proposed private street system that follows the hillside and the topography, we feel like it is an appropriate layout for streets. Condition #3 — Planning Commission determination of street connectivity. Staff finds that to the east and the south, there is existing single family development and cul-de-sac that doesn't really allow feasible connection to this site. Site would connect to the west to College Avenue off of the private Golden Eagle Drive. We do find that there is potential for street connectivity to the north. There is undeveloped property that has potential to connect with this at some point. Condition #5 — Development of this property shall be approved by the Planning Commission through the preliminary plat review process. The applicant is just proposing zoning and land use with this action tonight. Condition #6 — Prior to development approval, the applicant shall provide proof of available access to this site off of Golden Eagle Drive. There is some question as to the ownership of the private drive and we have to make sure that we have that in writing and proof of legal access before the subdivision will be approved. Condition #7 — The private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets, the streets internal to the subdivision that they are proposed as private drives. Condition #10 — Prior to issuance of more that eight building permits for more than eight buildings, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. All uses on Lot 16 shall be evaluated prior to installation. Lot 16 is designated as a neighborhood park and we would have to review that for compatibility with exactly what goes in the park would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Condition #13 —Prior to City Council, the plats and the booklet shall be revised for consistency sake and appropriateness. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. My name is Kip Hearn with 1-12 Engineering. Also here is Ms. Crystal Geodereis who works as a representative for Hayes family development. She will have additional comments and be available to answer questions. Let me review very quickly a few of the conditions of approval that are Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 69 critical to us. Item #2, we want to ensure that we have the support of the Planning Commission going forward with the cul-de-sac waiver that has been requested. Item #3 - with street connectivity. We might answer some of those questions if you guys do find we should try to make connections to the north. That may relieve some of your concerns about the cul-de-sac. If we do the connection to the north, there may a few things that we would ask. 1) There would be an opportunity of one more residential lot in that process. If we are required to make the connectivity to the north, that our 25 residential units currently reflected on the plan to be modified to reflect 26 residential units. Also, if indeed a public street is brought to us on the north and it is connected from the north, we would like the opportunity to possibly make our private streets which we are proposing today, make those public streets and the access to our west along Golden Eagle out to College Avenue would not necessarily become a public street, but it would become a secondary access. Also, onto item #10, in reference to the park area. What we have shown now is a conceptual design of some possible activities that we could incorporate into the lot. After further discussions with home builders and potential clients, we would expect that design to change before we finalize this. This project will stand on its own merit. We have three different zonings on the property right now. Obviously what we are proposing here is much less obtrusive than what could be developed on the property. We took a very sensitive approach not only to the property itself, but to the hillside. We tried to develop a plan that could easily be integrated into the surrounding uses. Thank you. Geodereis: I'd like thank all of us for being here so late. I'll keep it short and sweet. I wanted to let you know that I tried to meet with the POA of Sherwood and they told me that they are not interested in meeting with me. They feel as though this lot line adjustment was done sneakily and underhandedly. So I should take you back to May and explain to you what happened. The property known as Dr. Hayes' house, that sits on 2831 Sherwood was sold to Reggie Herring. At that time he was moving into town to be the coach at the University. So I had to get a lot line done and at the time I had no idea that any of this was going on, but Lot 36, according to the drawing, they say was part of Westwind that had two lot splits that had already occurred on it sometime between 1978 and 1980. No one is sure but there are two individual plots on there. All I did was take the lot line from that and bring it up to the gate which left lot 36 in Westwind, still the biggest lot in Westwind, being 1.13 acres with Dr. Hayes' house on it. This effectively removed the back two acres off of that and put it into another lot that was already down there. That was done because at the time the Herrings did not want to purchase the whole mountain, they just wanted the house and what was fenced in. Dr. Hayes has put up a real nice wrought iron fence. So that is why the lot line was Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 70 adjusted. It has it on the County records, you can see it on the plats. After all of this was brought to my attention, I contacted Sherwood and tried to have a meeting with them. I've also been out on Bonnie Lane, Oaks Manor, and Cheryl Avenue passing out flyers which I believe you have in your packet. The reason for the lot line adjustment was as I stated above. What happened is the house deal fell through because the Herrings obviously had to be in by August which is when school started. Unfortunately, we had promised the person who leased the house that she could stay in the house until her house was completed, which wasn't until October. The contract for sale had fallen through, so Dr. Hayes had told me to take ownership of the house right now, although the lot line adjustment was processed, and that is why it was processed the way it was. J.B. is the original property divider, the subdivider on the original POA and I do have paperwork to reflect that. It makes it a little bit tricky because he did have the right to go back and re -divide. Property values have been an issue. These are some of the comments I heard coming up out of Sherwood. I called and contacted some appraisers and according to the appraisers we will increase the value due to the appraisal having to consider that the ground adjacent to the homeowners property is vacant and zoned C-2 or R -O. So they have to assume that something zoned C-2 or R -O is going to go in there, which will dramatically decrease their value. With all that being said, when the house deal fell through, we looked at the site on the mountain, what we can do to it that would be architecturally and visually appealing. This is a highly visible hillside; when you come out of Northwest Arkansas Mall, you can see this hillside. I attended all the hillside meetings and I'm very glad that this property was never developed before because now I know that it will be developed using the hillside ordinances, which should minimize all of the problems, keeping the tree canopy, the visual architecture, everything will still be impacted. With that being said, the next part we had to worry about was the safety for the children. There are parks real close, but the only way to get to them is College, so that is not a good avenue for any child to take, especially on a bike. So that's when the decision was made to put a park in there. Even though it is a privately held park, and it is not going to contribute to our park fees, we still felt it was necessary to do. I would like to ask that this please pass with all the conditions and you make a decision on the cul-de-sac and the private streets. We did try to make it its own little community just simply because it only had one access. If sometime something would happen to the Motel Six and we can connect to Rolling Hills, if you feel that's what needs to be done, that would be great. It is a unique situation and the fact that it is opportunity to develop the hillside that has C-2 and R -O on it right now, is a whole lot less than an RSF-4. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 71 Ostner: At this time, I will call for any public comment. Please introduce yourself and share your comments with us. O'Connell: I am Bob O'Connell and live at 2800 Sherwood Lane. And to shorten our time here, and for clarification purposes let me pass these two items to you. I think they will save us some time. Ostner: Can you make sure that Jeremy has one? O'Connell: Let me explain these. I will call your attention to the document from the Washington County property records. I obtained this on January 9, 2006, this plat surrounds our planned unit development which is the Westwind planned unit development. I have outlined it in black so you can see what that is. There are 24 property owners in that development. Let me focus your attention on Lot 36, that is currently owned by J.B. Hayes. He is renting the house out. Ostner: Hold on a second, Mr. O'Connell. You said you outlined something in black. Is this what you are talking about? O'Connell: Down at the bottom, turn it north to south. This is the way they do the plats now. I checked to make sure it was still current, so at that time, Lot 36 showed as it is on this plat. It looks like it has three parcels, 1214900,01 and 02. And also J.B. owns 12148000 which is Lot 35 in our subdivision. My wife and I live on Lot 34 which abuts J.B.'s property. Now if you turn to the second document which I picked up on December 27th from the Planning Staff, it is a copy of the property line adjustment that was processed by the Planning Staff in May, 2005. I want to appeal this lot adjustment to you and have it overturned. I have been told and I have looked at the ordinances myself, it looks like I needed to do that ten days after it happened. I didn't learn about this as an adjoining property owner until December 27th so it was pretty hard to beat the ten-day requirement. I don't want to make the appeal tonight. There is a bigger issue in front us, but I want to make the appeal and I want to find some way to do it, because based on my reading of the ordinances, the only appeal I have is Circuit Court from the Planning Staff decision. So I think that needs to be looked into. You will get a letter from me. So, let's take a look at your PZD next. I'm kind of wearing two hats tonight. I am representing Linda O'Connell, my wife, and myself, plus I am representing the Westwind POA. Jack Clegghorn is the President of our Association and he was going to be here tonight to represent the neighborhood, but unfortunately his father passed away Friday, so he and his wife had to leave for Georgia to take care of family matters. He won't return until Wednesday or Thursday of this week. So he called me Friday is a rush and knowing that I was going to be presenting my case, he asked Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 72 that I represent the neighborhood also. The issue that I have and our POA has is very specific. It is for lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, of the proposed PZD. Those lots are currently Lot 36 in our planned unit development and is subject to our covenants, two of which are, only one single residence per lot and if you want to subdivide a lot, you need to come before the property owners association for a vote. We have many other covenants, but those are the two that are most pertinent. The neighborhood took a vote on this issue in the last week. Jack Clegghorn initiated gathering the votes and talking to the neighborhood. Since he had to leave, there were a few to do that he didn't get to this weekend, which I completed. The neighborhood was asked to vote one of three ways: 1) for the proposed PZD and those lots to be included in it; or 2) against those lots only, not the whole PZD, only those lots 7-12 which is our Lot 36; or 3) or no opinion. We assumed there was one vote for it from J.B. Hayes since he owned Lot 36; there was one homeowner who voted no opinion; 17 property owners voted against; five could not be contacted. That means that 89% of our property owners that were contacted voted against inclusion of those in the proposed PZD. If you just take out the five that didn't respond, that means 70% of the property owners voted against it in total. There were several comments that I feel responsible to pass on to you about the whole PZD. Three property owners complained about the esthetics of the proposed PZD as you are driving south of College Avenue as you look up at the northwest slope of Township Hill and you will see some houses on it, especially in the wintertime if this development takes place. Also, you will see some houses driving east on Sunbridge looking up on the west or northwest slope. In fact, if you were on Sunbridge today driving east, you would see the houses up on Emerald that are on that same slope. As I said, our issue is the six lots not the whole PZD, but I did tell the property owners I would pass those comments on. One other comment was if you are going to have tree preservation, why do you have it at the bottom of the hill instead of at the top of the hill. I've got my hat on now. I moved to Fayetteville with my wife and family in 1987. One of the reasons we bought this property at 2800 Sherwood Lane is that our real estate had copies of the plats of the surrounding neighborhood, what sizes they were, and also the covenants that were the Westwind planned unit development. Obviously, the one house per lot was a big deal, but also in that subdivision, there are multiple lots where some of my neighbors have built their homes on two or three adjoining lots, so even the covenants didn't cover the aesthetics of the neighborhood because we have multiple owners with a house on two or three of those lots. Now I know there are no guarantees in life, and I know very well that the City will not and does not enforce codes, but I had high expectations that in the future, that if I made this investment, that the City of Fayetteville wouldn't be a part of a process that would subvert our planned unit development or our covenants. If you approve this PZD, I think you are sending a Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 73 message to neighborhood associations in Fayetteville that have covenants that the City doesn't recognize those covenants and doesn't think they are worth the paper they are written on. As far as what the City's position is on covenants, in the Unified Development Ordinance, the ordinances covering PZDs, 166.06, section M, which is titled Covenants, Trusts and Homeowner Associations. In subparagraph one, second sentence, "the City encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other non-profit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement districts, contracts and covenants" Now if the City encourages, this proposed PZD and at the same time takes land from our planned unit development, part of a lot, and that is covered with covenants, this doesn't make sense to me. Let me address a couple of comments made by the engineering firm and Crystal. From the neighborhood standpoint, Crystal, Jack and I and the neighbors appreciate your offer to come meet with us. I do recommend that you do it during the process. The offer was made January 12th; the neighborhood felt like we had only this one issue with the six lots not the whole PZD and that's the feedback he got and that is why he turned down the meeting. I am glad you contacted the surrounding neighbors both out of Cheryl Ave., Oak Manor Lane and College Avenue and Emerald Avenue. One of the other comments made was that Mr. Hayes, being one of the subdividers, could subdivide the lots. He is not one of the subdividers in Phase III of our covenants which his lot is located. From a County record standpoint I think he stated that is the lot line adjustment which effectively split that lot is on record there, they have a copy of that, they are treating it as a survey that is not recorded there, because the plats (as of January 9th) look just like what I showed you. I applaud you for stamina, for determination, and attention. You have a tough job to do. Allen: I wanted you to give me a clearer reason why it was that you were unable to accept the invitation to meet with the developer. O'Connell: The reason being, and Jack Clegghorn is the one who Crystal contacted, he had polled the neighbors after that call to find out if they were interested in having a meeting, and they (I don't know how many) recommended to Jack that since we were only questioning the six lots and not the whole PZD, that the meeting wasn't necessary. There was one other problem, quite frankly: Jack was kind of concerned that we weren't contacted back in October, November or December, because the plat that I picked up December 27th was dated December 14`h. The other reason is that we don't meet very often. We just had a meeting in December and wouldn't it have been nice to discuss all this then with all the other issues. Ostner: Any other questions? Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 74 Clark: I reserve the right to ask questions because I am so confused. Ostner: We might call on you again. Dutton: My name is Mark Dutton, I live at 2715 Cheryl. My wife Kim and I purchased this property in February of last year. We have two of the lots there that abut that side of it. During the period of time that we were contemplating the purchase the land and the home, I contacted Dr. Hayes and did a little due diligence and also did the research and copies out there, the Westwind covenants which do spell out plainly that that lot was never to be subdivided. So, much like Mr. O'Connell, I am not here to oppose the development per se, merely that part, some of which abuts my property, based on the fact that I did do a lot of due diligence at that time and felt very confident that it would not be subdivided in the manner it is shown here. And I didn't hear anything from the applicant in their statement that made me feel any better about the reason it was subdivided or the legality or the rationale of why it needed to be done. Other than that I have no other comments except to say that I would prefer rather to see they do something commercial there right on the back of my land so I have no problem with their ability to do that. If I had my druthers, I would prefer something a little less dense than that for aesthetic reasons and a variety of other reasons. Ostner: Is there any other public comment? I am going to close the public comment section and turn it over to the Commission for questions. Vaught: Can we have the City attorney and Staff both fill us in on how that factors into our decision, what the neighbors can do as far as appealing the lot split. And I am curious about notification on lot splits. There is no notification on lot splits? Pate: No. Vaught: On property line adjustments. Pate: No, I don't believe so. There is no notification. It is not creating a new lot, as long as the lot meets the ordinance requirements, and does not worsen the situation, an administrative application is processed and approved by staff. Vaught: And my follow up question is specifically to the City Attorney, is how do the covenants that apply to that land affected after this change? That is the key. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 75 Oster: Pate: I want to clarify, you are taking about a lot line adjustment and a lot of what they are talking about is a lot split. Two different things. There were public notification processes for the lot split. There was not a lot split processed on this property. That is what Mr. O'Connell would like to appeal is that he feels it should be a lot split as opposed to a property line adjustment. In our review, the application that was submitted to our office, there was not a new lot being created. It was moving a line and if I can submit this and pass it around, I drew the property line of this property in addition to what Mr. O'Connell provided. Allen: Well I feel like I did when I went to see the Clockwork Orange. I don't get it. I need some help, Kit. Pate: The top portion, the boundary there, is the property boundary currently. That boundary was created as part of Lot 36. The property line was adjusted to create this tract which then became Skyview Heights PZD proposal. Anthes: Are you saying that this line was moved to there? Pate: One of these smaller tracts if you .... Anthes: What line moved? Vaught: Lot 36. This line right here moved to here. Anthes: That is a big difference. Pate: If it meets our ordinance requirements, we by law cannot deny it. We have to process it and approve it if it meets all the applicable criteria. Vaught: My question for the attorneys... it was a PUD which we no longer have, so I don't know the PUD rules back then. How does that apply to the lot split? Williams: Most provisions of restrictive covenants are private agreements between the landowners. If you look into the PZD there are occasional provisions that run in favor of the City, for example, if there is a private street and it would be required to be maintained, and if they don't maintain it, the City is entitled to enforce the restrictive covenants to assess the property owners for our maintenance. Most of the restrictive covenants including density that are in restrictive covenants are private rights between the property owners one against the other, so that if one property owner violates the restrictive covenants, he can be taken to Court and enforced Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 76 not to violate and probably pay damages, attorney fees, etc. The reason the City doesn't attempt to get involved in that is like in this particular circumstance: It was presented by the applicant to Mr. Pate, Mr. Pate was not necessarily informed of any restrictive covenants, so he just goes and does the normal thing and does a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment has, in my opinion, no effect on the restrictive covenants. The underlying land, no matter which side of the line it is on, is still under control of the restrictive covenants. That might be proven differently in Court, but that is up to the judge to decide. And the City does not want to become a super judge here and look at all the restrictive covenants in the City, this one is enforced this way, and this one is enforced that way. The better procedure in my opinion is to allow the Courts to do that, with lawyers on both sides making the arguments whether the restrictive covenants have been given up because there are certain issues like that that come up or changed in some way. Those are not decisions that the City should be making. Those are decisions that the Circuit Court should make. Therefore, we don't attempt to enforce restrictive covenants in Fayetteville, unless they are part of a PZD ordinance which gives the City rights to enforce them, but not private owners against each other. Vaught: So typically the restrictive covenants run with the legal description of the PUD that was passed. Williams: I would say that all the lots within that particular restrictive covenant neighborhood, everybody whose property was purchased that was subject to that, their deeds all will have provisions within there saying it is subject to these restrictive covenants. All of that land is still within the restrictive covenants and an administerial act done by our City Planner to adjust a lot line between a couple of lots would have no legal effect on whether that land is still within the restrictive covenants. Vaught: So their recourse right now would be to take this to court, but in our consideration of this PZD having no real effect.... My concern is we are about to make a density decision on land that might be challenged in court, if it could be included in this. I don't want to subvert their rights to appeal this to court by putting a new zoning decision on top on it. Williams: And I don't think it would. If a judge asked me does this have any effect on the restrictive covenants, that we never considered them that is up to the Court to decide, not us. In fact we are in Court right now because there was a lot split granted here last April that an adjoining neighbor eventually said it was in violation of his restrictive covenants. That is now in Court and I have asked the judge to remove the City from it, because in fact, even though we granted a lot split, that doesn't mean that that trumps the restrictive covenants and that if that person can't build on the lot Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 77 because of restrictive covenants, they still can't build it. It doesn't matter if we gave them a lot split or not. Really, I think these sorts of issue must be decided in Circuit Court. It does put us in an awkward position. I've not seen any restrictive covenants on here that they have spoken about and I don't necessary want to see them because it is not my position to stand between two land owners and say this is how I interpret their restrictive covenant. Vaught: So if we pass something tonight dealing with this particular PZD and say the property owners take this to court and win, will we see a new PZD back here. Would that nullify the rest of this PZD because we are passing it because we are passing it based on 25 units for this PZD. Would it shrink the PZD area, would it allow them smaller lots? Pate: I think ultimately it would depend on what the Court decided was the appropriate measure if that could not include any kind of subdivision or project and that was the decision of the Court, then we would see something that changed on this property. Vaught: But would they have to come back to us or would they say take the 25 units we approved and shrink all of the lots. Pate: No, it would have to come back to us, because they are establishing all their density criteria, the minimum lot sizes, streets, etc. Graves: I have a follow up question for the City Attorney. My concern is more practical than applying the zone overlay. My concern is how slow the Court moves sometimes and if this starts to actually get built at this density, obviously once it is there, it's there. I would be concerned about already approving something that starts to get built on those lots and then it turns out that a court decides that it shouldn't have happened. Understanding that we don't get involved in those decisions, we haven't seen the covenants, and don't want to see them, but my concern is that going blind on it and just looking at the PZD on its own merits as we normally would, might allow it to begin to get built before there would be any kind of court decision rendered. Vaught: We don't know if they are going to court either. Graves: We don't know that. From a practical standpoint, should we just review this as it is just a PZD and we haven't heard any of the other stuff or not. Williams: I would think you should not consider whether or not there are private rights between these particular land owners or not. In the other case, even though they waited to file anything, they can ask for a preliminary Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 78 injunction. Certainly that can be done, irreparable harm could be caused, but I will note to the property owners that you can sleep on your rights and lose your rights if you don't enforce them. If you do wish to challenge this as a violation of your restrictive covenants, then you need to move forward. You need to obtain lawyer services and file suit against what you feel is improper under your restrictive covenants. If nothing happens, they are subject to losing their rights through latches or other equitable form of defenses. I think for us, we need to leave that to the Court and you need to look at this PZD as it is presented and allow the private land owners to prove their own rights. Graves: And my question for future reference for anybody who is listening or watching this meeting, if the Planning Staff has made a decision on a lot line adjustment, is there appeal right? If there is, how are they supposed to know that the ten days started running if there is not notification. Pate: There is publication in the newspaper and in the agendas, so it does go out as part of our agenda publication because property line adjustment is listed as an in-house item that is reviewed by Staff'. It is listed there, but we do not send any adjacent property owner notification or have signs on the property because it is not going before a public hearing, and that is when those requirements kick in. We do have questions on property line adjustments sometimes, but obviously if someone is out of town and misses that short period of time in which a property line adjustment is processed, it can very likely be missed. Graves: There is no red sign or anything like that. Obviously we are complying with whatever ordinances are out there right now. But I can certainly say that I personally don't like that. It seems like there ought to be a little bit more notice. I sure wouldn't like to come home from a week long vacation and find out that something along these longs has happened next door to me. Pate: Ninety percent of the actions Planning Division processes do have notification requirements, some very specific, and most administrative items before you, there are no notification requirements. A master street plan amendment — there is no notification. That is something that the City Council decided that is not appropriate. It is listed in the paper as part of the agenda that goes out during that process. Vaught: I would hope that we could require the applicant's to notify adjoining neighbors. It is a minimal cost. It is not the City's responsibility, I feel it is the applicant's responsibility at their cost. Even this situation, it could have been five to ten people just receiving a letter could have made this Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 79 situation better. That might be something we look at as maybe our 20/25 plan or just as a straight ordinance amendment we could see. Ostner: How many of these would you estimate you process Jeremy? Pate: Three or four every two weeks. It is a very common action, a lot of times it is a .02 acre shift. Graves: This isn't a criticism or critique of anything anyone has done, it is just a suggestion for how the process can be improved. Pate: Certainly, we will certainly look into that. Vaught: I certainly don't think it should be Staff's responsibility, it should be the applicant's. Williams: If it was appealed though, it is a decision made on the applicant's request and if there is restrictive covenant problem, it is not for this Board to try to determine, it is for the property owners to say, that is in violation of our restrictive covenants and therefore they need to enforce their own rights, rather than us trying to sit as judges to enforce their rights. Vaught: But they can't know to enforce their rights if they don't know how. Williams: Right, that's not probably something that causes anything to happen, what causes something to happen is when a development proposal brought forth, either a building permit or something like this. Graves: I wasn't necessarily suggesting that it was anything the Planning Commission would actually be involved in, it was just a suggestion for assisting the citizens of Fayetteville. If here was a way to notify folks that lot line adjustment was occurring. We might not even have to hear about it. Ostner: Since we have thoroughly digressed off the issue, I would just like to share that in a lot of small towns that have a rule that is exactly that. They stipulate what the developer must do and who they must notify and how they must do it. And they spend more time overseeing those rules than they do implementing them. Our staff has to do it themselves. I think that is less effort than overseeing someone else to do it. I just want to share that there might not be an easy solution. I think that something should be done. I am not sure that insisting people notify themselves is the right answer. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 80 Vaught: A number cities require you send them a return receipt and you turn in your return receipts in as a condition of the lot split approval. Osmer: Who says who was included, who says what was in the letter. It would be very complicated. We have digressed completely. The subject at hand is very clear. We have a master development plan. Anthes: I have a question about this possible connectivity to the north. I don't understand where it is, what it would connect to, where it would go, what it would be. Pate: If you reference the map on page 22/24 or 23/24, the only reason we included this, obviously most of the properties around this property are developed. It is indeed an infill type of development. There is a tract there though, several acres, that has not been developed, and to my knowledge I'm not sure how it is even accessed. It is zoned, I believe, for residential use and what this would allow for, as we saw with the PZD two weeks ago, is a connection to a property that might not have a connection. Now I can't attest to that and through the development review process that is something that we would look at. And to see if that is where all the significant trees are, that may not be something we would recommend. Again, we have not reviewed every development item, this is not a development request, it is a concept drawing that was placed in this application as part of the conditions to indicate to the applicant that we will be reviewing them as part of the development procedure. Anthes: But is does affect street configuration and the number of lots which we are reviewing tonight. Pate: Not necessarily street configuration. These can be modified somewhat. For the number of lots, yes, if the applicant would like to have another lot, I would suggest that another lot be added. We can add a condition if the connection to the north is appropriate, then an additional lot would be allowed under the PZD ordinance for a total of 26 residential lots. Anthes: My second question has to do with the building elevations. The master development plans we have seen so far, I realize there haven't been many of them, there have been architectural descriptions and drawings included as I recall. This proposal has a very vague statement that says the developer has not defined a strict architectural theme and it is talking about promoting high quality homes and complimenting things. Pate: With single family PZDs, I believe we only had one that showed actual elevations, maybe two, in a mixed use development. Those were Paddock Lane PZD that was before the Commission two weeks ago did have some Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 81 similar elevations or potential elevations; the DePalma property had no elevations and had very similar comments. With most single family residential guidelines, we don't have anything to base them against, and so we do require some statements of understanding. But as far as coming up with a design theme, it is not something the Staff has encouraged. We do encourage it if you have elevations or kind of know the character of the development, to provide at least photographs or something, but it is not something, in my opinion, that we require. Anthes: So there is a line item that talks about development and architectural design standards and building elevations, but the responses to that are very vague and can mean almost anything, but we are not actually supposed to look at that? Pate: It is part of the PZD process and you will see everything from this planned zoning district to a 150 -acre planned zoning district as the next item that has one building elevation for 5,000 square feet of structures. It is a little bit about scale and little bit about the use of what you are proposing. What they have proposed is to not essentially create a style, theme, or concept of what they are proposing, but to establish simply a statement that they will have architectural materials, whatever else the statement does indicate. Anthes: So basically what you are saying is the minimum square footage of 2,300 square feet, the roof pitch, architectural shingles, brick or stone, no vinyl siding, something about mailboxes and a vague statement about high quality is adequate for our review process? Pate: In our opinion for this project, yes. Anthes: I have a question on condition #1 which talks about the ordinances in effect at the time of submittal. I believe that the hillside overlay district may make some strong requirements of this site if it's in place. In your opinion, does the street configuration, the widths and the way the sidewalks are and everything meet per the proposed hillside ordinance at this time? Pate: Probably not entirely. I know the developer has looked at a smaller right- of-way. It is 42', but obviously with our best practices manual, it does allow for smaller than that, smaller right-of-way and smaller street cross section, especially if it is a dead end street. I think they could potentially be much smaller, so that condition we talked about at length the first time you saw it. It really could be in there, it could be removed because any project coming before you at the development is subject to the ordinances in place at that time. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 82 Anthes: But basically if this went through right now, the LSD could come through next meeting, so that could be pressing right away. Maybe it started out because we were so confused at the first half of this item. I feel like there is the whole issue about how many lots Lot 36 can be and whether or not that is our business. There is still is that big questions looming, which substantially modifies what happens here. There is an issue of whether or not we are going to require a street connection, what that changes in terms of the configuration; there is a question about whether or not these streets are the right widths, they have the right cross sections, whether they are working with the slopes of the property. I just don't know that I feel that this is ready for a vote. Pate: Clark: Keep in mind this is conceptual drawing. We have not reviewed cross sections - that is for the time of development. This is a concept master planned zoning district, it does not grant development rights. It is land use, it puts a concept on the project. And we have made comment to that degree to get to the closet level of design that we felt was appropriate, but again as a concept, we do expect some change, not dramatic, but some. I have to mirror Commissioner Anthes. I was under the impression that when we worked at master development plan for PZDs, that we would get more substantive information, and you may have it. I do want to see more information on architectural things, just knowing the square footage, the roof pitch and that you can't use vinyl siding, but all the mailboxes are going to look alike. It doesn't answer the question of where the PZD is going to substantially be and I thought that was idea of a conceptual plat. I'm also concerned about the streets. We have talked about subdivisions with only one entrance and exit and that seems to be something we have tried to steer away from. I'm not sure exactly where those connections will be, and I'm certainly not sure what is happening with Lots 7-12, and not sure I'm even supposed to care at this point. But something compels me to at least be curious. I guess from my perspective, until we have something before us, because someone made the comment earlier that the courts do progress rather slowly and I would hate to see this blow up if we get caught having made a zoning decision and construction begins. I just wanted to duck. At this point, I am not comfortable enough to say yeh or nay. I would love to see this come back with more meat to it and more substance and some of these questions answered. Ostner: First, I want a question of Staff. What is the density? 25 units at 12 acres — less than two? Pate: Less than two. Right at two. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 83 Ostner: The way I understand it, the master development plan, we basically talk about density and these real general ideas on such a small piece of property. On the giant things that follow, we get into a lot more detail, it is sort of in scale. Is that way? Vaught: I thought the smaller we give more detail because they are smaller. I don't think it is so many units per acre, I think density reads 25 units. Then you spread it between your bubbles. Ostner: I think they way we used to do it is possibly confusing the way we are doing it now. With the master development plan, the way I understand it is that when the scale is large, there is opportunity for more detail to be appropriate and when the scale is small (with 12 acres) asking them to draw elevations isn't necessarily appropriate. Pate: I think again it depends on how the applicant is processing this application because on a site like this of this size, a lot of times we would see a detailed presentation. We would know exactly where the streets are going, what the grading is, the exact tree canopy — there will be a tree preservation plan included, a grading plan, everything. The applicant has not chosen and they are not required by ordinance to go through that process. They are allowed to go through a master development plan process, so we have to review it at that level. If the following project Wellspring were a detailed development project, we would be reviewing 152 acres of full-blown design and details. We're not, we are looking at concepts and all the findings of fact that we have in that application. In this case for architectural design standards, it is a single family residential subdivision. I'm not prepared to recommend a design theme per se on this property. As part of the development we will most likely look at increased tree preservation all over the property, not is just one area, and where it can be managed. That is something we would look through with the Parks and Recreation Department, through the tree ordinance person and through engineering as far as all the design criteria goes. So that is something we would definitely get into. Ostner: So the best is yet to come. Vaught: I do have some specific comments about the development as I see it. Seeing that this is a pretty decent hillside, I don't know what the slopes are Geodereis: They are greater than fifteen percent. That is why we brought this forward as a conceptual to get it in front of you to find out what we need it to do, before we went into more detail. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 84 Vaught: Then number one, I don't like the idea of clearing about a big swath for a parking lot and a basketball court. Geodereis: It is already there. That concrete is already there. And if you can look at the aerial, you kind of see it. Graves: I can see it but I can't see heads or tails of it. Vaught: I understand what you are trying to do, but it might be a more appropriate to possibly preserve trees in other areas and put some development on that side other than a park — put some on your units. By including that and not using that for your development, you are taking more away from other spots. My other concern was on a steep hillside like that, the density and the size of these lots, I start to worry about it because some of them are larger lots, but some are pretty small. They are going to have to clear substantial part of the trees to put a house on. You've got 11,000 square foot, 12,000 square foot, etc. Some of them are fairly narrow, lot 3 isn't that deep. We talked about being able to see the house on lot 15. I'm afraid you are going to repeat that by the smaller lot size, especially when you get to these on the lower part of the slope that are 11,000 square foot lots. That is one of my concerns. You are going to have houses with walk out basements on a slope that size. Geodereis: They have to according to the hillside ordinance. Vaught: We don't have that yet. Geodereis: But this is being designed. I was very instrumental - I came to all the meetings, I support the hillside ordinance. Just like they said with the staggering, that's why we came in as a conceptual PZD for the setbacks. Vaught: Then why don't we see the — I would expect the street sections — if you really want to do that, why don't we have narrower streets with sidewalks on one side? Geodereis: At the time when we developed this, it hadn't been decided as to what exactly you were going to allow yet and that is why. We were waiting to find out exactly what you wanted us to do — connectivity, or if you were going to allow it this way. If you don't like the park, the whole point behind the park was to use it, when you come off the Mall, you can see that whole hillside, how it is starting to slide; the park area was decided so that we could use that whole thing for tree preservation — everything along there. Sarah Patterson had come out to the site and worked with me. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 85 Vaught: On this master development plan we have there an area shaded in gray. What is the gray area. Hearn: They are the slopes that are greater than fifteen percent. Vaught: Then I would love to see our tree preservation on the steeper areas. You are talking about the steep areas and having that slide away. It is something that concerns me with this density especially. Hearn: We are not going to pretend that this is not a difficult site, because it is. It has a lot of challenges to it. The three zonings that are currently is place there provide a great deal of opportunity to do a lot of creative things. The less obtrusive thing that we could possibly propose, is a low density residential development which is what we are proposing today. We have a low density residential subdivision at less than two units per acre. We are taking a difficult situation in the existing concrete parking lot and slope area and proposing to improve the slope, to grass that to preserve that slope, improve upon that esthetically and also utilize the concrete there as a park area. It is something that will help contribute to the neighborhood. It has its drawbacks, but we are trying to minimize — you notice on the larger, steeper slopes there, we moved all our utilities to the front of the lots. We don't want to put our utilities on the back of the lots. So we are doing some things, trying to incorporate some things from the hillside ordinance. Vaught: To me two of the ways, I'm not going to hold you guys to this, to develop on hillsides that are less impactful are larger lots or closer development. We are in-between. We have some small lots, lots that.... Hearn: Although they are relatively small — 10-12,000 square feet, there is going to be additional foundation costs in those. There is no doubt about that. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be more of an impact. It is going depend on what the ACC allows and the homeowners and the building of lots. Vaught: I would rather not see this park in the middle and see more tree preservation and possibly larger lots. That is my perspective on this. I don't know what the other commissioners are going to say, but I'm giving you my thoughts on it. Finding a way to have larger lots and more trees is a key. I'm not seeing side setbacks or rear setbacks with preservation in there as we have seen on some, which are a tool that could be used for preservation of trees. Granted, some of these lots are smaller. You wouldn't have a whole lot of space to do that on. I don't see a smaller front setback that could be done it some area. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 86 Hearn: I believe we are proposing in the booklet, a minimum tree canopy that would need to be preserved. Do you have that in front of you? Garner: The ordinance requires 25% tree canopy preserved over the site. They do have reduced setback on lots 1-3, 10-12, 17-20. Vaught: The tree preservation on the PZD though — say Falling Waters went above and beyond that by limiting disturbance of trees to their building envelopes which took out a side of the setback to help. The concern is those PZD ordinances, once you sell these lots, does that 25% apply to every lot or are they free to go in and cut those down. And that is what I am saying when I say tree preservation ordinances, applying those windows to the lots. That is how one property owner did it. I am suggesting these as ideas. This is a very steep site. Geodereis: That whole design, my major thing, when J.B. and I started discussing it. We drove out to the Mall and that was the first thing we saw — what can we do with this that would be nice, be safe for people to live in but yet be nice for everyone esthetically. You know that home on Golden Eagle is one prime example on how not to do this. Everything is stripped off of that lot and has been for years. That is why we took the challenge and came forward with this. We are kind of in-between right now because we are waiting for the hillside ordinance to be finalized but we have already decided in our mind what we would like. Vaught: I would like more protections on the lots for the trees outside the building envelopes. The other question is, I want to be clear about this, but don't want to go back to original issue about the other stuff, but if we pass something tonight and they get challenged in court and this property owner loses, we will see this back before us to review again in a different form. Pate: That is correct. Ostner: So the courts have the ability to overturn zoning? Williams: They have authority to enforce the restrictive covenants and say you will not build more than one house on this lot no matter if it is called a numbered lot here or the previous numbered lot. Regardless of whatever supposed rights they may have had from the City, they would not have a right to build more than what the court would allow. Ostner: I would like to agree completely. I might be able to see twenty lots, right now we have 25. That would be much more amenable to me — I want to agree with Mr. Vaught's comments about street sections and setbacks. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 87 Anthes: I have a question for the applicant. In light of the rate of which this might develop, we are looking at two phases on the plan. Phase one of the plan includes the land in question, and Phase two would not. Would there be any magic to switching those phases and starting to develop the other one first? Geodereis: The only reason we picked it the way that we did, by doing so we would be through summer time hopefully through this process, Phase one was to work on the steeper part to get that done before the rains. That was the only reason behind it. I'm not going to comment on the others, however, you haven't seen the covenants nor have you seen the other one for a reason. I understand that you can't. Anthes: I am just saying that there would be a measure of comfort to invert the phases, start with the land that isn't in question. Geodereis: In light of what all is going on, that would be fine with me. I was trying to be really creative and innovative with the hillside. I understand what you are saying about the park The only hesitation I have about it is the children that live there, if they are latch -key, there is no place else for them to go but College. And that is already a concrete area and with the trees above it and below it that we are putting in, it would be sheltered and screened really nice. It is an excellent opportunity to take a second look at the design plans. Anthes: I was going to thank Commissioner Vaught for putting some structure to this, because I was so confused. I concur that if we can look at this and decide the number of lots, it seems like it makes sense in terms of density and direct the applicant that when they come back with their LSD on this parcel, that they study the street sections carefully, look at the lot configuration with respect to the street section, the topography and the tree preservation and then note those areas that they spoke with our Tree and Landscape Administrator about tree preservation. And come back to us with something that is along these lines but more in keeping with a more sensitive approach to the hillside, then you should have a better time getting through the next approval process. Vaught: I could be won on the density if there are some additional protection measures in place. Twenty-five units — that number could rise if you came back with a plan that blew me away that protected more of the hillside and made less of an impact, because that could be done. As it is laid out, I just wonder if it is the best way to develop this site. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 88 Geodereis: The hillside ordinance was one of the things that us developers passed along because we were tired of saving all the trees for someone to come along and clear the lots; it is a great thing to use. If that can be incorporated in it, that is what we want to do. And the envelope being shifted back and forth as the gentlemen has spoken about, it breaks the eye so that all the houses aren't built on a road. Vaught: Clark: Pate: Even if we could have seen a draft of the covenants right now, stating some of these things, it would help us to understand some of these things. I could be swayed to abandon my idea of another stub out if you reduced density simply because you have a lot of people now buying on one exit off to College which is a crap shoot at best. If the density was lowered — I am very concerned about the size of the lots on this hillside. I respect the fact that you are following what we think is the hillside ordinance, but who knows what it is actually going to be. I am not prepared to forward this on to City Council yet. I would like to see you come back with some of these gaps filled it and perhaps we can whole heartedly recommend this to City Council, but you are asking us to forward this Jeremy? Obviously you have the option to table if you have more items you would like to see. I have made extensive notes and we can get with the applicant and come back. Allen: We hate to hold you up, but I think there are too many questions. Geodereis: I would rather table it if that's what it would take, but I would rather have some more feedback as to what you want. I hear lower density; I am okay with removing the concrete parking lot if the tree preservation is okay. Clark: The concrete area concerns me a bit. It is ugly, something needs to be happening to it, and in five years it is going to be on College Avenue if something isn't done to it. Just because it is concrete, doesn't mean it has to stay concrete. Just because you call it a park, doesn't mean you have to have a concreted park. In fact you could put a real cool playground here with trees and grass and have a really nice green space which I am much more in favor of. You could even do that and maybe make lots 7-12 a park — just kidding... I really would like to see more trees preserved and more green space. When you look on that mountain, it is a beautiful side of that mountain, with the exception of the concrete that is already there. Lower density - connectivity concerns me if the density stays this high. I would like to see more definitive ideas about an architectural direction, not elevations and grading and all that stuff. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 89 Allen: I have been wishing to table for quite some time — MDP R-PZD 06-1881 — I move to table. Anthes: I second. Ostner: Point of order. Until when? Allen: At the applicant's preference Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion MDP R-PZD 06-1881 is approved by a vote of 8-0-1. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 90 MDP R-PZD 05-1636: Master Development Plan Residential Planned Zoning District (WELLSPRING, 400/401): Submitted by Critical Path Design for property located at Rupple Road and Hwy 16. The property is zoned RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE AND R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 152 acres. The request is to approve a Master Development Plan - Planned Zoning District for a mixed-use community of residential and commercial uses, not to exceed 1,175 dwelling units and 486,000 square feet Pate: A little background - This project was originally submitted last summer around August. It was submitted after the City Council had approved the planned zoning ordinance amendment to allow for a master development plan that prior to them changing their decision on whether they came before the Planning Commission or not. The applicant after that decision did table that item indefinitely and it has come before the Planning Commission for a recommendation before they go to the City Council. This is a rather large tract, approximately 152 acres, located at Rupple Road and Wedington Drive. The property fronts on approximately 0.7 miles of Rupple Road between Wedington and Mt. Comfort and a small tag of frontage along Wedington. There are large groupings of high priority significant trees located in areas on the site. Most persons know this site because it is the last remaining land along Wedington. There is a small area of the tree canopy as you can see on that plan that extends quite a bit further back north towards where Bryce Davis Park is adjacent to the east. The current zoning is RSF-1 and RA, residential agricultural. The majority of this property was brought into the City in August of 2004 with the island annexation action that the City Council processed. A fault line running east to west through the site has been a constraint or opportunity for green space as you may see it. There is also a creek running through the property and the adjacency to the Bryce Davis Park to the east. As you can see, much of the eastern boundary of this property is either low density or significant green space. There is the requirement for this project to dedicate approximately 19 acres of park land to expand that park as well as a trail system along this creek which will eventually get to Hamstring Creek. The master street plan calls for Rupple Road to vary from its current location in this area and our street bond program has indicated importance to include a boulevard. It is a principal arterial in this area, Rupple Road is and there are improvements recommended in your staff report, those along the frontage and then evaluation of what other improvements would be required based on the traffic numbers generated. The specific proposal is to include a maximum 1,175 building units and approximately 486,000 square feet of non-residential over 152 acres. This results in a total density of 7.72 dwelling units per acre (it is lower than you would anticipate). Approximately 30% of the site is actually being left in green space so in Staff's opinion this applicant has done a good job in clustering density in those areas and upping the density Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 91 in certain areas. As you go through your planning areas, it has allowed for a maximum benefit of green space. There are a total of seven different planning areas and they are all located within your project booklet as well as on your plats that have been presented. There is a rendered graphic in your site plan as well which is the same rendered graphic that you see here. Also, within each planning area, there is an architectural design standard and every one includes comments such as, no rear facade shall face streets. It gives an idea of the materials and what type of components would be utilized in the architecture and character of each one of these planning areas, as well as a concept drawing. Obviously every single building wouldn't look alike in every planning area, but it does give you an idea of what their character development is. I believe you are well aware of what the planned zoning district process is now, this is a master development plan, not a detailed proposal. Therefore, this project is evaluated as such. A traffic study was provided for this project and is in the process of being revised to include the proposal that is before you. When this item was previously presented to City Council, there was actually a different number of unit count. There are three proposed entrances onto Rupple Road and 0.7 miles of frontage as well as extensive improvements that will need to occur to Rupple. The approximation right now of vehicle trips per day is around 21,000, that is approaching College Avenue numbers, so there are significant improvements that will have to occur along Rupple Road. The applicant has committed to basically building Rupple Road to a two-lane standard, that would be half of a boulevard and there is the potential for the City to cost share in that. At the time of development and depending upon the phasing of development and how many vehicle trips are actually produced, those improvements and infrastructure could increase, that is all based on actual development. So the Planning Commission will review and make a recommendation based on what is before you for that infrastructure improvement. The same thing goes for sewer in this area. As you all know, there are conditions of approval placed on any development project, that if you are developing now prior to the wastewater treatment plant being on line, there are certain commitments that a developer has to make that as of right now are unknown as far as assessment fees. Interior streets as you can note through the various seven planning areas, there are primarily public streets but there are also private streets proposed. A major point of entry is from the south. This would essentially function as a collector but it is designed much differently. It connects Rupple Road with Wedington which I believe would be a primary connector. That is where the most concentration of development is. It is developed in more of an urban, downtown type of fashion. It does have components of large green space areas so it is a mixture of a couple different areas. In our opinion they have done a good job of utilizing the wider sidewalks, street trees, more dense, compact urban development which allows for that clustering area Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 92 while preserving the maximum green space for the benefit of the community and this neighborhood. The project is proposed in the next four to twelve years and obviously with a site of this magnitude and development of this magnitude, it would be anticipated to take that long. As with the Park West Development which the City Council approved last week, there are very similar conditions of approval with regard to phasing. Condition #6 — more specifically references that the applicant will be granted two years from the date of Planning Commission approval to receive all permits necessary with a one year extension. That is from the date of approval. Also, if after five years of City Council adoption of the master plan, if it is not developed in accordance with the City's goals, policies and guidelines, the Planning Commission at their discretion, will decide if it needs to return to the City Council for review. That is also something that was placed on Park West. We anticipate that this will be placed on projects of this large and long build outs. Staff is recommending forwarding this project for recommendation of approval and there are a number conditions of approval. I will also note that much of the zoning criteria that we reference is in the project booklet, and if you remember the project booklet, the plats submitted are binding by ordinance as a concept and the materials included in the booklet are binding by ordinance as well. There are a total of 15 conditions of approval: Item #1 and 2 are relatively for PZDs; #3 as well, zoning development criteria are enforceable by law as approved by the City Council; #4 gives the applicant the flexibility to propose alternative street cross sections. We are not reviewing exact right-of-ways, sidewalk widths, what each street will be — that will be at the time of development. If the applicant is bound to the master street plan and that was a collector street, we'd have to see a 70' right-of-way with a 36' wide turn lane and two travel lanes. This allows them flexibility to propose alternative cross sections with approval of the Planning Commission. Item #5 relates to signage; #6 to phasing, #7 to public water and sewer lines to be extended; #8 — future development shall comply with at least the minimum standards for commercial design standards and all other aspects of the Unified Development Code unless approved by the Planning Commission; #9 — overhead awnings, balconies, stairways, stoops and other appurtenances to the primary structure may be extended within the required building setback with Planning Commission approval. This allows for things like awnings, balconies, things of that nature on the second to actually protrude into building setback without having a variance for each and every one of those buildings. And because the zoning criteria established now and now at the time of development, that is why we have to include conditions much like this to allow the developer flexibility which we encourage; #7 and #10 are repeats; #11 — street improvements at the time of development - those mentioned, the paying for and constructing Rupple Road at half its planned width at minimums. It also includes sidewalks Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 93 along there, two traffic lights signals at least are also recommended by the traffic engineer for this project, one along Wedington and another on Rupple. There is also another under discussion at the northern entrance. Those will all need to be evaluated again at the time of development to see if they are appropriate or not. I believe most of the other conditions are relatively straight forward. For tree preservation areas, each planning area will be expected to meet the 25% minimum canopy, although there is a large area that you can see within the green space that is indicated specially for tree preservation, much like Park Land utilizes the bank we were discussing with our urban forester, this could be much like a bank so that if you dip below 25% in one of your most highly urbanized and concentrated areas for instance, you could dip into that bank and get that 25% with that off site preservation; however, the intent is that we approach each planning area with a 25% minimum requirement and evaluate it accordingly. Item #15 there were several revisions that when the Staff report was drafted were required, most of those have already been corrected with the booklets you have in front of you. I will like to restate my recommendation: Staff is recommending this item be tabled tonight. The reason being for notification. We were notified today that a property owner changed hands over the past six months and that property owner was not properly notified with the ten day notice. I did contact the City Attorney's office and was instructed that this item should have to notify. The applicants have already gone through their list of notifications for every property owner within 100 feet of the property boundary. We did want to present this to you tonight, however. The applicants have stayed and do have a very short presentation. Unless you have further questions, this item would be on old business at the next Planning Commission meeting. This would allow for adequate and legal time period in which to notify. With that Staff is recommending that this item eventually be forwarded with recommendation for approval but at this time be tabled. Ostner: Is it not appropriate to hear a presentation in two weeks or whenever we are formally going to hear this? Pate: It is up to the Planning Commission. Ostner: 1 think it would be better. Jacobs: Let us address it very quickly. Todd Jacobs with Critical Path Design. We had 52 property owner notifications that we sent out. Some of those properties switched hands and we identified four that have sold. Tomorrow we will send out notifications to those four owners for the February 13th meeting. We do have four slides; we would like the Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 94 opportunity to show the Planning Commission what we have so we can get any feedback. Ostner: I think we would rather see them when it is time to vote. I don't think it is going to do us a lot of good. I'm not trying to be offensive. Graves: I agree. I appreciate you all hanging in here tonight but I'm afraid we would have to watch it over again in case some of the folks that you are just being able to notify would be here and would want to see the presentation. Then we would have to watch it again in two weeks. Pate: I would mention, too, that this applicant has been before a Ward Four meeting and there have been notifications sent out in August and September as well when the property owners were the property owners. I believe the public is very well aware of this project..... Graves: There may not be anybody show up in two weeks, but in case one of these new folks that just came on board, that is my concern. Jacobs: The comments that we did receive from the Ward Four meeting about six months ago had to do with buffering their subdivision which we adjusted our design to provide the buffering and the tree protection per their comments and the comments of the City Staff. There were four property owners that switched hands since the last notification from the court house. The comments we have received were based on providing park land, the buffer. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who is here to address this tonight? If you are interested in sharing some comments with us, we'd be glad to hear them. We are going to be right back here in two weeks. Leaverton: I didn't stay up this late for nothing. I have received a letter as an adjoining property owner and I didn't have any objection except for this area right here. (inaudible) I found out when I feed the birds; there are birds that come there that I've never seen before in my life. And I talked to some lady in the audience tonight and she said there are rare birds in there. There are also all kinds of woodpeckers that you haven't seen before. The City is blessed to have such an area as that. It is so thick that you can't walk through there and I have two maps and one of them that was going to be a park, they said they have changed that now. But it is real important to at least keep that for the birds. We have all kinds of parks for people. It is real important to keep that. It is a diamond for the City of Fayetteville and I congratulate him for preserving that. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 95 Ostner: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? We will probably table this. Anthes: I have a question about the notification — it has to go to those four before we can vote. If we voted tonight, the notification for this doesn't work. Pate: My concern, I understand it is late, what I hope would not happen is that we get here February 13th and have a full review and table because we have some outstanding issue, and so that is really my point that this is a technicality that we have to follow our ordinances for notification. The applicant is aware of that and they are doing so. They notified the correct property owner that was in August, just not now. My concern is that if there are any overall concerns that the applicant would have to change their plans dramatically between now and then, at least those could be discussed briefly so the applicant is aware of that. Anthes: I have a couple of comments I think they are the kind of things that will be taken care in the large scale process and not at this level. Obviously, I am interested in what happens at the corners of some of these areas, that we would be looking for much less repetition than what the diagram implies. I understand it is a diagram. Also, in the commercial areas that you would take a good look at the parking strategy. Mr. Pate's comment about the fact that it looks like we got a couple of different land use philosophies going on that this plan is right on. Maybe you would like to look at a way to make that a little more cohesive when come through with the different area development plans. All in all, though, it looks really good and a strong addition to our community and I wouldn't have any problem voting for the master development plan as it is right now. Clark: I truly appreciate the detail that is reflected in this master plan as opposed to the one we just saw. I think it is a glaring comparison. This may not be what you are supposed but this is what I what I love to see. I have an idea what's going to be on the comer five years from now and it makes me feel much more confident when we cast our votes, because a lot of this is bonded. I did have a question about an eastern stub out, a southeastern stub out. I feed the birds, too, so I'm real happy. Vaught: I have a comment that I feel be taken care of in a large scale — for the public park area, I believe it tied into another public park next to it . I just want to make sure there are adequate areas for the public to park. I know it is a street, I don't know if on -street parking was the idea or there is a clubhouse with parking. Being that is going to be a large public park with some walking trails, that side of the City doesn't have that kind of asset right now and I think this is awesome how you guys worked that out., especially with buffers with the trees and the common areas. I want to Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 96 Jacobs: Vaught: Allen: Jacobs: make sure that it can be an area that can be enjoyed. I believe, Jeremy, is that combined park area going to be more like a Gulley park type size or is it going to be larger? It is about Gulley Park size. Gulley Park size and that is something that that side of town doesn't have. I appreciate how that is all laid out. With that I will make a motion to table this item subject to other people making comments. Second. I just wanted to ask the applicant about the price range of these dwellings. I know it is hard to tell me exactly now. At this point, it is a little hard to tell because we are so far out. But the main idea behind this project it is suited towards retirement, the baby boomers coming in where it is a low maintenance, where the POA takes care of the lawns, the community green space; the houses are low maintenance themselves. Most of the houses are garden homes that are 1600-1800 square feet with the ones to the northeast corner being a little larger around 2000 square feet. As far as the price at this point, it is a little far out to say. Allen: I can understand that but at the time will you be trying to give thought to what will then be considered attainable housing so that there will be places for.... Jacobs: That is the goal - we have created smaller lots and smaller houses so that the entry into it is much easier versus a 2500 square foot house. CPD: Our current pro forma budget is $135,000 all the way up to $195,000. Obviously the $135,000 is going to be contained in a multi -story, but there are no $135,000 new price points in the market that we know of. We are trying to hit that number. Because this is so preliminary, we can't predict. Allen: I understand that but I'm just glad to see there is some effort being made. CPD: We believe that this is another part of the market that is underserved. We are trying to go where the demand is, but you have to get the density otherwise you can't get the price. Ostner: On the point of density, this seems like a good way to do density. It comes and goes. There are areas that are left open, there are areas that are higher density, solid apartment -style and almost suburban style. It does skip and jump in a nice way. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 97 Pate: One more follow-up comment before the vote. Planning area #6, the market district — there will be some minor revisions to that forthcoming. I have already spoken with the applicant today to try to nail that down a little bit more. That boundary may change a little bit. That is probably the only thing that will likely change in less we find something in the next couple of weeks. Clark: Should we keep this book or will we get a new one? Pate: I would keep it. Please. Jacobs: PA #6 on the market district, the only change you will see versus the comments tonight, we propose 25,000 non-residential for that area and we will be shifting our planning area 48 feet north so we will have the ability to line up. So that will be the one change you will have in the booklets for the next meeting. Pate: If you would, keep your booklets and bring them to the next meeting. Potentially we could just modify that one page. Ostner: Do we have any further comment? We have a motion to table. Will you call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion MDP R-PZD 05-1636 is approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 98 Ostner: We decided to add another item to our agenda. Trumbo: I would like to make a motion to table the final agenda item. Anthes: Second. Graves: Let's put it closer to the beginning next time Pate: I know I said it for this time, but we do have a smaller agenda next time, less than ten items. Hopefully we will get there and will look at the agendas and place it near the front. Vaught: I would like to see it at the beginning next time and we can all have a copy in front of us again. Ostner: There is a motion to table the rule of limiting public comment. Roll Call: Upon completion of the roll call, the motion to table is approved by a vote of 6-3-0. Planning Commission January 23, 2006 Page 99 Pate: There is one announcement. The application deadline for Planning Commissioner and all other positions that are open is March 3, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Advertisement is posted and can be viewed on the Government Channel, Channel 16 January 24 — March 3. There are several openings including Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, Telecommunications Board, Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee, etc. If you know interested persons, please let them know. Ostner: The 20/25 Plan is about to kick off. I would encourage everyone to participate. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.